§ The Earl of LONGFORDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take the necessary steps to prevent a film being made in this country about Jesus Christ by Mr. Thorsen.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)My Lords, the Government have no powers to control the production of films in this country. There is power to refuse entry to an EEC national on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will make his decision on the entry of Mr. Thorsen if and when the need to do so arises.
§ The Earl of LONGFORDMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether, on reflection, he feels that it makes any sense at all—bearing in mind all the facts about this lamentable figure, whom the Prime Minister has described as a most undesirable and unwelcome visitor, and the information about the revolting film, a copy of which I believe has been shown to the Home Secretary? All this information is available at the present time; no more information could be available when he arrives, so does the noble Lord agree that his Answer does not add up?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHNo, my Lords, with respect to my noble friend, I do not agree with his conclusion. As my noble friend has said, the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary have indicated their 452 attitude towards Mr. Thorsen and, particularly, his film. What I have said this afternoon is that if Mr. Thorsen presents himself at a port, the Home Secretary will then decide whether he should be admitted. The position is governed by the immigration rules and what I have outlined this afternoon indicates that my right honourable friend will look at this matter extremely carefully if Mr. Thorsen does present himself at a port of entry.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, without in any way inpugning the total propriety of that answer, with which I agree, may I ask the noble Lord this. We are just passing through Parliament a Bill to allow Sikhs to wear their crash helmets on religious grounds. We have apparently changed the title of the life of the prophet Mohammed because of our desire to respect Moslems. Are Christians the only religious body in this country whose religious opinions are not to be considered? Further, may I ask the noble Lord this. He will remember that a previous Labour Home Secretary excluded—and I think they still are excluded—members of the body known as Scientologists on grounds of public policy. If they can be excluded on public policy grounds, what about Mr. Thorsen?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I take note of what the noble and learned Lord said, and I also take note of the fact that he indicated the answer which I gave was—and I would not wish to misquote him—a proper one, taking account of the contents of the immigration rules. What I have said, I should have thought, would reassure the House, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord. I have said two things. First of all, so far as the film is concerned, the Government have no power, though of course the police will take any appropriate action if necessary. Secondly, if Mr. Thorsen presents himself at a port of entry the Home Secretary will then consider whether he should be admitted. The Home Secretary will reserve that position to himself.
§ Baroness PHILLIPSMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many ordinary people, who make up the great bulk of the population of the Christian community, are very concerned about this and 453 that anything the Government can do to prevent the film from being made on this soil will be welcomed?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I certainly take note of that. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated last month, that is also his view.
§ Lord MURRAY of GRAVESENDMy Lords, would my noble friend agree that Mr. Thorsen, this Danish nonenity, seems to have no money, no backers, no studios, no performers—in the widest sense of the word for this film—and he has had a lot of free publicity by people who really ought to dismiss him as a crank?
The Earl of HALSBURYMy Lords, does the noble Lord's reply indicate that a directive has been given to immigration officials to forbid the entry of this person until the Home Secretary has made up his mind?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, an indication has been given to the immigration service that if Mr. Thorsen arrives at a port of entry the matter must be referred to the Home Secretary.
§ Lord MAYBRAY-KINGMy Lords, can the noble Lord give us any reason why a man who is aiming at producing a scurrilous film about something which is very precious to so many people, and who has been forbidden in his own country to produce it, should be allowed to do so here?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I have answered that question. I indicated that the Home Secretary will consider the point if Mr. Thorsen appears at a British port.
Earl FERRERSMy Lords, is one to understand from that that the noble Lord's right honourable friend has not decided whether to allow Mr. Thorsen in—that he is going to wait to make a decision until the gentleman arrives—or has he made the decision already?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, both the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary have indicated their attitude towards 454 Mr. Thorsen and his film. What I said this afternoon indicates that if Mr. Thorsen arrives, the Home Secretary has said that he wishes the matter to be referred to him. He will then make a decision.
Viscount BARRINGTONMy Lords, would the Minister clarify one point on which I am not clear? Supposing Mr. Thorsen arrives at a port and says he has no intention of producing any film but has come to see Buckingham Palace. If he then starts producing a film, am I to understand from the Government that there is no way of preventing him from doing that? What would then happen?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, with great respect to the noble Viscount, the Answer to his first question is that if Mr. Thorsen does arrive at a port of entry, given the background to this case the matter will be considered by the Immigration Service, who will then refer it to the Home Secretary. My right honourable friend will then make a decision on the basis of the evidence at that time.
§ Lord BESWICKMy Lords, can the noble Lord say what additional evidence will be at the disposal of the Home Secretary when Mr. Thorsen arrives?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, what I am saying to the House is that if—and I repeat "if"—Mr. Thorsen does arrive at a port of entry in this country (because we have been told on a number of occasions that he is about to arrive but he has not yet arrived), the matter will be referred by the Immigration Service to the Home Secretary. With great respect to my noble friend, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, together with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, has made his position quite clear.
§ Lord HANKEYMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that perhaps many people would consider that the Government are dodging the real issue slightly? May I ask what would happen, for instance, if a British subject resident in this country wanted to make a film about the sex life of Mohammed? Would the Government not have to say that such a project would cause widespread alarm and despondency among the many Asian 455 citizens we have here? Would it not cause widespread trouble? If we were to do that in the case of Mohammed, should we not do it even more so in a case which arouses so much alarm and despondency among a great many Christians in this country?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I am well aware, as is my right honourable friend, of the strength of feeling over this matter. There is no disagreement on it at all. If Mr. Thorsen arrives the matter will be considered by my right honourable friend himself. Regarding the first part of the question put by the noble Lord, I do not believe in attempting to answer hypothetical questions but, frankly, in the case of an obscene film the police would take appropriate action.
§ Lord DERWENTMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that the leaders of some non-Christian religions have also raised objections to this man arriving here?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I am well aware of that.
§ Lord MACKIE of BENSHIEMy Lords, if both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have, as the noble Lord tells us, made their positions quite clear, why cannot the Home Secretary say quite simply that this fellow will not be admitted if he presents himself at a port? That would at least save the cost of his fare.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I take note of the fact that the noble Lord is anxious to save Mr. Thorsen the cost of his fare. The Home Secretary is in fact acting on the basis of the contents of the immigration rules and the immigration appeal arrangements; and that is why I have given the Answer in the terms in which I have this afternoon.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, would the Minister not agree that all this agitation has been of very great financial advantage to Mr. Thorsen in the advertisement that he has been given? Would he not agree that, as a result of this, a man who is largely resourceless will have financial backing for the film to be made in one country or another—a disagreeable film which we all deplore?
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)My Lords, I think we have had a good run on this Question.