§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the withdrawal of the Rev. Dr. Colin Morris from the B.B.C. programme "Thought for the Day" is consistent with the principle of freedom of expression of opinion in religious broadcasting; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government propose to make any representations to the B.B.C. on this matter]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government support the principle recognised by every Government since broadcasting began, that the content of programmes broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority is the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities themselves. The B.B.C. have stated that Dr. Morris was not asked to withdraw from the programme "Thought for the Day", but decided to do so for the time being of his own accord.
§ LORD WADEMy Lords, while I fully agree with the view that the independence of the B.B.C. should be maintained, may I for that very reason ask the noble Lord whether it is correct, as reported in the Press, that Dr. Colin Morris withdrew following representations from the Conservative Central Office? If so, were those representations made with the knowledge and approval or at the instigation of the Government? Secondly, on the general principle involved, does the noble Lord agree that the value of a programme such as "Thought for the Day" would be very much diminished if those taking part felt inhibited from saying anything which might be regarded as controversial or which might prick the consciences of listeners?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the Government Chief Whip asked for a transcript of the talk and told the B.B.C. of complaints he had received, to the effect that the talk showed political bias. On the second point, the B.B.C. say that 906 their Religious Broadcasting Department feel that the expression of Christian views on current social and political questions should be aired in their programmes, but that where those views are controversial the best place for them is a programme longer than "Thought for the Day", so that a reply would be possible.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble Lord is now confirming that the Chief Whip or the Conservative Central Office made representations to the B.B.C. in regard to this programme. Would not the noble Lord agree that the religious programmes, if they are to have any worth at all, should be programmes in which those who are called upon to speak can say what they think on the great issues of our time?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to look in Hansard to-morrow at what I have just said in regard to the statement made by the B.B.C. Of course all Parties—and let us be straightforward about this—have made representations to the B.B.C. from time to time when they have felt that there has been bias in programmes. The important thing to appreciate is that it is for the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to decide whether or not to accept the complaints that are made to them.
§ LORD SOPERMy Lords, is the noble Lord fully aware of the amount of disquiet that this particular matter has caused, not only within the Christian Churches and not principally in the Methodist Church, where naturally some of us would leap to the defence of a fellow Methodist? May I ask the noble Lord two questions? If a programme is entitled "Thought for the Day", is it not entirely appropriate that the broadcaster should make his comment about (shall we say?) immigration as a very relevant and quite proper thought for the day; and is there not need, therefore, for a closer analysis of what ought to be expected from such a programme when it is entitled, "Thought for the Day"?
Finally, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not feel that the substance of the appeal on behalf of the President of the Methodist Conference for some sort of inquiry to be instituted is quite proper, in order to make clear 907 what are the expected bounds of relevance? Otherwise it seems to me that in many cases relevance will be a handicap rather than an encouragement.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, these are questions which must be put to the B.B.C. The B.B.C. are responsible for deciding whom they invite to take part in programmes; they are also responsible for seeing that political impartiality is achieved. As to the proposal made by the Reverend Dr. Rupert Davies for an inquiry into the extent to which limitations are placed on religious broadcasts, to which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has referred, the answer is, "No", because the Government are sure that the B.B.C. can take care of this for themselves. There is no reason for the Government to intervene.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, do the Government not have the responsibility for telling the House the terms in which the representations were made by the Government Chief Whip? What in fact was said to the B.B.C. on this matter?
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, in view of the general excellence—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Answer!
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, in view of the general—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer!
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDIs my noble friend aware—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer!
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, in view of the general—
§ A NOBLE LORD: This is intolerable.
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I think it is up to my noble friend to answer or not to answer, and it is perfectly in order for my other noble friend to put a supplementary question. My noble friend Lord Windlesham may very well choose to answer both questions together.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the noble Leader is perfectly correct in what he says. But it was not apparent, owing to the rapidity with which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, came to his feet, that he was not then engaged in a rescue operation. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister of State—it is entirely up to him; he can sit there—would care to give a firm indication that he does not intend to answer?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the reason why I was slow to rise to my feet was because I had already answered the question. It is in Hansard, and I hope the noble Lord will accept my reason for not rising to answer again.
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, may I now put my question to my noble friend?
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDMy Lords, my question is this: is my noble friend aware that the general excellence of the B.B.C. religious broadcasts is such that it would be a pity if we were to draw attention to the relatively small measure of disagreement with it? Would it not be better, therefore, to emphasise the general acceptability of these broadcasts rather than the relatively small area of unacceptability which has arisen in this case?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMYes, my Lords. I think many noble Lords would like to endorse the wisdom of what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said. It is easy to pick out one particular programme or one contributor to a series of programmes, and to draw general conclusions from that one instance, but I do not think that is justified.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, while the noble Lord is in a difficult position—and I accept that it is difficult for him to speak for the B.B.C.—is he aware that in fact he did earlier speak for the B.B.C. by giving an explanation as to their attitude? I am sure he is also aware that we all know that representations are made. But is he aware that 909 there seems to be a striking coincidence here? Could he elucidate a little more the information he has given, that Dr. Morris should himself, apparently, voluntarily have withdrawn, having heard, by some means or other, that protests had been made?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I referred to a statement which has been made by the B.B.C. on this matter. It has been made to the Government and it has been made in public. It would not be right for me to add to that; and I have no knowledge of what led Dr. Morris to decide to withdraw from the programmes, beyond what I have already said in my earlier answers.
§ LORD SORENSENMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will ask Her Majesty's Government to convey to the B.B.C. the considerable disquiet felt within our own thoughts for the day on this matter?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMNo, I will not do that, my Lords, because it goes right against a constitutional principle of 30 years' standing. The B.B.C. and the members of the Independent Television Authority are responsible public bodies, and it is for them to decide who appears in programmes, what they say, whether they continue to broadcast or whether they do not. It would be a sad day if the Government began to take action of this nature.
§ LORD SORENSENMy Lords, while appreciating entirely what the noble Lord has said, would he not understand that all I am asking is that Her Majesty's Government should draw the attention of the B.B.C. to our own thoughts for the day on this matter?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the answer I gave stands. Of course people in the B.B.C. read Hansard, and they can make themselves aware of what has been said; but it would not be right for the Government to draw attention to these criticisms.