---

BBC: Humanism

My Lords, only a parliamentary genius could have so constrained the debate that everyone’s contribution was in the three-minute slot of "Thought for the Day" perfection. In some respects, on all sides of the argument, the expertise with which the contributions have been made fitted exactly that slot. I want to emphasise that it is only in the House of Lords that one can be questioned at 2.30 pm by a bishop about how to look after flocks of sheep and at 7.30 pm reply to a debate on humanism, the BBC and the Government’s role. I hope that it will be appreciated that I have difficulties in responding to this debate in the obvious sense. It has been a fascinating debate and I am not sure that it would not have sufficed to be produced as a one-hour programme for the BBC to consider all aspects and viewpoints of religion and humanism. But the real issue is where the Government stand in relation to this. The only reason I am responding is because I am speaking on behalf of the Government, who scarcely got a mention in the whole debate. The BBC certainly has been harangued, harassed and challenged, but very little has been said about the Government for the very good and obvious reason that the Government’s locus in this debate is very marginal. Of course, the Government set up the framework of the charter of the BBC by an Act of Parliament, which was debated and produced only a few short years ago, but the Government are concerned that the charter, which is set out in legislation, clearly stresses the most important feature of the British Broadcasting Corporation; namely, that it is independent of government. That is its glory and its role. Within that framework, if this debate is to indicate that the Government should take a perspective on how "Thought for the Day" or other programmes should be presented by the BBC, I want to emphasise that the Government have no locus at all. It is the case that the BBC has answerability. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harrison on taking this opportunity to identify an important matter for the BBC to consider. I also reassure my noble friend that he could not have been more timely in setting the debate for this day. "Thought for the Day" is the subject of a complaint that is going before the BBC Trust. "Complaint" is an odd concept, because when it becomes an item on the BBC Trust’s agenda it is rather more an appeal than a complaint. The trust is deliberating on this matter tomorrow, hence the great timeliness of this debate. All members of the trust have an obligation to be well informed about the nation and its views, and take great steps to be so. I have a list of the BBC’s activities to analyse the views of the nation on issues such as this. The charter certainly confirms that it is the trust’s responsibility to assess the performance of the BBC executive in this area by conducting investigations, where appropriate, into any BBC activity. Of course the trust would say that it holds consultations and has audience councils where licence-fee payers can present their position on the BBC. There are also research projects through which the BBC analyses public opinion and seeks responses to its progress. The trust is active, but it is responsible for safeguarding the independence of the BBC. The BBC executive is responsible for discharging its functions under the charter. I shall comment from the Government’s point of view on humanism and "Thought for the Day". It is not the Government’s responsibility to make any diktat on programmes. The BBC certainly has an obligation to listen, so I would be more than a little surprised if members of the trust did not listen carefully to this debate, which would help their deliberations tomorrow. I emphasise the obvious point that this has been an extremely valuable and interesting debate. Indeed, this House prides itself on its ability to raise issues that it is often infinitely more difficult to raise at the other end of the building, if only because religious and humanist beliefs can from time to time raise passions and produce stances that, for elected Members of Parliament, can be difficult. We delight in the fact that we are a little remote from the immediate political battle, and have had contributions tonight from Members of this House with a very wide range of experience of these important issues and whose opinions and perspectives are greatly valued. That is the great advantage of the debate. I hope that all participants will appreciate that in my winding-up speech on this occasion, reluctant as I am ever to seek to absolve myself of full responsibility, I have to say that the Government’s position is extremely limited. I do, however, hope that the BBC has been listening.