|
Dr. Howells: This may be an historic moment for the Committee, because I want to begin by thanking the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire for
Column Number: 760
amendment No. 628, which I accept. [Hon. Members: ''Hooray!'']
I shall deal with the other amendments on four fronts. They are important amendments, and I know that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire would have argued strongly in favour of them had he been in the Committee. Several of them are designed to ensure that Ofcom carries out its functions according the best regulatory practice. We do not disagree with the principle behind the amendments that Ofcom should adopt appropriately fair and transparent processes for applying its sector-specific broadcasting powers, as for its other powers, but we believe that the Bill contains sufficient provisions to ensure that that is delivered.
In general, I believe that Ofcom is perfectly capable of developing and applying best practice in its procedures—indeed, it is under a duty to do so. Clause 3 provides that Ofcom should have regard to those principles that represent best regulatory practice, namely that its regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only on cases in which action is needed. In addition, clause 7 requires Ofcom to carry out an assessment of the likely impact of major or significant proposals. It is not necessary to repeat those important principles.
Clause 305 provides that Ofcom should not use its sector-specific broadcasting powers—that is, its powers in relation to broadcasting licences under part 3 of the Bill and under the Broadcasting Acts—if it considers that a more appropriate way of proceeding would be through the use of the general competition powers under the Competition Act 1998. Broadcasters are not at risk of double jeopardy. Once Ofcom decides that the more appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act, it cannot then use its sector-specific broadcasting powers in that matter. That is at the heart of the clause. Finally, any decision Ofcom makes for a competition purpose shall have a route of appeal to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I hope that that answers the points raised by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford in moving the amendments.
Mr. Whittingdale: It has taken 19 sittings for me to have an amendment accepted—although it is an amendment that would leave out the word ''his'' and insert the word ''their'' and it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. Even so, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for accepting the major change to the Bill set out in amendment No. 628.
The remaining amendments would strengthen the safeguards in the Bill. The Minister is right to say that it will be the cause of some disappointment to my hon. Friend that the Government will not accept them. We hope that Ofcom will take account of the Minister's comments when using its powers, and I welcome his remarks; none the less, it would have been better if the Bill had been amended as we suggest. I suspect that we shall return to this whole question later in our proceedings, and on that basis, at this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Column Number: 761
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 305 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 306
Review of powers exercised for competition purposes
The Chairman: After the Minister's dramatic announcement, we must now deal with amendment No. 628.
Amendment made: No. 628, in
clause 306, page 264, line 18, leave out 'his' and insert 'their'.—[Mr. Whittingdale.]
Clause 306, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 307
OFCOM's standards code
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): I beg to move amendment No. 522, in
clause 307, page 264, line 43, after 'are', insert 'appropriately'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 589, in
10.15 am
Mr. Allan: Amendment No. 522 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). We want to tease out an explanation of how the Government expect the standards code to work. In particular, we want to examine the protection of persons under the age of 18. As a way of ascertaining what is intended, the amendment proposes to insert the word ''appropriately''.
It is worth considering the concern expressed to us that some concepts of a code might fail to recognise different degrees of acceptable content according to age, and might result in attempts to introduce a system of absolute rule for those under or over 18. The reality, as our system of film classification acknowledged, is that different types of content are appropriate for different ages.
We recognise that certain things are appropriate for teenagers: although they are under 18, they are old enough to watch some things that may not be appropriate to very young children. The way in which we have historically tried to respect children's right not to be exposed to inappropriate content is by means of the 9 o'clock watershed. Certain programmes that are not so extreme that they need to be shown after the watershed should nevertheless be shown at an appropriate time in the evening so that very young children do not watch them.
How does the Minister envisage the standards code working? Can he assure us that when schedulers are assembling programming, they will have a degree of flexibility that enables them to take a sensible approach to what is appropriate at 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock, rather than their having to treat programmes as either post-9 o'clock or pre-9 o'clock material? The latter approach would
Column Number: 762
devalue the schedule and would not reflect audiences' wishes.
Mr. Greenway: Amendment No. 589 is similar in purpose to amendment No. 522, moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). This group of amendments is the first of several relating to Ofcom's standards code. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the clause is crucial, so it is important that we get it right.
It strikes the Opposition that a fundamental specificity is lacking from subsection (2)(a), which sets out the first of various objectives for Ofcom. Only half of the objective is set out—any definition of what persons under the age of 18 are to be protected from is left out. Paragraph (b) specifies that ensuring that
''material likely to encourage or to incite the commission of crime . . . is not included in television and radio services''
is an objective of the code. That is much clearer, as are the other objectives set out in subsection (2).
We want to tease out, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, the precise purpose of subsection (2)(a). I take the view that the 9 o'clock watershed is not a panacea, so I hope that the Minister's answer will not be simply that Ofcom's objective and duties will be satisfied if the 9 o'clock watershed is observed—which presupposes the existence of material to be broadcast after 9 o'clock that, were it broadcast before 9 o'clock, would be harmful or likely to disturb young people.
My more general point is that the Committee should understand clearly the purpose of the provision and that Ofcom should hold an accurate view of its duty. The wording that we have suggested might not be entirely to the Minister's liking—he might like to think about it. However, I am concerned about the prospect of a television or radio service broadcasting material that harms, or disturbs, or even traumatises a young person. Although the objective relates to persons under the age of 18, that might mean children aged six, seven or eight, who in many homes these days seem to have the opportunity to watch or listen to almost anything.
We want to help the Minister to establish the purpose of the provision, which I am sure all members of the Committee regard as a vital matter.
Mr. Whittingdale: The clause is perhaps one of the most hotly contested and controversial in the Bill. Many people feel very strongly about it. The purpose of our amendment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has explained, is to get the Minister to say more about how he envisages Ofcom's role in enforcing standards and dealing with questions of content that some people might find offensive and others might view as harmful. There has been much discussion of that issue over the years, as well as recently.
Society's view of what is acceptable has changed in the past 10 or 15 years. We need only consult previous debates on the issue. The Video Recordings Act 1984 was one of the first measures to attempt to deal with content that, at the time, was perceived to be wholly unacceptable. In particular, I remember that acres of
Column Number: 763
newsprint were devoted to two films—''I Spit On Your Grave'' and ''Driller Killer''. Both were felt to be so far beyond acceptable boundaries that legislation was required to ensure that they were banned. However, I found ''I Spit On Your Grave'' in WHSmith about two weeks ago. It is now classified with an 18 certificate and is freely available to all those who want to buy it. That is an indication that standards have changed. I have not seen it, but I am told that it is a very poor film. One of the dangers that we should recognise is that branding things as wholly unacceptable or offensive acts upon some people as an advertisement, prompting them to seek out those things. Sometimes it is more effective to say that a film is a load of rubbish that should be ignored.
Other films that are much more serious contributions to cinema have provoked equally fierce controversy. For a long time, it was not possible to obtain ''The Exorcist'' on video because it was felt to have a potentially very harmful effect, especially on young people. Although it was considered acceptable for such a film to be released in the cinema, it was not acceptable for it to be released on video. However, it has now been released on video, and although I think that it has never been screened on television, it is only a matter of time. I do not object to that, because ''The Exorcist'' is a serious film with some merit, but the development still shows a change in standards.
A recent ruling by the British Board of Film Classification is also relevant. Although the Bill does not deal with the cinema exhibition of films, every film shown in the cinema will turn up on television sooner or later, so what the BBFC decides about the regulation of films is bound to have a major influence on Ofcom and those responsible for deciding which warnings to attach to a film when it appears on television. The BBFC's recent decision to remove the 12 rating and replace it with a 12A rating made my life as the parent of a boy of nine who was desperate to see ''Spiderman'' much easier. I have subsequently taken my son to four or five 12A films, including the new ''Lord of the Rings'' film, ''Die Another Day'' and, of course, ''Spiderman''. It is a step forward by the BBFC to say that parents are capable of dealing with such questions.
| 
