---

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 10--Duty of the Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC) to carry out research into use of 'V' chip to regulate portrayal of violence on television--

'.--It shall be the duty of the BSC to carry out research into the effects on viewers of the level and frequency of images of violence contained in television programmes and into the feasibility and desirability of requiring the installation in all new television sets of

1 Jul 1996 : Column 623

an electronic device designed, subject to an override power, automatically to block the reception of programmes whose violent content falls within a predetermined classification as being unsuitable for viewing by persons under the age of eighteen.'.

New clause 11--Duty of the broadcasters to classify programmes according to violent content--

'.--(1) It shall be the duty of every broadcasting body to establish a common system of classification for all programmes containing material of a violent nature.
(2) The system established under subsection (1) shall provide, whether by the use of symbols or some other means, for the differential classification of programmes containing different levels of violent material.
(3) It shall be the duty of the appropriate regulatory body, or in the case of the BBC the Board of Governors, to ensure that the requirement in subsection (1) is complied with and that steps are taken to publish both before and during transmission of the programme in question the classification which has been applied to it.
(4) "Broadcasting body" in subsection (1) includes the holder of a licence under this Act or the 1990 Act, the BBC and Channel 4.'.

Mr. Dafis: I shall start with the presumption that what people watch, listen to and read influences their attitudes, values, psychological make-up, behaviour and the quality of their spiritual life--particularly during their formative years. This statement is nothing more than common sense, but it is a position that is often lost during sophisticated argument.

If what I have said is true, if great skill, creativity, major investment and the deployment of technological resources are brought to bear on what people watch and listen to--as happens with television--the influence will be significant, if not enormous. In this context, we need to bear in mind the extent to which television is driven by commercial considerations and by the profit motive.

Society has the right to require those who prepare and deliver television services to exercise that influence with responsibility and to consider the general welfare of the community. Freedom of expression is an enormously important consideration--I believe that passionately. I have studied Aereopagitica. I was horrified by the attempt to silence the great writer, Salman Rushdie, who wrote the inspired and profoundly modern book The Satanic Verses. Like all freedoms--freedom from violence, freedom from attack, freedom from sexual exploitation and from oppression--freedom of expression must be exercised so as not to damage the freedom of others and of society. The depiction of violence and sexual activity or pornography together is particularly pernicious.

We are in a difficult area when talking about freedom. There is a real danger that we may muzzle artists in the name of conformity and respectability and that we may prevent the truth from being told. I draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that my new clause applies specifically to violence and to the amount of violence that is shown on television. We all recognise that art must depict the reality of the human condition, including violence and depravity. No one would advocate--I do not--sanitising television programmes or art. However, there are legitimate questions to ask about, first, the quantity of violent depictions; secondly, the nature of those depictions; and, thirdly, the motivation for depicting violence on television. Those issues must be addressed.

We must recognise also that we face an unprecedented situation with the scale of television and the electronic media. Great artists have always been fascinated by what

1 Jul 1996 : Column 624

happens to the human character in extremis: they have always been fascinated by murder and sex and the relationship between the two. That is particularly true of two great artists, Sophocles and Shakespeare. However, it is misleading to compare their depictions with what we see on television.

Theatrical depictions were always highly stylised--the most horrifying events would often occur off-stage. Oedipus's self-blinding occurs offstage, as do the murders of Duncan, of Macduff's children and of Cordelia.

7.30 pm

Mrs. Anne Campbell: What about the blinding of Gloucester?

Mr. Dafis: I was coming to that--"Out vile jelly"; I know the play well. Even more vivid and terrible is Othello's murder of Desdemona, which also occurs on-stage. A great artist's depiction of such events in a tragedy fulfils a vital function: Aristotle talked about the process of arousing pity and terror to achieve a catharsis of the emotions. That has been my experience of such plays. Even when terrible events were depicted on-stage, it was done in a highly stylised manner: the horror was more in the words that in the images. My point is that the crude props of the Elizabethan stage could not portray those events with the totally convincing realism and intimate detail that are possible on television and film. The electronic media is a different ball game.

Another consideration is the frequency with which one sees violent events depicted. The typical Elizabethan would visit a London theatre--at the zenith of theatre's popularity--a few times a year, at best. When I was a boy, I managed to get to the pictures once a week--assuming that I gathered enough empty jam pots to take to the grocer and raised ninepence for a ticket. I did not see television until I was 16--and I thank God that I grew up free from its influence. The situation is altogether different today. We cannot compare what occurred in the past with the presence of television in the home--we are told that people watch it for four or five hours daily. Televisions can be found not only in the family room but in the bedrooms of children and young people.

Ms Eagle: I ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify his new clause which proposes reducing the amount of violence that is depicted on television. Does that include the coverage of violent events on the television news?

Mr. Dafis: I do not differentiate between the depiction of violence on the news and on fictional programmes. The material consideration is the sheer quantity of violent depictions. I do not argue that violence should not be depicted on television, but I raise the issue of quantity. It is well known that many people fear that even the presentation of violent scenes on the news can have an inuring effect and can desensitise people to violence. We must be aware of that danger--as must news editors when they select footage to show on the news. I am viewing the issue in the round and considering the total number of depictions of violence.

We face a new situation and, in that context, the fondness of artists and authors for depicting violence must be viewed differently. We must bear it in mind that much violence is depicted in the pursuit of ratings--that is the

1 Jul 1996 : Column 625

great motivator. Many hon. Members will have seen the report on teachers' views and concerns about the matter. The findings of a survey of teachers conducted by the Professional Association of Teachers--a union about which I am not particularly enthusiastic--correspond with the experiences that I gained while working as a teacher and with the views that I sought from other teachers.

That survey points out that schoolteachers are profoundly concerned about the influence of violence on television on their pupils. They believe that children's viewing habits are not monitored sufficiently by parents and that the current safeguards which are designed to protect children from exposure to adult entertainment are not working. Most important, teachers believe that children are profoundly affected by the television programmes and the videos that they see. As children's value systems are not fully formed, there is consequently a strong tendency for them to assume that what they see portrayed is normal. They may try to imitate or to emulate such behaviour. Mimicry is one manifestation of an influence, but the most damaging influence is more deep-seated and subtle than that. Teachers believe that, in some cases, children who spend a great deal of time watching violent programmes may suffer behavioural consequences.

I have spoken tonight about children, but no one is immune to the influence of violent material. No one is immune to that exposure, but the danger to children is clear. I believe that there is too much violence on television and that we, as legislators, have a responsibility to try to reduce it. That is what my new clause would do. It takes a different approach to the problem from new clause 10, which is the V-chip proposal. I support that idea, but it involves parents intervening and accepting their responsibilities. I am emphasising the responsibility of the programme makers, including the authors, producers, commissioners and the channel operators. Their responsibility needs to be recognised. I am inclined, when the time comes, to force new clause 7 to a Division.

---