| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Screen Violence
8. Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations she has received concerning violence on television and in films. [2840]
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My Department has received 65 letters about screen violence during the past three months. I shall meet the chairmen of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council again shortly to consider how they are responding, and might respond further, to the public's concern on the issue, which, as I have often made clear, I share.
Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for her initiatives on the matter. Does she agree that there is no doubt that the constant screening of television violence permeates society and affects people's behaviour, especially that of the more vulnerable children in society? Will she disregard such bits of propaganda as the survey produced by Sheffield university, which purports to have produced an analysis showing a reduction in the depiction of violence on television? We all know that it is not so much the timing and content of violence as the insidious nature of portrayals of violence that causes so much concern and damage to society.
Mrs. Bottomley: I totally endorse my hon. Friend's comments. The problem is not only the number of violent incidents, which has fallen, but the quality of their portrayal and how powerful they are in influencing behaviour. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he pursues the cause--representing, as I know he does, the National Viewers and Listeners Association, whose headquarters are in his area. We must be determined to achieve further progress, and that is the message that I shall reinforce to the regulators. I shall congratulate them on some encouraging signs so far, but tell them that the people of Britain will not be satisfied until they see that commitment translated into practice.
Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of State and all Conservative Members who are so concerned about violence in society, instead of worrying about violence on television, take the first active step this evening by voting for a total ban on handguns?
Mrs. Bottomley: The position on that matter is clear. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman was going to say that we should be worried not only about what we see on our television screens, but about what young people do with their time. That is one of the reasons we have been so anxious to change the lottery rules to enable more
18 Nov 1996 : Column 686
investment in sport, training and coaching. Later this week, the Arts Council will make announcements about arts for everyone, to encourage our young people to be involved in worthwhile activities. I am pleased that we are able to fund initiatives to take that forward.
Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the BBC has recently published new producers' guidelines on such issues as sex and violence on television?
As most young children are now so computer-literate that they can decode the V-chip with the greatest of ease, does my right hon. Friend agree that the main responsibility for keeping children away from violence on television lies with parents?
Mrs. Bottomley:
Parents undoubtedly have a key responsibility. The worrying development of children having televisions in their own rooms means that they can watch television in an isolated way, and I would suggest that, in such cases, the messages of violence are more powerful. I congratulate the BBC on its statement of promises and on its revised producers' guidelines; the House will watch with great care to ensure that they are translated into action.
I share my hon. Friend's concerns about the V-chip. We must learn from Canada's experience and ensure that it works in practice. My Department is examining the V-chip, but I suggest--as does my hon. Friend--that it will not be a substitute for parental responsibility.
9. Mr. Skinner:
To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list all payments from the national lottery awarded in Derbyshire. [2841]
Mr. Sproat:
To date, the national lottery distributing bodies have made a total of 112 awards worth a total of £7,105,070 to projects in Derbyshire. A full reply will be published in the Official Report.
Mr. Skinner:
That is quite remarkable, because when my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) wanted to find out from the Government the ranking of constituencies in terms of awards, he was told that he could not have the information as it would involve disproportionate cost. He then went to the Library and, for £15, was able to find out that the three local Labour constituencies--Chesterfield, North-East Derbyshire and Bolsover--were in the lowest 10 per cent. of all the constituencies in Britain. Is it not remarkable that the Secretary of State--who we cannot stop yacking on television about "spreading good news"--refuses to provide real information that is uncomfortable for the Government? There is one law for the friends of the Secretary of State down here, and another for Labour constituencies in the north.
Mr. Sproat:
I have apologised in writing to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) for the Department misunderstanding his question, and I very gladly apologise to him again now. Derbyshire has not done so badly. Of the 101 counties in the United Kingdom, it is ranked 52nd, which is not too bad. If the
18 Nov 1996 : Column 687
Mr. Ian Bruce:
Does my hon. Friend agree--[Interruption.]--if he can hear me over the barracking--that many counties have done extremely well out of the lottery, but that others were perhaps slow off the mark in deciding to apply for lottery funding because their Members of Parliament were against the lottery distributing money to so many good causes?
Mr. Sproat:
There are many reasons why different constituencies and counties get more or fewer projects. The distributing bodies have been told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that they must take account of geographical distribution, but they are not allowed to solicit projects and are bound to consider each on its merits, which means that there will be a difference in spread around the country.
10. Mr. Whittingdale:
To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her policy for the future funding of Channel 4; and if she will make a statement. [2843]
Mr. Sproat:
The Government's policy on Channel 4 funding remains as set out during the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1996--to remove mandatory payments to the reserve immediately and to reduce the liability for payments to channel 3 in two stages in 1998 and 1999.
Mr. Whittingdale:
Will my hon. Friend congratulate Channel 4 on its success in avoiding recourse to the safety net and on making a profit last year of £128 million? Does that not demonstrate that it is possible for Channel 4 to meet its remit and to operate commercially? Will he therefore consider its privatisation at the first opportunity?
Mr. Sproat:
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the profits of Channel 4, on which I congratulate the company. I well remember his brief, yet powerful, speech on 18 June in favour of the privatisation of Channel 4. The Government have made no decision about privatising the channel, but we keep all options under review.
Mr. Chris Davies:
Will the Minister go further and rule out any prospect of privatising Channel 4? Does he accept that the quality and diversity of broadcasting offered by the 35 television channels in New York compare poorly with that offered by the four channels here? The public service obligation is an important principle and it should be maintained.
Mr. Sproat:
I have no doubt that the Government will take full account of what happens in New York and in Channel 4 when considering all the options.
Dr. Moonie:
A suspicious man might consider that there was some significance in the fact that the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), who asked the main question, and the Minister are wearing the same old school tie; fortunately, the Minister did not see his way to going quite as far as
18 Nov 1996 : Column 688
Mr. Sproat:
We have had discussions with Channel 4 about rejigging the funding formula, and will have further discussions as seem appropriate. As far as privatisation is concerned, I will support the Government line.
11. Mr. Robert G. Hughes:
To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what measures she plans to take to improve the competitiveness of the tourism industry. [2844]
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley:
Following the recent launch of my Department's latest report in the "Competing with the Best" series, we are working with the industry on an action plan to improve the quality of tourism's most important resource--its people. We are co-operating with local government and the tourist boards on the follow-up to the recent conference on tourism and the planning system. My Department and the tourist boards are now working with the recently established industry forum to draw up a new strategy for tourism, which I plan to publish early next year.
Mr. Hughes:
Let me make it clear that if my old school had a tie, this would not be it.
Mr. Boateng:
Chip on your shoulder.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be foolish indeed to harm an industry that employs more than 1.5 million people and contributes more than £38 million to the gross national product by introducing the measures proposed in the social chapter--a minimum wage and a 48-hour week? Is not the real message to anyone living in a town that depends so much on tourism that a Labour Government would not only damage wealth but would rob the area of jobs?
Mrs. Bottomley:
Whether or not my hon. Friend went to the right school, he certainly makes the right point about protecting tourism. The minimum wage, the social chapter and the working time directive all present major threats to an industry that relies on a flexible work force. That is the key message that comes over time and again. Ramon Pajares of the Savoy Group said:
18 Nov 1996 : Column 689
Mr. Alan Howarth:
Does the Secretary of State accept that, if our tourism industry is to be fully competitive, visitors must be able to inform themselves of the history of the areas in which they find themselves? Does she agree that the "Victoria County History" is one of the great undertakings of British scholarship? Is she aware, however, that in many counties the project is limping along or is in abeyance for lack of funds? Will she ensure, therefore, that the National Heritage Bill is amended to make it clear that the "Victoria County History" will be eligible to receive lottery funds distributed by the national heritage memorial fund?
Mrs. Bottomley:
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and will examine it in detail. We have been modifying heritage legislation to ensure that, as with arts and sport, we can fund education, access, participation and young people, as well as old buildings and the support structure. I will certainly consider that matter.
"What I want from Government is the freedom to run my business."
That is the message from Alton Towers and the British Hospitality Association. Time and again, leaders in the industry, who are creating the jobs that are necessary for future generations, say that they do not want the regulation, interference and burdens that are the only recipe offered by the Labour party. The other day,
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |