The
Video Recordings Bill completed all Parliamentary stages in the House of Commons
on 6 January 2010 without opposition and has now passed to the
House of Lords for consideration.
During the short debate Keith Vaz got a few whinges in:
Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour):
Does the Minister intend, in his speech, to
touch on the Byron review and the Government's commitment to prevent
violent video games falling into the hands of young people? Are the
Government still committed to the conclusions of Byron? Will the
recommendations be implemented in full? When will the Digital Economy
Bill come before the House? It deals with all the other issues that the
Minister cannot deal with in the context of the present Bill.
Siôn Simon (Parliamentary
Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media and Sport; Birmingham,
Erdington, Labour):
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is a
tireless advocate of his views on the subject. Yes, the Government are
committed to Byron and to child safety. The work of the Internet Watch
Foundation and the Department for Children, Schools and Families-led
group that has been set up in an unprecedented way across Government to
look at all child safety issues online is very important, groundbreaking
and central to what the Government are doing. As my right hon. Friend
knows, those are matters not for today, but for the Digital Economy
Bill, which is now in another place.
Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Minister
for giving way to me a second time. He talked about the boxed games. One
of the concerns is that when people buy video games, there is not
sufficient notice on those games that they have adult content, which is
central to what the Video Recordings Bill hopes to do-to ensure proper
enforcement. Is there anything in the proposal or in any measure that
the Government propose to introduce in the near future that will ensure
that when retailers sell such games, it is clear that they have adult
content-that is, by increasing the very small notification on the box
that it is an adult game?
Siôn Simon: As my right hon. Friend
knows, child safety, boxed games, and good information that is readily
understandable by the public when adult content is included in games or
DVDs are central to our approach and to the Byron recommendation that
content should be clearly labelled and that content unsuitable for
children should not be made available for children.
However, that is not a matter for today. None
of the provisions that we are discussing today in this short two-clause
Bill will affect that in any way. The size of the rating symbols on the
boxes is a subject which I know my right hon. Friend and I will discuss
at length in the Committee stage of the Digital Economy Bill. I look
forward to that, but it is not something that I should be diverted into
discussing today.
And on the subject of exempting games and sports videos from
censorship:
Edward Vaizey (Shadow Minister (Arts),
Culture, Media and Sport; Wantage, Conservative):
There is some concern that music and sports
videos remain exempt from classification. Again, that exemption could
have been removed in a draft submitted to the European Commission. There
is overwhelming support for removing the exemptions. There is not a
shred of logic or intellectual credibility to keeping music and sports
videos exempt. Why should something be exempt just because it is of a
particular genre? As I said to the right hon. Member for Leicester,
East, we are worried about inappropriate content being distributed to
minors and adults. Whether it is in a video game, DVD, film, a music
video or something related to sport is irrelevant. The exemption is
bizarre. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees-he is nodding.
Keith Vaz: I do not agree that we are
talking about the same thing. A film with inappropriate content is not
interactive. The point about video games, which is backed up by research
from America, is that the player is part of the process. Players shoot
and stab people in a video game, and that is different. I accept that
inappropriate content is wrong, wherever it is found, but video games
are different.
Edward Vaizey: I continue to assume that
the right hon. Gentleman is against hardcore pornography and offensive
content. For example, a video by the band Slipknot, which includes
self-mutilation by teenagers, remains unclassified. Before we get into a
debate on censorship, I am not saying that that content cannot be viewed
by responsible adults, or that the video by Motley Cre, which depicts a
George Bush lookalike with a prostitute, could not be viewed by
responsible 18-year-olds. However, I think that all hon. Members agree
that it should not be viewed by a 10-year-old, and should therefore be
classified so that parents know, if their 10 or 11-year-old comes home
saying, I've got the latest Motley Cre video exactly what it
could contain. It is extraordinary that music and sports videos are
exempt. We will continue to press for the removal of that exemption.
However, we are where we are; the Bill has been introduced in its
current form and we do not intend to stand in its way.
...
To pick up on the comments of the right hon.
Member for Leicester, East about the Byron report, which focuses on
keeping children safe in a digital world, I am genuinely interested in
the Under-Secretary's thoughts about how and whether content should be
regulated online. As he knows, an increasing number of video
distributors submit their films for classification to the BBC for an
online rating, but obviously more unscrupulous dealers do not do that.
The legislation does nothing to ensure that there are any sanctions
against people who distribute videos online.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East, Labour):
...
My second point is about the general debate
concerning video games. I am keen not to stray beyond the measures of
the Video Recordings Act 1984, but there were some very interesting
comments from the Front Benches about their commitment to ensuring that
the thriving and innovative video games industry in the United Kingdom,
and particularly in London, survives. I am not against what is being
proposed, and I have never been in favour of censorship; I have always
been very clear that those who are aged 18-plus should be able to buy
and watch whatever video games they want. Those who are not sufficiently
old should not be able to do so, however, and those retailers who are
prosecuted under this Act must be dealt with very severely indeed.
I say that because I disagree with the hon.
Member for Wantage, in that I do not believe that watching a film is the
same as participating in a video game. I know that you, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, have very young grandchildren, and I have children aged 14 and
12. A huge amount of research has been done on the issue, and it has
been found that a half of all eight to 11-year-olds use the internet
without adult supervision. I do not know how many Members present have
children or grandchildren aged between eight and 11, but it is a real
worry that a half of those in that age group are not supervised by
adults when using the internet.
Some parents take the home computer out of
their children's rooms and put it in a room where everyone has access to
it so that they can watch over what their children are doing online.
Parents have different ways of dealing with that issue, but the fact is
that watching a violent film is different from participating in a video
game. If a young person gets hold of Modern Warfare 2, for
example, they will be asked to participate in a terrorist attack; they
will be asked to shoot at civilians in Moscow airport as part of the
game. That is why the Russian Government have banned Modern Warfare 2;
they felt that in an age when we are trying to educate our children
about the need to understand the dangers of extreme violence, we should
not place in their hands, under the guise of entertainment, games that
allow them to act in a violent way.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said
about the Digital Economy Bill coming before this House soon, and it is
always the hope of Ministers that such Bills will come to the House from
the other place quickly, but I have counted that we have just 35 working
days from now until 31 March. Nobody knows when the next general
election will be held, of course, but there are only 35 complete working
days in which legislation can be addressed in this House.
John Whittingdale (Maldon & East
Chelmsford, Conservative):
The right hon. Gentleman refers to Call of
Duty: Modern Warfare 2. It is already rated 18 and therefore it is
already illegal to sell it to somebody who is under age, without the
Digital Economy Bill needing to be passed. I do not disagree with the
right hon. Gentleman on the necessity of passing that Bill, but there
are already provisions in place that prevent children from playing that
game.
Keith Vaz:
...
The Byron recommendations must be implemented
in full, as doing so will help to strengthen what the Government are
trying to do enormously. As far as video recordings are concerned, I pay
tribute to what the Government have done over the past few years. There
has been a huge leap forward since I first took up this issue, along
with others, after young Stefan Pakeerah, from Leicester, was stabbed to
death in a park in Leicester in circumstances similar to those found in
a video game watched by his killer, Warren Leblanc. I know that the
judge in that case said that there was no connection, but the mother of
the young boy stabbed to death felt very strongly that there was.
Following subsequent meetings with two Prime Ministers and many
Ministers, the Government have pushed forward on the matter.
I welcome what the Government have done, but it
remains the case that any Member of the House can walk into any video
store subject to the Video Recordings Act 1984, pick up a box set and
see a tiny-it is still tiny-reference to the age limit for those playing
the game. Through various campaigns involving people on all sides, we
increased the 18 certificate sign from about the size of a 1p piece to
probably the size of a 10p or, possibly, 50p piece. Actually, we have
always said that, as with cigarette packets, splashed across the front
of a violent video game should be the fact that it has adult content-and
good luck to over-18s who wish to buy it! That would bring the fact to
the attention of retailers who might, sometimes inadvertently, sell the
game to someone under the age of 18.
I was interested to hear the statistics put
forward by the hon. Member for Wantage on the number of stores that have
been prosecuted. I have been after those statistics for some time. They
are good news. The last time some mystery shopping was done-Trevor
McDonald on one of his ITV programmes sent in a load of under-18 mystery
shoppers-they were sold video games for over-18s, but the stores were
not prosecuted. I welcome the fact that the figures are quite high. We
are going through the bother of trying to get the Bill through quickly,
and we should send out a message that legislation passed by the House
will be implemented and that those who break the law will be prosecuted.
Don Foster (Bath, Liberal Democrat):
...
I share the concern expressed by the current
shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Mr. Hunt, about
DVDs and videos relating to sport, religion and music that do not carry
ratings but which often contain material that many of us would think
inappropriate, in particular for sale to young people. Such videos
include self-mutilation, erotic dancing, sex toys, drug use and so on.
The Minister's officials have made clear a
point that was not picked up by the hon. Member for Wantage. They have
said:
Music, sports or religious videos lose their
exemption from classification if they depict sexual activity,
mutilation, gross violence or other practices likely to cause offence,
and that in those circumstances, it is for the appropriate
enforcement authorities to take action.
The implication is that there is no need for an
amendment, because other bits of legislation could be used to prosecute
people distributing such material. I would be grateful if the Minister
could clarify that issue, because it is one that those in probably all
parts of the House want to be resolved. My concern is to find out the
means by which it is going to be resolved, or whether the Minister
believes, as his officials appear to be saying, that there is no problem
and that action can be taken under existing legislation.
And on the subject of online distribution:
John Whittingdale:
...
I wish to make a few observations about the
Video Recordings Act 1984. I always approach any such legislation with
some suspicion, as I am fundamentally opposed to censorship. I believe
that in a free society it is up to adults to choose what they wish to
see, but there are two important qualifications to that. The first is
that there will always be some material that is so unacceptable in its
violent or explicitly sexual content that it is deemed to be damaging to
people to view it. I accept that, and some examples have been given in
the debate.
I shall return to that matter, but perhaps more
important is the fact that while adults are free to choose, we have
always accepted that children require protection. I join right hon. and
hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of the BBFC. It is in the
area of age classification that some of the most difficult decisions
have to be taken. The film that required perhaps more cuts than any
other, some time ago now, was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,
because the distributor was keen that it should be given a certificate
that meant children were able to see it. The BBFC felt that it contained
inappropriate material, and there was lengthy negotiation. A lot of the
controversy about films such as The Dark Knight and Casino
Royale is about whether they should appropriately be a 12 or a 15.
The virtue of the 1984 Act was that it extended
that protection, which already existed in cinemas, to viewing in the
home. The Minister gave the statistics on the extent to which viewing in
the home has taken off in the past 20 years. When the Act was originally
introduced back in 1984, it was accompanied by a degree of what one can
only call hysteria about video nasties, and it is worth reflecting on
what has happened to some of the most notorious examples of films that
were widely cited at that time.
The then Minister, Mr. David Mellor, named
three films in the course of the debate. The first was The Driller
Killer, which was banned after the passage of the 1984 Act but then
released uncut in 2002, and last night I checked and found that it is
available on Amazon for £3.98. The second was Zombie Flesh Eaters.
That, too, was banned under the Act but then released uncut in 2005 and
can now be found on Amazon at £5.98. The third was I Spit On Your
Grave, which was also on the list of prosecutable movies until 2001
but was then released, although with substantial cuts made by the BBFC,
and is now widely available. Perhaps the most remarkable example is a
film that was on the Director of Public Prosecution's list of films that
were banned, Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead, which at the time was
regarded as wholly unacceptable but, indicating how tastes change, two
years ago was given away free with copies of The Sun as a promotional
move.
There is no question but that tastes change and
that we have become more liberal, which I welcome. However, as I said,
there will always be films that go beyond what is generally regarded as
acceptable. The Minister mentioned one particular film, Grotesque.
Two films were banned by the BBFC in 2008. The first was
Murder-Set-Pieces, described as having scenes in which a
psychopathic sexual serial killer...is seen raping, torturing and
murdering his victims.
The second has the unlikely title of The
Texas Vibrator Massacre-I leave its contents to the imagination of
hon. Members. I shall return to those two films in a moment.
My hon. Friend Mr. Vaizey made the important
point that there are loopholes in the existing legislation, which
existed for good reasons at the time. It was not regarded as possible
that a video concerning music or sport could be unacceptable. That
loophole has undoubtedly been exploited. I hosted a dinner that the BBFC
gave in the House just before Christmas, at which it showed us examples
of some of the material that is now available in music videos and sports
games that does not require certification because of the loophole in the
1984 Act. I understand why the Government did not feel able to address
that matter in the Bill, but I share the wish that has been expressed
that the loophole should be closed, and I hope that it will be in the
Digital Economy Bill.
The second main point that I wish to make is
that at the time of the passage of the 1984 Act, the world was
completely different. Mr. Graham Bright, the Member who moved Second
Reading, said that he defined a video recording as a video tape or
video disc. It is thus a physical product.-[ Hansard, 11 November
1983; Vol. 48, c. 525.]
Of course, it is now not necessarily a physical
product. More and more video is being made available through online
distribution, which at the time perhaps could not even have been
conceived. We are seeking to address that through moves such as those by
the BBFC to impose a voluntary system of regulation, but the films that
we are concerned about are now very widely available. I return to the
two that I mentioned, Murder-Set-Pieces and The Texas Vibrator
Massacre. I checked last night and found that both those films are
widely available through file sharing sites. An internet search for
either with the words download or bit torrent will bring
up any number of sites from which one can obtain them. Equally, they are
available through cyberlockers. Both are on Megaupload and RapidShare
and can be accessed without any attempt to verify the age of the person
downloading them. There is serious concern about how we can continue to
protect young people when it is now so easy to obtain such films.
We will debate the matter at greater length
when we come to the measures against piracy through illegal file sharing
that the Government are proposing to take in the Digital Economy Bill.
It is worth remembering that it is not just protection of copyright that
is at stake when we consider file sharing. There is equally the concern
that it is being used to circumvent the protections that the House has
put in place. In the most extreme cases, as I am sure the Minister will
be aware, child pornography is being widely distributed through illegal
file sharing. That is another reason why I share with other hon. Members
the view that it is important that we get the Digital Economy Bill on to
the statute book.
Having said that, I agree with the Minister
that the majority of distribution of video content will still be through
physical product for the foreseeable future, so it is certainly
important that the Bill should be passed today and that we should
reinstate the protections that we thought were already in place.
However, there is a danger that we will be seen to be bolting the front
door when the back door is wide open, and we will have to consider that
in future.
That leads me to the more general conclusion
that I suspect that there is nothing that this House can do to legislate
to prevent the distribution of material online from sites that may be
located on the other side of the world. When we consider what it is
appropriate for people to view, we must remember that that is a matter
for adults to decide. The most effective means that we can have to
protect children is for parents to exercise responsibility, watch
carefully what their children are doing and ensure that they are not
obtaining access to content that could be damaging to them. I support
the Bill, but I fear that it is beginning to look increasingly
old-fashioned and outmoded given the extraordinary pace of development
throughout the video sector.
Siôn Simon:
...
We have already congratulated the British Board
of Film Classification on the job that it does, by which we meant the
job of classifying films, but I think I ought also to congratulate it on
the job that it does in lobbying Members of Parliament and providing
briefing for these debates. Rarely can the entire participating body in
a debate have been so thoroughly and extensively briefed by a single
organisation. I visited the BBFC's offices fairly recently and heard its
arguments about one or two aspects that we may not see in exactly the
same way, but I think we are in accord on most of the issues that
Members, in their different ways, have discussed today: that is, the
central issues.
...
I am not sure whether I have fully covered the
question of appeals and compensation, but in the absence of further
interventions, I shall proceed to answer the questions about the
potential for insertion of what might be described as the PEGI clauses
of the Digital Economy Bill, which introduce the PEGI European
classification system for video games in this country into this Bill.
One of the fundamental reasons why the House
has considered the Bill, and why Opposition parties in both Houses have
indicated that they consider it appropriate to fast-track it, is that we
are not amending an existing piece of legislation which has been in
force for 25 years. If the two main Opposition parties had come to us in
advance and said We think it important to include the PEGI clauses,
we might have been able to discuss the matter, but I do not think that
that happened. We needed to act swiftly, and, legitimately, to use the
special fast-track procedure. Part of the reason for concertina-ing the
House's usual precautionary procedures was that we were making no change
whatsoever. The point is that we need to get the legislation repealed
and revived so that it can be amended during the passage of the Digital
Economy Bill.
...
John Whittingdale: Is it the
Government's intention to accept the other amendment that has been
tabled to the Digital Economy Bill, which would remove the exemption for
sport and music videos?
Siôn Simon:
As things currently stand, we are not minded to accept that amendment,
although I am not averse to talking about it. I take note of the
uniformity of view on that matter, on the Labour Benches anyway.
However, I know from my recent visit to the BBFC that it takes the
strong view that we should make this change, and the BBFC is very
influential in these matters.
Edward Vaizey:
I should remind the Minister that on Tuesday one
of his own Back Benchers, Mr. Dismore, is introducing a ten-minute Bill
that would bring about this exemption, so there is all-party support for
it.
Siôn Simon:
I take that point. I do not have a strong, dogmatic view on this. I have
considered it, and on balance I have come down on the side that says
that given that it is about where we draw the line, the vast majority of
content in music and sport videos does not need to be classified in this
way, to the extent that it would be an intolerable burden. That is a
reasonable position, and that is where I stand. We are not currently
minded to accept an amendment to the Digital Economy Bill to that end,
although I do not take a dogmatic view on it.
Wikileaks
has published a letter sent from UK Parliament Under Secretary Barbara
Follett MP to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC. 
Legislate
in haste, repent at leisure — that, most assuredly, is the lesson of the
really quite extraordinary news that the Video Recordings Act 1984 was never
referred to the European Commission, was thus never officially enacted and
now cannot be enforced.
The
bottom line is that criminal law needs to butt out of the cinema and home
entertainment industries. If consenting participants in film productions
emerge unharmed from the production process, then the resulting films would
meet a revised, forward-looking minimum legal threshold in future. (Whether
they should go ahead on aesthetic or commercial grounds is a separate
issue.) This latest humiliation for the Video Recordings Act 1984 should be
a chance to wipe the tape clean and treat adult viewers as adults.
The
Video Recordings Bill 2010 had a first reading in parliament on 15th December.
No debate was scheduled.
Transcript
from Legislative Consent Motion Executive Committee Business Northern Ireland
Assembly debates, 11 January 2010
The
Video Recordings Bill has received its 2nd Reading in the House of Lords on
18th January 2010. The bill was unopposed and the short debate centred on
the legal status of past prosecutions.
Back
in 2004 Liverpool Council Trading Substandards took action against UK companies
for selling R18 DVDs via mail order.