The Cabinet Office would not have to go through every single Act of Parliament. It would have to go through only those that have an effect on trade and the free movement of goods. The hon. Member for Bath made the point that the Act restricts the trade in videos and therefore has to be referred to the European Commission. I hear what the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is saying, however. I know that his Government are keen to save money to protect front-line services, as they say, and perhaps he thinks that the Cabinet Office exercise is a waste of money. Nevertheless, it is going ahead, as the Minister made clear. The Minister hesitated in his response, saying that as far as he knew, no other Act had breached the requirement for reference under the technical standards directive. However, the audit is taking place, and we would like to know when it will be completed.
I want to say a word about fast-track legislation. I said that we supported the Government's aim of getting the Bill through, but I take note of the remark made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that they should not assume, simply because we agree that this Bill is suitable for fast-track legislation, that any other Bill that they decide to fast-track will receive the same assent. However, we agree that this Bill should be fast-tracked, for the reason that the Minister gave—that an important Act that protects the public from unpalatable video content remains unenforceable and is being breached up and down the country. People are aware of the loophole and, as the hon. Member for Bath said, if we delay any longer, the breaches will continue. The Minister said that this would be an effective piece of legislation that could be implemented quickly; it was also debated extensively when it was first introduced.
I paid tribute earlier to the work of the British Board of Film Classification, and it is worth spending some time explaining to the House how the board goes about implementing the legislation. It awards an appropriate classification to video works, it provides clear consumer advice, and when necessary it removes material from a work. In extremis, it refuses to classify a work. I think that about 4 per cent. of videos submitted to the BBFC are unclassified or have cuts made. That figure is down from a peak of about 12 per cent. when the Act was first introduced, which shows that the Act works not only through the direct intervention of the BBFC but by implication, in the sense that people are keen to comply with the BBFC's guidelines before submitting a work to it.
Video Recordings Bill (Allocation of Time)
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Vaizey of Didcot
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 6 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Video Recordings Bill (Allocation of time motion).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c189-90 Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 10:00:57 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_606704
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_606704
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_606704