§ 2.43 p.m.
§ Lord COLERAINEMy 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 in their view the film called "Midnight Express" at present on exhibition in London contravenes Section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976; and, if so, what action they propose to take.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General considers that the showing of this film is not a suitable case for proceedings under Section 70 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
§ Lord COLERAINEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, for my sins, which must be very much greater than his, I sat through two hours of vilification and abuse of the Turkish Government, Turkey as a country and the Turks as a people? Is he also aware that there are in this country somewhere round about 60,000 Turks, of whom probably 40,000 are citizens of the Commonwealth? Can it really seriously be maintained that a film of this character, pouring contempt and scorn and inciting hatred of the Turkish community in this country, is not a contravention of the Race Relations Act 1976?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I can understand the feelings of the noble Lord, but this is an extremely difficult field in which to make decisions of the kind that are obviously in the mind of the noble Lord. The Director of Public 892 Prosecutions had the film seen by one of his most experienced members of staff— one who has been doing this kind of thing for some considerable time—in relation to the impact on race relations. It was his opinion that it did not contravene the section to which the noble Lord refers and that it did not constitute an offence.
There is an added difficulty in that there is the problem of prosecuting a film that has been given a licence by the British Board of Film Censors, and I would remind the noble Lord that there have been far worse things. I think there are many people in this country who regard, for example, war films as being a particularly obnoxious form of racial hatred, and yet we do nothing about them. I think also that it would be true to say that Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago and Papillon probably come into a category similar to that of the film to which the noble Lord has referred. As I say, it has been given very careful consideration in the light of a viewing by one of the members of staff and that is the conclusion reached by my right honourable and learned friend.
§ Lord COLERAINEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord just what is the place of the Board of Film Censors in all this? Is the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, to interpret the law, or is that something for the courts?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I did not wish to give the impression that simply because a licence had been given to a film nothing could be done: I was saying only that it had been looked at by the British Board of Film Censors and they felt it quite right and proper to give a licence. It does not necessarily follow that it is desirable that it should be shown, and that is why my right honourable and learned friend got a member of staff to go and look at it for himself.
§ Lord COLERAINEIs the noble Lord aware that many people, including the 50,000 to 60,000 Turks who live in this country, have the feeling that the Race Relations Commission, if that is what it is called, is a little bit selective in its attitude towards these matters?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I do not think I can take it any further than I have taken it, in so far as this is a 893 decision of my right honourable and learned friend, taken in the light of the advice he has been given. I noticed that the noble Lord referred to upwards of 60,000 Turkish people in this country. My information is that there are something over 6,000—not that I think numbers are all that important so far as this Question is concerned. As I say, I really do not think I can to advantage pursue the matter any further.
The Earl of HALSBURYMy Lords, does the chairman of the British Board of Film Censors enjoy the immunities of the Judiciary or can he, like other people, be sacked "pour encourager les autres"? Would it be taken into consideration when public mistakes are made?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I am sure everybody can be sacked, but whether this will happen remains to be seen.
§ Lord CARR of HADLEYMy Lords, may I press the noble Lord a little further on this point about the British Board of Film Censors? If I remember correctly from the days when I was Home Secretary, they are a wholly voluntary body. I really must say that I am quite astonished to hear the noble Lord calling their view in aid as a reason—even a supporting reason—for the decision he has announced. Surely the chairman for the time being and the members of his panel are in no way responsible for this, and surely the view they express should have no bearing whatsoever on a decision as to whether or not to prosecute under the race relations legislation.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I hope I did not give the impression that because the Board had granted a licence that was a reason for not prosecuting. What I was trying to convey to your Lordships was that an independent body, albeit consisting of voluntary members, had looked at this and, having seen it and considered all the implications, decided to grant a licence. I would not put it any higher than that.
§ Lord SEGALMy Lords, is not your Lordships' House in grave danger of providing a gratuitous advertisement for a rather questionable film?