Can you describe your role as president?

Sir Quentin Thomas:Clearly most of the work of the organisation is done by the staff. The President is there to give policy guidance and to provide reassurance to the outside interests with which the board deals - the government, the press, the wider public. There are sometimes decisions about individual films or videos that do not fit within our guidelines which are referred to the Presidential Team for a final decision.

You've had a long career in the civil service, how did you become president of the BBFC?

Sir Quentin Thomas:I'd left the civil service and more or less intended to retire, but I was approached by some headhunters about this position. I'd always been interested in films and have a little bit of background in government about the media. At the Home Office I was responsible for the whole structure and financing of the broadcasting system and all its related costs. So I do have some background. We weren't directly involved in the regulation of programme content but I have some feel for media regulation and the political dimension to the job.

And you have to be confirmed by Parliament?

Sir Quentin Thomas:The job comes in two halves. The BBFC is not what people expect in the sense that it is a private company. On the film side it has no statutory recognition as a regulatory authority. Local authorities license cinemas and what they've done since 1912 is allow cinemas to show films in accordance with certificates from this body.

On the video side, the Secretary of State designates someone to regulate videos and what they've done so far is to designate the President and the two Vice- Presidents of the BBFC. An Order has to be laid before Parliament when it's sitting and then it has to lie before both Houses for 40 days. Because Parliament has not been sitting, apart from the Iraqi debate, I'm not actually authorised for videos yet and I'm not taking anything for granted which involves Parliament.

What films do you like watching?

Sir Quentin Thomas:When I started work I put forward a list and it seems that none of them had been made since 1849! Certain films by Eisenstein spring to mind and I like the films of Bergman and Renoir. I quite like gangster films as well - probably the best gangster film I can think of is Millers Crossing by the Coen Brothers. The reviews of Road to Perdition have been quite mixed, but I think that's a challenger to Millers Crossing in my mind. I also really enjoyed Faithless, which was made by Liv Ullman, but scripted by Bergman: it's a strange story, but very good at the same time.

What is your number one priority coming into the post?

Sir Quentin Thomas:My priority is to learn the ropes. I don't come in with a great reform agenda. I respect what my predecessor has done, as well as the work of the director, Robin Duval. I want to continue to pursue a policy of openness and transparency, giving reasons for decisions. And I think the decision, which was partly Andreas Whittam Smith's, to clearly define policy in guidelines which reflect a systematic attempt to assess a film was particularly important in the context of openness and transparency. It seems to have been a quantum leap! I want the examiners to be able to operate within the framework of those guidelines.

I haven't arrived with the intention of being more restrictive or permissive but inevitably one asks questions and looks at areas from an external perspective. It seems to me that an operation like this depends on somebody operating good judgement. For it to work you have to have a degree of discretion. On the cinema side, it seems to me that the discretion is quite clearly there. On the video side there is some statutory guidance, but effectively the Board has a wide discretion, rightly in my own view.

There is an appeals system, which is valuable in principle. But I have a slight concern that because appeals review the work from scratch - rather than reviewing whether the Board's approach has been responsible and consistent with its declared policies - there is the potential for a rival policy to emerge. I am anxious to preserve the discretion which rests with the Board.

Can you describe the decision making process comes about?

Sir Quentin Thomas:The Board has a published set of guidelines - and this is not a new thing, I'm just endorsing the process - which tells the public just what we look for when we examine a film. The guidelines tell you what the 'triggers' are for each category. For example, in 15 rated films sexual activity and nudity may be portrayed but without strong detail, but at 12A sexual activity may only be implied. In essence it is a codification of a series of policies which have evolved over a number of years which have been tested against public opinion. In addition to that, I think the Board has shown it will not just hide in a corner. The director and members of the Presidential Team are ready to engage with the media to explain the process behind each decision.

Are there any further changes planned to the ratings system following the introduction of the 12A rating?

Sir Quentin Thomas:There isn't anything specific in the pipeline. The ratings are not set in stone but they do reflect a cumulative experience. Obviously the recent decision to introduce the 12A will be reviewed, and unless our analysis points to further changes, I think that's all for the moment.

What was your response to Matt Damon's criticism of the decision to award The Bourne Identity a 12A rating?

Sir Quentin Thomas:Well I haven't actually seen that film so I can't comment on what Matt Damon has been saying. But what 12A does is create some flexibility. Somebody under 12 can see a film when accompanied by a responsible adult.

Are the rise of videos and dvds a threat to the cinema industry in the UK?

Sir Quentin Thomas:My understanding is that cinemas are rather buoyant. It may be that the relationship between cinemas and home entertainment has been mutually reinforcing. People watch films in different ways on different occasions. I mean I do it myself - sometimes I enjoy going to the cinema, and equally at other times I enjoy having a glass of wine at home and watching a video or dvd.

Do you think you should be able to have a drink while watching a film in the cinema?

Sir Quentin Thomas:Actually I don't know much about cinema licensing and what the restrictions are. Speaking as a consumer, I would find it quite nice to have a glass of wine - certainly in art house cinemas. The chairs have got better and more comfortable and these days there are also more chances of finding something edible to eat. But then again I can see it would take up space and there might be problems with people getting drunk and disturbing others during the film.

Your predecessor gained a reputation as someone who was fairly liberal when it came to censorship. Will you be continuing this pattern?

Sir Quentin Thomas:I think he probably has ended up being characterised in that way. I'm not sure that that's a completely accurate assessment. There are a large number of films and videos that have to be processed and it's slightly arbitrary as to what comes up during your time in office. So I'm not sure I do accept that characterisation of him and I don't know whether he would either.

He did some bold things which could be characterised as liberal but he did other things would could be seen as not liberal. My own view is that I don't want to characterise myself as liberal or permissive. The key thing is that one looks at each film on its own merits. It's natural that the press wants to know where I stand compared to my predecessor and whether the spectrum is swinging one way or the other.

The thing I would like to be more widely understood is that what gives the Board its strength is that decisions are not a matter of personal opinion. There are clear guidelines - and all decisions will be made in reference to our codified policies. It's not about the wit or whims of Quentin Thomas or someone else, it's about running a system rationally, coherently and consistently and applying the policies of the BBFC to each individual film.

Do you think the government should be doing more to promote and assist the British film industry?

Sir Quentin Thomas:Well that's well beyond my jurisdiction but as an enthusiast for films, I would like to see more done to utilise and encourage British talent. Whether that's best achieved by throwing government money at it doesn't seem to me to be clear cut. I think what you want to do is create conditions for the creative community to thrive. A bit of money here and there cannot be wrong but I don't think that only subsidies are the best way to help the industry - especially as it is an internationally competitive field.

What effect do violent films have on society?

Sir Quentin Thomas:One of the things the Board is particularly concerned about is the possibly harmful effect of violence in films. The Video Recordings Act requires the board to be alert to different sorts of harm. The first is the harm caused to the person seeing it, and the other is the harm to society that might result from a person seeing it. The board is thus very alert to the effect of violent films.

What do you see for the future of the BBFC? Will Ofcom have an effect?

Sir Quentin Thomas:The government decided that the arguments for having a separate body dedicated to film and video were very strong and conclusive, so as far as ministers are concerned this issue appears to be settled. I think they were very struck by the cumulative experience of the BBFC and by the fact it's a different type of operation - particularly because works are looked at in advance, whereas most content regulation in the broadcasting field is concerned with programmes which have already been broadcast.This operation has built up a wealth of experience and it's best to be left alone.