To ask Her Majesty’s Government, with reference to the agreement of July 2006 between the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC, what is their assessment of the extent to which the BBC has paid sufficient regard to the importance of reflecting humanism in its programmes recently broadcast.

The Government have made no assessment. Under the terms of the BBC’s charter, this is a matter for the BBC Trust and there is no provision for Government to intervene.

But will my noble friend remind the BBC Trust of its legal obligation under the Act to reflect other ethical beliefs and philosophies, including providing bespoke programmes on humanism for humanists and the wider community? Secondly, in the light of the decision by the trust to open “Thought for the Day” to humanists, will he remind it that it should not be frustrated by BBC programmers, who will thereby deprive the vast majority of non-church goers of the wit, wisdom and wake-up call of the non-religious?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reiterating some of the issues that we discussed in the Moses Room only three weeks ago. I am in the position of being able only to repeat what I said then. The trust reached the position that the editors responsible in the BBC had not in any way infringed their responsibility in their construction of “Thought for the Day”, which they define as a programme of religion and beliefs. The trust did not think that it should intervene, and it is not for anyone to intervene from this Dispatch Box.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the BBC provides a great range of radio programmes in which humanist and other non-religious ethicists can express their opinions? Frankly, complaining about the BBC not featuring non-religious perspectives in a slot that is wholly reserved for religious commentary is akin to complaining that “Match of the Day” gives no space to the game of bowls.

My Lords, I noted that the right reverend Prelate identified the programme as being wholly reserved for religious purposes, and that is the position taken by the editors of “Thought for the Day”: it is a three-minute programme devoted to the presentation of different beliefs. As for the BBC’s general range, if it were thought that the BBC did not accurately reflect the faiths, beliefs and perspectives of the wide range of people in our community, it would be in breach of its charter, but the trust does not consider that to be the case.

Will the Government consider drawing to the attention of the authorities of the BBC, who generally secure a high standard for their programmes, the fact that sometimes “Thought for the Day” does not entirely live up to its name and is a bit of a misnomer? It sometimes reminds us of the dictum of Dean Swift that much of mankind is as well qualified for thinking as for flying.

My Lords, I imagine that the noble Lord might well be right in his assessment that “Thought for the Day” is sometimes variable in its quality, but then I imagine that we think that about all BBC programmes. They have a variable content; we hugely approve of some of it, according to our perspective, and are very critical of other parts. That is certainly the case with “Thought for the Day”.

My Lords, in view of the findings of an Ofcom report into public service broadcasting that viewers thought religion 16th out of 17 programme subjects most valued on terrestrial channels, does not my noble friend agree that the BBC should give more respect and show more courage regarding the ancient western moral beliefs of humanism?

My Lords, my noble friend is right in identifying that survey. However, the percentage of programmes on the BBC which is devoted to religion is limited, although regularly identifiable. Programmes which reflect other perspectives are in abundance on the BBC.

If we are in the business of trading statistics, will my noble friend confirm that in the 2001 census, 77.7 per cent of people described their faith as Christianity? There were many adherents to other great faiths as well. So while it is of course important to listen to my noble friend Lord Harrison, who was careful to refer to people who attended church rather than people for whom Christianity and other faiths was of great significance, can we make sure that those views are kept in proportion?

My noble friend’s faith is matched only by his accuracy regarding the percentages he has identified from the census. On the more general issue, I assure my noble friend Lord Harrison and others who have contributed to this debate in recent weeks that the BBC is fully charged of the necessity to ensure that it reflects all perspectives in our society.

Will the Minister say why humanism should have preferential treatment over ordinary values that most people in this country share which are totally ignored by the BBC?

My Lords, I do not think that the argument is for preferential treatment. However, there are specific religious broadcasting slots and the question is whether they should also be available—or one, at least, being “Thought for the Day”—for the humanist perspective. That is a position which the editorial judgment of the BBC rejects at present; it regards the humanist perspective as being reflected in other programmes, and “Thought for the Day” is reserved for religious and belief statements.

Does the Minister not agree that although the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is understandably unsatisfied about the decision of the BBC over “Thought for the Day”, the BBC is making increasing efforts to be really fair and impartial in its coverage of humanism? For example, during the summer I made three three-quarter-of-an-hour programmes with three atheists called “The Atheist and the Bishop”, and most people who heard them felt that the BBC was scrupulously fair in trying to balance the arguments.

My Lords, I am sure that many noble Lords who, like me, heard those programmes would agree with the judgment. I emphasise that there is a standing conference on religion and belief which the BBC consults and there is a humanist representative on it.

My Lords, is it not true that in a country where there has been radicalisation and alienation, particularly of young Muslims, it is important that the BBC should continue to hold the ring in the way that it does in promoting tolerance, diversity and community coherence? In that sense, should we not pay tribute to the way that the BBC has managed what is a very sensitive debate?

My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that this is a sensitive debate as I wriggle at the Dispatch Box in my attempts to respond to these telling and predatory questions. The fact is that we have invested in the BBC Trust a responsibility to ensure that the BBC fulfils its charter, and the judgment of the trust at the present time is that the BBC is doing that.