| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Needham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) know that I am extremely sympathetic to their concerns. The example of "Beyond Reason", which they cited, was especially shocking, in that the Independent Television Commission had already taken steps to deal with the problem, but the revisions to its code, especially on drama documentaries and faction, came into effect only after the programme was broadcast. The ITC was therefore unable to take action against the broadcaster. It has since, however, made clear the responsibility of its licensees in respect of programmes of this kind.
4.45 pm
Although it obviously has an important role to play in such matters, the Broadcasting Standards Commission is not a regulatory body; indeed, its independence from the regulatory framework is essential if it is effectively to perform its functions. New clause 19 would effectively, indirectly, establish the BSC as a regulator, which, by virtue merely of entertaining a complaint, regardless of whether that complaint was ultimately upheld, could prevent a broadcaster repeating the programme in question. However, although the BSC should not have such responsibilities, the ITC should, and does.
The ITC has the power under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to prevent the broadcaster, or any other licence holder, repeating a programme which it judges to be in breach of its code. The ITC has the powers, including robust sanctions, to enforce compliance. It should use them to ensure--by making crystal clear its views and
the likelihood of any breach resulting in the most serious sanctions--that never again should there be a case such as that of "Beyond Reason", and certainly no repeat.
Regarding amendment No. 137, there is at present nothing to prevent an individual approaching a regulator in connection with an allegation that a broadcaster has infringed, or is likely to infringe, his or her privacy. The regulator would then be free to approach the broadcaster informally, reminding it of its responsibilities. Any subsequent breach could be met with severe penalties.
The Government do not, however, consider it appropriate for the BSC, as opposed to the ITC, to involve itself in such matters. The BSC is concerned with complaints about programmes after they have been broadcast. To play a role before that would, in effect, be to become entangled in the regulatory process. I have already explained why that is undesirable.
Moreover, although the BSC's code must be reflected in the regulators' own codes and guidelines, it is with the regulators' codes that the broadcaster is obliged to comply.
The Bill has given additional powers to the BSC, which will have an impact in that area. The code on fairness, which, as I explained, broadcasting and regulatory bodies will be obliged to reflect, will allow the BSC's acquired knowledge and experience to feed into the regulators' own expertise. In addition, the BSC will have the power to commission research into issues relating to unfair treatment and infringement of privacy, which will further add to the understanding of those issues.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire mentioned the BBC. The new BBC charter and agreement, which came into effect on 1 May, gives the governors specific responsibilities, equivalent to those of the ITC, to maintain standards, and those, if not fulfilled, could be subject to judicial review. The new chairman, Sir Christopher Bland, has made clear his determination to enforce those obligations. The corporation is also committed to a thorough review of the producers' guidelines, which include detailed advice on matters of privacy and fair treatment.
I believe that much has been done to prevent further programmes offending in that way, but I fully understand the fear of my right hon. and hon. Friends that that may not be enough. Although the Government do not believe that a legislative solution is called for, I hope that the regulators will take great notice of the concerns expressed today. The Government want never to see again what happened in the case of "Beyond Reason". I hope that, having heard those comments, my right hon. and hon. Friends will not press their new clause and amendment.
Sir Michael Marshall:
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for outlining the present position, and particularly for updating us on the BBC's consideration of those matters. I am sorry that he did not feel able to address the thrust of the arguments that we put forward. If an aggrieved person can raise any such matter with the BBC or the ITC--and they have assured us that they will take such concerns into account--it is a shame that we do not have something in the Bill that reiterates the significance of those activities and alerts members of the public to what is available to them at law.
I recognise that there are genuine technical difficulties in drafting something that becomes statute law and that meets those situations precisely. I have detected sympathy
in this regard from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Hon. Members' opinions will go on the record, and I hope that they influence the regulatory authorities when they look at those matters.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take on board the need to keep the matter under constant review. It is all very well for us to create a fuss, but there is the danger that the issue will slip in a year or two. There is no certainty in such matters. I recognise that my hon. Friend and the regulatory bodies have moved in that regard; we shall do our part and keep an eye on those matters.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 50, in clause 116, page 100, line 36, at end insert--
Mr. Banks:
New clause 20 has arisen because of a series of television advertisements by Safeway supermarkets. I shall explain the advertisements for the benefit of hon. Members who have not seen them--I am not recommending that they should. Two children--Harry and Molly--are used in the advertisement. In real life, the actor Harry is four and the actress Molly is three--if we can call children of that age actors. In the advertisement, they meet in a Safeway creche and, after some dialogue, an actor's voice-over has Harry say, "I suppose a snog's out of the question?" and Molly's voice-over replies, "On a first date? What sort of a girl does he think I am?"
Some people believe that I am making a fuss and that there are better things for me to get on with--I deny that. Other people have said that the advertisement is cute--which is what I have heard from the advertising agency but, of course, it would say that. I believe that the advertisement is very tacky. After seeing the
advertisement a couple of times, I spoke to some hon. Members from both sides of the House. I have tabled an early-day motion on the matter.
Safeway does not give a toss about this because it is simply trying to sell more groceries. If hon. Members look at the terms of early-day motion 911--it is signed by 26 Members of Parliament, from all parties--they will see that there are more serious implications involved in this genre of advertising. For example, if this advertisement had used two adults--and not voice-overs--who met in a Safeway supermarket and the man had said to the woman, "I suppose a snog's out of the question?" and she responded in the way that Molly does, there would have been far more protest. Safeway would have considered that to be vulgar, unacceptable and sexist. It would never have contemplated using such an advertisement and no copy would have been submitted by any advertising agency.
Why is it that language that would be unacceptable if it came directly out of the mouths of adults is somehow acceptable when it is voiced-over on two children, one aged four and the other aged three? I am not known for being a spoilsport, for being a party pooper or for being particularly prurient. I find this sort of thing offensive and exploitative. What is cute about that sort of language coming out of the mouths of children--or purporting to come out of the mouths of children? Their innocence will be lost soon enough--we do not have to hasten that day in advertisements.
What we see in this technique is nothing less than cynical and exploitative. The advertisement is not about showing children being cute and sweet; it is about selling groceries--that is the bottom line. The advertisement is not about promoting the welfare of children; it is about selling groceries. I am sure that Safeway can find other ways to do that.
At one level, such techniques by the advertising agencies play to a silly sentimentality among us all. However, at another level, they run the risk of encouraging those who molest children, who like to convince themselves that children under five have advanced sexual thoughts. That was the fear that I had when I saw the advertisement, but sometimes even I wonder whether I am going over the top. Therefore, I was interested to read an article that backed me up. I refer to an article that appeared in The Independent on Sunday of 26 May that quotes Susan Hope-Borland, a psychologist who has worked with paedophiles for more than 10 years. It states:
Safeway's advertisement agency, Bates Dorland, naturally denied such a claim--of course, it would. Mr. Adam Leigh, the account director, has said how few complaints the agency has received about the advertisement--in fact, it received more complaints when, in an earlier ad, Harry said that he did not believe in Father Christmas. Mr. Leigh even had the temerity--it was insulting--to suggest that such criticisms reflect more on the accusers than on the advertising agency. It might be that Mr. Leigh does not have much of a conscience, but if he cannot accept that there could be dangers as a result of the advertisement, he is as witless as he is exploitative of children.
I have looked at the ITC code to see whether the advertisements could fall foul of the code in relation to the use of children. Paragraph 13 of the code states:
'.--(1) Section 9 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted--
"(2A) The Commission shall take steps to secure that there is included in any code for the time being in force under subsection (1) above a provision prohibiting in any advertisement involving a child the use of voice-over technique or any similar method which has the effect of attributing to that child words or thoughts which, having regard to their sexual or other content, are inappropriate in a child of the age depicted in the advertisement in question.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) above a child is a person who has not yet attained ten years of age.
(2C) "Inappropriate" in subsection (2A) above shall have the meaning assigned to it in guidance to be issued by the Commission as part of the code issued under subsection (1).".'.--[Mr. Tony Banks.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
'(d) the effects on viewers and listeners of advertising.'.
"She fears these apparently harmless and amusing scenes will in fact serve to reinforce paedophiles' grossly distorted beliefs about normal childhood behaviour.
They are not my words, but the words of someone who has worked with paedophiles. When we realise just how abhorrent paedophilia is and how disgusted we feel by the actions of such people--indeed, I refer to the Government's recent decision in relation to a register of such people--we have to take this sort of matter seriously. I do not think I am over-reacting on this occasion.
'The implied message in this advert will, unfortunately, fit with the thought processes of many paedophiles,' said Ms Hope-Borland, who works with the North Wales Forensic Psychiatric Service.
'Paedophiles interpret normal gestures by children as deliberate acts of provocation; they believe that children are sexually aware, and this cognitive distortion is used to justify their behaviour. This kind of advert is certainly not helpful and could be dangerous.'"
"Advertisements must not portray children in a sexually provocative manner."
Of course, the loophole is that adults are used to put sexual innuendo into the dialogue--it does not come directly out of the mouths of the children. The agency is able to get around the ITC's code by using this technique. The loophole must be closed.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |