§ 3.18 p.m.
§ Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORDMy 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 what annual grant the Department of Education and Science makes to the British Film Institute, what proportion of their annual expenditure this amounts to, and what conditions, if any, are attached to it.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)My Lords, the British Film Institute's grant-in-aid for 1976–1977 was £2.514 million which amounts to 70 per cent. of its 457 expenditure for the year. Of that sum £100,000 was earmarked for the Housing the Cinema Fund; otherwise, the Institute has discretion to spend the grant within the objectives laid down in its constitution.
§ Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORDMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer which confirms that the Institute is a Government sponsored body and is Government financed. Is he aware that the British Film Institute, which enjoys a high reputation, has this month slipped somewhat in putting on at the National Film Theatre a programme of films of homosexuality and lesbianism, some of them quite explicit? Is he aware that this is objectionable to the majority of our people on two grounds?—first, that the public look to Ministers to uphold the decencies of life, whereas the promotion of these perverted activities is quite the reverse; secondly, that, as the whole community are forced to finance this activity, we find it doubly objectionable, adding insult to injury, when we have to pay for it. Would he please ask the Institute whether it would return to its normal high standards and abjure activities of this kind?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, I am aware of this programme. I am also of the view that the British Film Institute is particularly well qualified to take its own view of whether or not the programme falls within the objects as laid down in its memorandum of association—
§ Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORDOh dear!
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEPerhaps I might further add that we should be denying the facts if we did not also accept that the subject to which the noble Lord has referred has attracted the attention of many distinguished film-makers and that the programme list which I have seen includes many distinguished films. My own views on the way in which the programme has been handled are immaterial. If I may adapt the words, I think, of Voltaire:
Even were I to disagree with everything which the Institute have published, I would defend their right to do what they have done".
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, was not Voltaire referring to freedom of speech and not to the use of public funds?
§ Viscount HANWORTHMy Lords, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that this is not a completely private club, because members are allowed to take three guests? Therefore, it is not on all fours with, for example, a club in Soho. Is he also aware that there is a big question as to whether at least one of those films which are being shown is not illegal, for several reasons? When there is that doubt, does lie not think that, in view of the bad taste in exhibiting these films, it is justifiable for a Minister to interfere?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, this is a serious study of the characteristic treatment of the subject and it is accompanied by three seminars. The films that illustrate it include such accepted classics as Mädchen in Uniform; Rope by Alfred Hitchcock; Reflections in a Golden Eye adapted from Carson McCullers' novel; and the 1971 British film, Sunday, Bloody Sunday. Noble Lords will appreciate that these are not pornographic films for the prurient eye but entertainments or social commentaries that incorporate a homosexual element. It seems to me a proper subject for serious study. It is open to members only, although I agree they can take guests, and it is not open to the public.
The Earl of HALSBURYMy Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the films involved—The Bigger Splash—illustrates what I must put into Latin, as "Intromissio penis per anum? Does he think that is an edifying use of public facilities?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, in the first place it is not a public facility and, in the second place, the drawing of a line here is extremely difficult. I think the House is not being fair to the large number of people who are seriously interested in this subject and to the fact that a number of studies are worth examining psychologically and sociologically. I really do not feel inclined to intervene as a censor when, if I intervened as a censor in any other aspect, I should get into very serious trouble—and rightly—from you all.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, will not the noble Lord realise that, if a body like the Film Institute wants to be subsidised by the public, it really is doing itself an injury by offending public taste to the extent described by the noble Earl on the Cross-Benches? If it wants to exercise freedom, does the noble Lord not agree that it must not abuse it?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, of course I agree with that. No doubt the British Film Institute will read our exchange, which may affect its future behaviour, but I have absolutely no intention of acting as a censor here and I think the House would not wish me to do so.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that most Members here disagree entirely with his answer?
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEWould he not consider that a matter of this kind, which arouses much realistic and proper controversy, could be put, for once, to a referendum?
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, unfortunately, somebody sneezed at the major part of the noble Baroness's question and so I was a little confused. Perhaps she would be kind enough to repeat it.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to write to me and put it in Hansard.
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, with pleasure.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us would 460 strongly repudiate the inference that a majority of your Lordships' House is in favour of censorship, as implied by the noble Baroness, and that, whatever our views may be about these particular films, we would wholeheartedly agree with the attitude expressed by the Minister that he is not a censor and that it would be utterly wrong for him to set himself up in that capacity? Is he aware that we warmly applaud the stand that he has taken this afternoon?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, I am most grateful.
§ Lord PEDDIEMy Lords, would my noble friend not agree with my personal opinion that the majority of the critics who have voiced their opinion today have never seen the films issued by the British Film Institute?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, I would agree with that, but I would also respect the right of a noble Lord to criticise on principle and not only as a result of having I seen these films.
§ The Earl of LAUDERDALEMy Lords, could the noble Lord tell us what are the objectives of the British Film Institute to which he referred earlier? Would he be kind enough to explain how those allow or disallow the exhibition of material which, at any rate in the eyes of some, is corrupting?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, the British Film Institute is an independent company limited by guarantee, incorporated under the Companies Act and registered as a charity. Its objects are laid down in its memorandum of association, paragraph 3 of which provides that:
the Institute is established to encourage the development of the art of the film; to promote its use as a record of contemporary life and manners; to foster study and appreciation of it from these points of view; to foster the study and appreciation of films for television and television programmes generally; to encourage the best use of television".
The Earl of HALSBURYMy Lords, does that amount to saying that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to tread the narrow line between right and wrong, inclining neither to the one nor to the other?
§ Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGEMy Lords, I think that is an inaccurate description of the path I am trying to tread. I am trying to tread the path of non-interference, from a post which ought not to interfere.
§ Lord ALPORTMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not think it would be better if your Lordships' House spent less of its time discussing matters concerned with sex?