David Lepper

Labour Party | Brighton Pavilion

Internet (Extreme Images)

House of Commons

 

Mr. David Lepper (Brighton, Pavilion) (Lab/Co-op): I cannot say that I am pleased to be leading this debate, because I wish that it did not have to take place. However, I am pleased that so many hon. Members are here and wish to discuss the subject.

 

The title of the debate is a euphemism: we are talking about violent pornography on the internet. I welcome the action taken by both the present Government and previous Governments to deal with child pornography on the internet. A task group is working on the issue, and there is international co-operation in dealing with the provision of internet pornography involving children, and with those who access such images.

 

Events in Sussex last year tragically and horrifically threw the spotlight on another form of extreme material on the internet, which until then had not received the same attention—violent pornography in which men and women are depicted as the victims of rape, torture and asphyxiation.

 

Jane Longhurst was a constituent of mine. She was a talented teacher, and was much loved by her colleagues and the children whom she taught, in a secondary school for children with moderate learning difficulties. My last job as a teacher was at that school. That was before Jane started teaching there, but I have kept in touch with the school and my wife is a governor there, so I knew of Jane's colleagues' high regard for her, and of her students' devotion. It is a difficult environment in which to work.

 

Jane's disappearance in the early spring of last year touched the community in an unusual way—and not only those who knew her. Those who read her colleagues' testimonies shared something of the anguish felt by her mother Liz, who is here today, and other members of the family. That sympathy and anguish became mixed with horror during the trial of Graham Coutts, the man eventually convicted of her murder, and as we heard of the circumstances in which he had murdered her. We heard of Coutts' obsession with pornography showing strangulation, rape, murder and necrophilia.

 

There was also shock at the revelation that access to sites such as necrobabes and deathbyasphyxia is so easy. In one sense we should not have been shocked, because the internet is the great democratic tool of communication, providing us all with easy access to the knowledge of the world—whatever knowledge that might be. However, it also provides access to the sort of material that fed Graham Coutts' fantasies—and it doubtless led to Jane's death.

 

As Jane's MP, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), in whose constituency live several members of Jane's family, including her mother. He, the family and I considered how we could try to get some action taken on access to such images, action that might eventually provide a memorial to the wasted life—it was wasted, because it was ended far too early—of Jane Longhurst. An early-day motion has been signed by many hon. Members, for which the family and I are grateful.

 

We also presented to Ministers a five-point plan of action. First, there should be work with internet service providers, search engine companies and web hosting companies to consider ways to block access to the sort of material on which Graham Coutts depended.

 

Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East) (Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware of the Internet Watch Foundation, which has reduced the amount of child pornography hosted in the UK from about 18 per cent. in 1996 to less than 1 per cent. in the past year?

 

Mr. Lepper : I thank my hon. Friend for drawing our attention to the excellent work of that foundation, which I acknowledge. There is concerted action in this country—and, now, throughout the world—to deal with child pornography. Perhaps we need to ask the foundation to consider whether its definitions of obscenity should be broadened beyond child pornography.

 

The second issue that we took to Ministers was the need to reconsider the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, and whether there should be a criminal offence of possessing the sort of images that Coutts used.

 

 The third issue that we took to Ministers was the need for better international co-operation in dealing with such images on the internet. Well over 90 per cent. of the material that we are debating originates outside the United Kingdom. However, although it is comparatively easy to take action to block access to sites based in the UK, it is less easy to deal with sites based elsewhere, unless we have the co-operation of international partners. We have co-operation with most of our international partners in respect of child pornography.

 

Fourthly, we asked Ministers to consider the role of Ofcom. When the Bill that became the Communications Act 2003 was being debated, intervention by Ofcom of the type that we are discussing was specifically omitted from the legislation. However, I think that provisions in the Act allow Ofcom to take action if it does not believe that the industry is progressing as quickly as it might on issues such as filtering mechanisms.

 

Our fifth point concentrated on the way in which credit card companies might be involved in putting a financial squeeze on the providers of extreme images. In the wake of the trial to which I referred, newspaper reporters had some success in contacting credit card account processing companies and credit card companies, and got a couple of the sites that were specifically mentioned at the trial closed down. That was the five-point plan.

 

In early March, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West and I, along with Mrs. Longhurst and other members of the family, met the Minister and the Secretary of State to discuss the issues. We came away from that discussion heartened by the response, particularly on the issue of international action. The Secretary of State had already had discussions with his counterparts in the United States about greater co-operation. I hope that Ministers will pursue the matter with the G8 countries as well as with all our European partners.

 

One of the big problems that we face is that although, by and large, there is international agreement on the issue of child pornography, the same cannot be said about pornography involving adults. Frans van der Hulst, who is based in the Netherlands and owns one of the sites mentioned in the Jane Longhurst trial—one of the sites used by Graham Coutts—was quoted as saying:

 

"I've read all the criticism but I'm doing nothing illegal. I don't feel responsible for what happened to Jane Longhurst. The only person responsible is Graham Coutts."

 

In a very narrow sense, I suppose that that is right: Graham Coutts committed the crime. However, I feel that many of us here would feel that there is a wider responsibility that Mr. van der Hulst shares with Graham Coutts.

 

When answering a parliamentary question in the House of Lords in February, Baroness Scotland put the matter quite clearly:

 

"there is no international consensus on what constitutes obscenity, or when the freedom of an adult to have access to obscene or pornographic material should be constrained."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 February 2004; Vol. 658, c. WA31.]

 

That is one of the stumbling blocks when it comes to the international co-operation that is so much needed. I believe that that co-operation is probably at the heart of the issue of access, although in the shorter term it can perhaps be taken together with looking carefully at what can be done through credit card companies and processors—the companies that process the accounts through which people pay for access to such sites. Most—not all—of those companies do not wish to be associated with this kind of material. It sometimes comes as a surprise to them to discover that they are helping people to pay for it.

 

  Although international co-operation is the long-term objective, in the short term we should deal with the finances. It is not charitable organisations that are providing these images—it is big business. We must not only act in any way that we can against the suppliers but consider action against the consumers, although I understand that is much more difficult to define in law.

 

I pay tribute to Mrs. Longhurst and the way in which she has campaigned since the death of her daughter and the end of the trial for the kind of action that I have described. The petition that she launched a little earlier this year will, I believe, eventually be presented to the Home Office and already has 7,000 to 8,000 signatures. Clearly, the issue is of real concern to many of our constituents. Although no one should overlook the difficulties involved in dealing with it, our constituents are telling us that they want us to get on with the job of overcoming as many of those difficulties as we can in both the short and the long term.

 

I do not often pay tribute to newspapers, but I pay tribute to the Sussex regional paper, The Argus—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West will want to mention his local paper, too. Both have supported Mrs. Longhurst's petition and encouraged people to sign it.

 

These are difficult issues with which to grapple, and the technology is moving fast. In the past two or three weeks, the main mobile phone companies in this country met to consider how to deliver "mobile adult content" in a responsible way. The fact that they use the word "responsible" is gratifying, and most of them are considering ways of selling their technology with pre-installed filters either now or in the future. That, too, is a hopeful sign. However, the technology is moving fast, and, in addition to the five points that I mentioned earlier, we might consider involving the manufacturers in exploring more fully the ways in which filtering systems can be installed before equipment is sold to the customer. Indeed, the retailer Comet is already taking action on items sold through its stores.

 

Many other hon. Members want to take part in the debate, and I hope that it will put down a real marker in the record of the House of Commons: concern about the issue is shared by all parties and crosses party political boundaries. We shall be looking for regular updates from Ministers on progress on the issues that we are discussing. My constituent Jane Longhurst died at the age of 31. We cannot fully share what must have been her family's horrific experience as they heard and read the details of that trial a year ago. As Members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to take action that will be a lasting memorial to Jane Longhurst.

 

Reply to the Debate by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins) : I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) on obtaining this important debate. He raises an issue of considerable public interest. As we heard, it came to particular prominence following the tragic murder of Jane Longhurst, who lived in his constituency. I hope that he will regard the debate and my response to it as one of the updates for which he called, and to which I am committed, as he and his colleagues roll out the campaign and we seek solutions to the urgent questions that have been posed.

 

I have listened carefully to the proposals made by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, and I pay tribute to all those who contributed. They demonstrated that they do not confine their interest in the issue to the debating chamber, but do a lot of active research in a difficult and challenging area. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). He has supported Mrs. Longhurst, who lives in his constituency, and other members of her family. I am pleased that Mrs. Longhurst has been able to listen to our debate. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I met members of the Longhurst family on 4 March to discuss some of the issues raised in today's debate. Given the profound grief that they must feel, the manner in which they voiced their concerns and made their five  specific proposals was extremely impressive.

 

We are all concerned about the availability of extreme adult material on the internet. We are also concerned that similar material might soon become more widely available through other electronic media, including mobile phones, as new services are developed. If we are to take effective action in terms of legislation and enforcement, we need, as has been acknowledged, to consider not only the law in the United Kingdom but the way in which other jurisdictions deal with the issues. We must also consider what is possible technically at a time when new technologies are developing apace and there is still no clear international consensus on what, if anything, should be done.

 

During his recent visit to the United States, the Home Secretary, in an attempt to promote greater international co-operation, raised the issue of the availability of extreme adult pornography on the internet. That has been mentioned. Talks have continued since among officials. We are also considering what scope there is for a wider initiative to influence how the issue is dealt with by other countries, and for specifically targeting those questions at the G8.

 

It might be helpful if I say a few words about the sort of material that is forbidden under the criminal law. The obscenity laws—the Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964—cover, as hon. Members have noted, the publication, distribution, showing, giving and possession for gain of material with a tendency to "deprave or corrupt" those likely to read, see or hear it. That test can be difficult to apply, and is quite different from the way in which we deal with indecent photographs of children, which are relatively easy to identify and are always against the law.

 

The primary purpose of the obscenity Acts is to tackle the spread of the material and the possible corruption of individuals by it. That is why we do not penalise simple possession of obscene material, although the measures cover a much wider range of material, going beyond the publication of images to cover other media, including the written word. Ultimately, the obscenity Acts leave the test of what is obscene to members of the jury, who of course reflect the moral standards of the time. That flexible interpretation of the test is part of its strength. Although our obscenity laws are not as clear in defining what is illegal as the Protection of Children Act 1978, the question of who is in receipt of the publication, and in particular, whether they are a child or an adult, is highly relevant.

 

As hon. Members have said, the development of the internet has made a significant difference. In 1959, the supply of obscene material was more easily controlled and cut off, so publication was seen to have priority over possession. Now, however, easy access to a wide range of images—some of them extreme—is leading to new and urgent questions about the possession of certain types of material.

 

Parliament has already taken the view that possession of indecent photographs of children is a criminal act—partly because possession fuels demand for such images. The issues as regards adult pornography are less clear-cut, although we should not be insensitive to the impact of some of the more extreme material on those involved in making it as well as on those who access it.

 

The question posed in the debate is whether we can find a just and acceptable way of intervening when a person deliberately seeks out extreme material that may lead them towards offending. One immediate difficulty that we face is that there is only a limited amount of empirical evidence to suggest that looking at particular material causes people to commit particular offences. I was struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who noted that, sickening as it might seem to the majority of us, some people simply see such images as entertainment and are not necessarily led to take a particular course of action—so the evidence is not as extensive as we might like.

 

There is some indication from sex offenders who have abused children that they have used photographs—including those available on the internet—as part of a process to break down their internal controls to the point where they are ready to commit direct offences. It may seem common sense to all of us that repeatedly looking at an image can accustom the viewer to it and make it appear normal, but the evidence is rather more difficult to evaluate.

 

Mr. Salter : Although some evidence is anecdotal, does my hon. Friend not accept the view of many of the senior police officers who have been active on this issue that access to images of child pornography, and to extreme images of torture and sexual acts involving adults, has been a factor in leading people to commit certain sexual offences?

 

Paul Goggins : I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, and I pay tribute to the work of the police officers whom he mentioned. As several hon. Members have observed, they do incredible work in monitoring and intervening in such cases, and none of us would like to do their job. We shall take careful note of their experience and observations; that is part of the evidence gathering that we need to do. I simply make the point, however, that there is no empirical evidence at this time to suggest that looking at a particular image will lead to a particular action. We shall, of course, carefully gather the evidence.

 

However we define illegal material, we still face the challenge of dealing effectively with it. As several hon. Members have said, we in the United Kingdom are fortunate in having the industry-funded Internet Watch Foundation, which enables anyone to report, for example, images of child abuse on the internet anywhere in the world. The IWF makes a judgment as to whether the reported website carries potentially illegal material and passes details of any illegal material to the relevant law enforcement agencies so that they can take action. Where the site is hosted in the UK, the law enforcement agencies will seek its removal with the relevant internet service provider. That procedure has been remarkably successful in recent years; as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said, less than 1 per cent. of child pornography sites identified by the IWF in 2003 were hosted in the UK.

 

We are also confident in the IWF's ability to identify adult material that is potentially in breach of the Obscene Publications Acts and to refer to the police any site hosted in the UK, although evidence from the IWF and the national high-tech crime unit shows that the UK hosts hardly any of the extreme material carried on the internet that might be illegal in the UK if distributed to an adult.

 

Much more could be said in response to the many points that have been raised this morning. It is important that we continue to work together ….As I have said, in a fast-moving world where technology develops all the time, it is vital that we have this debate and consider what action can be taken together, so that we can intervene where appropriate.