HL Deb 22 October 1991 vol 531 cc1420-2

2.59 p.m.

Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, as "sole designated guardian" of the observance by the BBC of the terms of its Royal Charter, the Home Secretary, during the first 10 years of the charter, has ever inquired whether in accordance with Article 20 the provisions as to due impartiality, good taste and decency and offensiveness to public feeling have been "strictly and faithfully observed".

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, no.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, that rather negative Answer suggests that the Home Secretary has never exercised his obligation. Is my noble friend aware that the BBC plans to show a programme called "The Last Temptation of Christ" on BBC2? I have seen a summary of it. I find the film very offensive not only because of the sexual scenes but also because it ridicules Jesus and shows him to be weak and sinful. Does my noble friend recall the outburst and reaction when Salman Rushdie published a book which was badly received—understandably—by Moslems? In view of that and since the Home Secretary is obligated by the Charter, would it not be wise for him to contact the Churches and suggest that the film would be deeply offensive to the 70 per cent. of the people in this country who look on themselves as Christians?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, my noble friend's synopsis of my original Answer was correct. I quite understand that he feels that the film may be offensive but there are differing views about what is indecent or offensive. The programmes and scheduling are matters for the British Broadcasting Corporation and not for the Government.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, from the start I support the right of the BBC to independence under its Charter. However, will my noble friend bear in mind that the BBC imposes a tax, in effect, on all of us through our licence fees. Is it not outrageous that it should show such a disregard for the feelings of a great many people in this country who have to pay the fees? Is it not endangering its future by acting in this irresponsible way?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I quite understand that people who buy a licence pay the fee, but they are not obliged to have the television on at every moment. They can always turn it off. I can only assure my noble and learned friend that, as he knows only too well, it is not the business or the duty of the Government—nor should it be—to determine what is suitable for the British Broadcasting Corporation to put out. That is why it has a board of governors and a chairman.

Lord Morris of Castle Morris

My Lords, is it not the case that when this film, "The Last Temptation of Christ", was on general release a complaint was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions that was not upheld? Regardless of what many of us may feel is the offensive quality of the film, does the noble Earl agree that the issue of public decency with respect to the film has already been determined?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, it is perfectly true that in 1988 the Director of Public Prosecutions considered the film. He believed that it did not contravene the criminal law. I can only return to the original point—that what is put on by the BBC must be a matter for the chairman and board of governors and not for the Government.

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that in the light of the Government's recent efforts with regard to independent television we on these Benches very much hope that they will interfere with the BBC as little as possible?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, that is a helpful question.

Viscount Tonypandy

My Lords, I do not ask the Goverment to put pressure on the BBC. But is the Minister aware that the organisation has such a mighty influence in this land that the issue cannot be lightly brushed aside, as he did this afternoon by indicating that it is not a matter for the Government? No one in this land would tolerate abuse of the Prophet Mohammed, so why should we tolerate ridicule of our Lord? Surely we can ask the BBC to remember that it is touching a sensitive nerve if it holds our Lord up to ridicule.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Viscount is entirely correct to draw attention to this issue. It is a sensitive matter and I absolutely understand him or anyone else feeling concerned about the dissemination of such material on television. However, if we were to adopt the suggestions which my noble friend and others propose, it would mean that the Home Secretary—that is, his officials—would have the power to scrutinise all or any programmes about which there was a complaint, to form an opinion on them and to act upon it. This would mean not only curtailing the freedom of the BBC to decide what should be broadcast but the imposition of the Government's views. Whatever one's opinion of this film, it would be in accord with all your Lordships' views that it would not be right that the Government's views should obtain over broadcast material.

Lord Renton

My Lords, is the issue raised by the Question not a matter of whether the film offended against the criminal law but whether it offended against the Royal Charter? Can my noble friend say under what circumstances a breach of the Royal Charter by the BBC would cause the Home Secretary to intervene to ensure that the Royal Charter, which obliges him as much as the BBC, is observed?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the sanction of the Home Secretary over the Royal Charter would be the ultimate one. That is why he has set up a board of governors to take such decisions. It must be for the board to make the decision.

Lord Glenamara

My Lords, I have both read the Kazantzakis book and seen the film. Is the noble Earl aware that in my opinion this is a beautiful, sensitively made film which, for example, portrays the crucifixion much better than any previous film? It faces up perfectly honestly to the fact that Christ, being a perfect man as well as perfect God, possessed sexuality as well as spirituality. That is what the film is about. It gives no offence at all to me, nor will it to millions of other people.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, that is an interesting observation on the noble Lord's interpretation of the film.

Earl Russell

My Lords, in the light of the remarks by the Chairman of the Conservative Party at the conclusion of the Conservative Party Conference, does the Minister agree that a BBC which appears impartial to the Conservative Party is no more desirable necessarily than a referee who appears impartial to the French?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am not quite certain what conclusion I am supposed to draw from that interesting question.

The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington)

My Lords, I am sorry to have to direct your Lordships' attention to the fact that 30 minutes have already elapsed for Question Time.