Thank you for your recent letter about the proscription of Channel Bizarre, it may be helpful if I set out the position in full.

In the UK, responsibility for what is broadcast on television rests with the broadcasters and the broadcasting regulatory bodies: the Governors of the BBC: the independent Television Commission (ITC); and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority (S4C). They are independent of the Government and are accountable for safeguarding the public interest in broadcasting, in carrying out their responsibilities, these authorities have a duty under our domestic broadcasting legislation to ensure that programmes contain nothing which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to be offensive to public feeling. The Broadcasting Act 1990 provides that if the Secretary of State has been notified by the ITC of an unacceptable foreign satellite service, he may proscribe that service if he is satisfied that to do so is in the public interest and compatible with the UK's international obligations.

The Government believes that there is no place for hard-core pornography in a society that cares about the protection of children and regards such pornography as unacceptable in any medium. Other European countries share our desire to protect children and that is why they agreed to international legislation prohibiting the broadcasting of pornographic programmes. The European Commission's 'Television Without Frontiers' Directive (89/552/EEC as amended by 97/36/EC) prohibits broadcasters in the EU from transmitting pornographic television programmes. This, coupled with the powers in domestic legislation enables Member States to take action to restrict access to foreign broadcasters who transmit unacceptable material. The Directive provides for Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include programmes which 'might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular those that involve pornography or gratuitous violence'. Where a Member State believes a breach of this provision to have taken place, it may take measures against the broadcaster. it is the view of the Minister that programmes broadcast by Channel Bizarre might seriously impair physical, mental or moral development of minors. The harmfulness of such programmes is the responsibility of each Member State which may define such terms in accordance with its national legislation and moral values. In giving its advisory opinion in case E-8/97 [TV 1000 Sverige AB v the Norwegian Government] on 12 June 1998 (which concerned materially the same provisions), the EFTA Court indicated that it was for the national authorities of the receiving State to determine, in accordance with that State's values and national legislation, which programmes might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, it therefore follows that no Europe-wide standard is appropriate or required and that different Member States may come to different conclusions regarding the same programmes.

However, in the case of Channel Bizarre, no proscription order has in fact been made. There is a requirement to consult the broadcaster with the aim of reaching an amicable settlement and only where such a settlement is not reached does the Minister subsequently make a proscription order. The Minister consulted Channel Bizarre, but the broadcaster ceased broadcasting before the consultation process had finished. Even if the Minister had subsequently made a proscription order, that would not in itself stop Channel Bizarre from broadcasting, it would, however, make it an offence in the UK to supply dedicated equipment (e.g.. smartcards) and programme material advertise for or on that channel or to provide any other service in support of the channel The principal effects, therefore, are that a proscribed service cannot be marketed lawfully in the UK and that its commerce revenue is restricted.

Yours sincerely

Alan Simpson.