§ 2.50 p.m.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy 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 are satisfied that pornographic films are not being produced in the guise of sex education.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD)My Lords, the Government do not exercise any censorship over the production of films. Public showings are subject to the control of the licensing authorities; showings in schools and colleges are a matter for the competent authorities of those institutions.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, in view of the fact that certain scenes in the film Growing Up could be considered pornographic, is it not the duty of the Government, the Home Office, to exercise control, particularly in view of the fact that we are promised more of this kind of thing from the same gentleman?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, any matter of control at the moment is subject to the fact that my right honourable friend the Attorney General, in another place on April 29, in answer to a House of Commons Parliamentary Question about this film, replied that he had asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether there is evidence that a criminal offence has been committed.
§ BARONESS BIRKMy Lords, would the Minister not agree that, first, it is not the question of the making of the film with which the Minister or Government should be concerned, but the question of who sees the film? As the Minister has said, this surely rests with the local education authority and with the schools. Would he further agree that prolonged discussion about this not very good film can have a detrimental effect on the good work that is at present being done in schools on sex education and other subjects? Does he not agree that the more this not very good film is blown up in this way, the more anxiety it causes parents and probably the less work will be done in the way of intimate development in the schools?
§ LORD BELSTEADYes, my Lords. The noble Baroness, as Chairman of the Health Education Council, has put forward a point of view which will probably be agreed with on both sides of the House. It was for this reason that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State expressed concern over this film in another place on April 21 and hoped that local education authorities, heads of schools, governors and teachers would consider with the utmost caution the showing of this particular film.
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, would the noble Lord ask the Government to address their mind to the wider question of defending our civilisation, based as it is upon inherited 1065 morality and family life; and would he not bear in mind that much so-called sex education is designed to undermine that by teaching children to behave like cats and dogs?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, once again probably several noble Lords would agree with my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, but it is a fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is constantly being encouraged, for the most respectable reasons, to include in the curriculum a variety—
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, is the Minister aware—
§ LORD BELSTEADI am replying to a question—a variety of questions; and the truth of the matter is that the hands of my right honourable friend are tied.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, is the Minister aware that this picture was shown in Westminster Hall on Monday and it was crowded out with Lords and Members of Parliament? Is he further aware that, much to my annoyance, this is owing to Parliament's agreeing with the permissive society? It is a really horrible picture that ought not to be shown to children.
§ EARL FORTESCUEMy Lords, would the Minister agree that the beasts of the field get along very well without any sex education and that the only education we humans need is in self-control and chastity?
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, what did the noble Lord mean when he said that his right honourable friend's hands were tied?
§ LORD BELSTEADBy Section 23 of the 1944 Act, my Lords.
§ LORD KENNETIn pursuance of the last reply, would the noble Lord be so kind as to remind us of what it says?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, it refers to who has control of the curriculum.
§ LORD SLATERMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, in view of the answer he has given that this is the responsibility of education authorities, that it would be a good idea if the Secretary of State for Education and Science were to circularise authorities 1066 to say that this particular subject ought not to come within the curriculum but that the responsibility ought to be left to parental control, because parents are responsible so far as their children are concerned? Would it not be well to direct the minds of education authorities along these lines?
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, that, of course, would require legislation. There is the right of withdrawal only in respect of religious education because it alone is compulsory; otherwise there is no right of withdrawal. It is for this reason that the Government appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, and of many other people in this case. My right honourable friend is on record as saying that she is considering what further advice might need to be given outside legislation.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that this film ought first to be judged by expert medical and psychiatric authorities—
§ LORD SEGAL—before it is released to the local education authorities?
VISCOUNT BARRINGTONMy Lords, as one who did not see the film and is prepared to accept the noble Baroness's understatement that it was not a very good film, may I ask whether the noble Lord would agree that it might be very good business? And where there are what might be called "vested interests" behind this kind of film, I think one should be doubly careful that such films do not, if possible, get through under the guise of education.
§ LORD BELSTEADMy Lords, I do not think that that point really arises on this Question. We are also getting into territory which was covered by my noble friend Lord Windlesham in the debate on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, a fortnight ago.