HC Deb 22 October 1941 vol 374 cc1859-67
Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I am glad that this opportunity has been given to me to raise a matter which is, in my view, one of extreme public importance and also one of great urgency. As I understand it, an arrangement has been come to which, unless somebody intervenes, will be completed to-morrow. Reuters has become not only a national but an international corporation, and a name which is familiar to us all. It is a name upon which reliance has been placed by generations as that of a company Which collected and disseminated news, and news only, as fairly and as accurately as it could be ascertained. I want to deal with the facts only in a very general way, for the details, of course, are not as familiar to me as they will be to Members of the House, and especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunder-land (Mr. Storey). As I understand it, until a few days ago Reuters was owned by the Press Association, that is, the Press Association held all the shares in Reuters The Press Association, on the other hand, was owned in the main by independent newspaper proprietors who are outside London, although some of the London newspaper owners had a certain number of shares in it. Nobody was in control of the Press Association—no single person, nor even any small body of persons. But recently the Press Association was approached by a certain number of London owners of newspapers, and it was proposed to buy 50 per cent, of the shares in Reuters. That proposal has been acepted by the owners of the shares in the Press Association, and if this transaction is allowed to go through, it will mean that 50 per cent, of the shares of Reuters will be under the control of a few men who are now in control of some of the London newspapers, which are also, of course, the national newspapers. I suggest that that gives rise to a very dangerous position.

The collection and dissemination of news should come from a source which is pure and undefiled and, not only that, above suspicion. It is not only necessary that the very greatest care should be taken in getting the news and in disseminating it as obtained, but that the public should also have confidence that the collector and disseminator are issuing accurate news. That is why it is always so very important to distinguish between propaganda and news. Hitherto Reuters have only issued news—facts as they have ascertained them through their various agents all over the world. They have disseminated them through the newspapers, and then of course the newspapers can make what use they please of them and make such comments as they please about them. But if the power of collecting that news at its source, the power with regard to its source, the way in which it is then disseminated to the world, is in the hands of a few people, there is a very great danger, to say the least of it, that that news may be used for ulterior purposes.

I do not suggest that the new proprietors will misuse their power in any way at this present moment, but the mere fact that the possibility is there is one which at any rate disturbs me and will probably disturb the public. They will lose the confidence which they have hitherto had in the accuracy and purity of the news. In addition to that, there is a particular danger in this case, namely, that there is an agreement between Reuters and the British Broadcasting Corporation whereby the British Broadcasting Corporation get a large part of their news from foreign countries and from the Empire through Reuters. Everyone relies upon the accuracy of the news as transmitted by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Hitherto, with regard to that Corporation, we have occupied a unique position in this country in having a corporation that is no part of the Government and yet is of such an independent nature that it is above suspicion. Everybody trusts implicitly the news that it transmits. They say, "That is news, that is accurate, that is not propaganda on behalf of anyone. "Hence the power and position of the British Broadcasting Corporation to-day. Should it perchance happen that the origin of the news before it reaches the British Broadcasting Corporation may be defiled, then even the confidence in the British Broadcasting Corporation would be changed.

It is suggested that the Government cannot interfere in this, that this is a private transaction and that it is not for the Government to interfere in it. We are in the midst of the greatest war that this world has ever known. The Government are continually interfering with transactions. They have the right to interfere with transactions. This House and the Legislature generally have given them the most complete and absolute powers over property and over persons. It has been a matter of regret to many of us that they have not used those powers which were conferred upon them in 1940 much more fully. It does not seem to me to be right to suggest that the Government which can interfere in the most ordinary matters, such as food, such as ordinary sale transactions in everyday little things, cannot in a matter which is of vital national importance take note of it. I do not think it will be suggested by my right hon. Friend when he comes to reply that that is the true position.

May I suggest that he should call these parties together and say that this is a matter which vitally concerns His Majesty's Government and the country as a whole, and that he must be satisfied that the whole conduct of Reuters is in the hands of people who will not only be in themselves perfect, but will command the respect and the trust of the whole of this country and indeed of the world? Far be it from me to suggest that the Government should take control of Reuters or any source of news. Again, they would be under suspicion. People would say, "We wonder whether this is news, or propaganda on behalf of the Government? We cannot distinguish between the one and the other. Something is being put across, and we do not know whether it is accurate."

Surely a body could be created today, of completely independent trustees, who would hold these shares, men who would command respect in the country generally, in foreign countries, and throughout the world. They would be in control, leaving, of course, the everyday matters to the managing directors, who would be subject to appointment and dismissal by those persons. Surely it is not beyond the ability of the Government, (1) to make that suggestion; (2) to see that it is adopted and that, in the meantime, until some such safeguard is found, these shares should not be transferred from the present ownership to the hands proposed. One can think of all kinds of things which might happen at a time like this. If the collection of news as is done now from all parts of the world, were in the hands of somebody unscrupulous, one can imagine an attack, say upon the Government, which was quite unjustifiable, but which might be worked up by spreading false news, bearing upon it the great name of Reuters Agency, that hitherto we have always respected. Reuters' own correspondent, wiring from some country or other that that country has been deeply stirred by action or lack of action on the part of the Government, is accepted; nobody is in a position to contradict. It is that kind of possibility that disturbs me and other Members of this House. I hope that the Government will take immediate and determined action in the matter.

Mr. Storey (Sunderland)

As I am chairman of Reuters, I should like to say one word of personal explanation, and that is that I have no financial interest in this company and take no salary for my work as chairman of it. My only interest in Reuters is in what Reuters can do in the national cause My opposition to these proposals has been because I believe that they are not in the national interest.

What are the facts? I will try to put them as briefly as I can. They are these: Some months ago, the Newspaper Proprietors Association, which is the trade association of the London newspapers, under threat of competition, persuaded the majority of the directors of the Press Association, which is the home news agency owned by the provincial newspapers, to agree to sell to them one half the issued share capital in Reuters. This proposed sale was approved last week by a general meeting of the Press Association, but the majority, on that occasion, was more than made up by the votes of the provincial editions of the London newspapers and of the provincial newspapers allied to London newspapers. It was intended that the deal should be completed to-morrow. I should like to say a word or two about Reuters' main functions. They are, first, to supply world news, home, Empire and foreign, to the newspapers and news agencies throughout the British Empire, and in foreign countries. The second great function is to supply Empire and foreign news and Parliamentary reports to the B.B.C. for their home and overseas broadcasts. Their third function is to supply Empire and foreign news to newspapers in Great Britain and Ireland. I submit that to perform these functions properly the ownership and direction of Reuters should be independent, widely experienced and so representative that no sectional interest can ever dominate it.

The present ownership and direction of Reuters has one merit: All Reuters' shares are held—or were held—by the Press Association, a co-operative enterprise, the shares of which are very widely held. If this sale is completed the position will be entirely altered. It is true that the proposed sale is coupled with a proposal for the creation of a Reuters Trust, but this Trust will have no real power. The trustees will not even hold the shares in Reuters, Limited, or the income arising from the shares. They will appoint the directors, but they can only appoint those persons who have been nominated to them by the shareholders. The Trust can at any time be got rid of by the shareholders by the simple expedient of putting the company into voluntary liquidation, and there is no provision whatsoever for the representation of any other interests except newspapers.

London newspapers, which through the Newspaper Proprietors Association will hold one-half of the issued capital of Reuters, will also through their provincial editions and through the provincial newspapers which are allied to them continue to hold not only half the shares of Reuters, but will have a 25 per cent, interest in the Press Association's half of the shares. They will therefore be in a position of considerable advantage, and it is at least possible—I put it no higher than that—that Reuters will be run primarily to serve the special interests of the London newspapers.

The requirements of London newspapers are not necessarily the same as those of provincial newspapers, nor are they identical with the news service requirements of the B.B.C. or of Empire and foreign news agencies and newspapers. When I became chairman of Reuters, Reuters' services were principally run with an eye to the London papers, and the overseas service consequently suffered. Now that balance has been adjusted; the policy we have set out to carry through has been to re-establish London as the news centre of the world, for if it is the news centre of the world, all the news comes in from every quarter of the globe, and we shall be able to satisfy the needs of all our clients fully and equally, whether they are London or provincial newspapers, whether they are Dominion or Indian newspapers, or whether they are Empire or foreign newspapers. That we are succeeding in doing so is borne out by telegrams we have received from all quarters of the Globe. I have one here from Durban: Service has definitely improved of late and leaves very little to be desired. Here is one from South America: Improved service is reflected in better space in newspapers. From Santiago: Service is 100 per cent, better in every aspect. From Cairo: There is general agreement that the Reuters' service has greatly improved in recent months. From Singapore: Thanks really excellent news service now compiled London and the extension of the Pacific service. We should be more than able to hold our own. These are typical of the messages we have received from all over the world. I think they show that much has been done in recent months to re-establish London as a news centre, and to enable us to give an equally good service to all our clients. Apart from this, it is certainly not in the national interest that a section of the newspaper industry, particularly one composed of so few individuals, should be in a position to exert a dominating influence over a national institution performing so vital a service as Reuters performs, and enjoying such facilities as Reuters enjoys.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken)

Would the hon. Member deal with this point about individuals, which is very important?

Mr. Storey

What I had in mind was that the Newspaper Proprietors Association, which will not only hold half the shares of Reuters but have this other interest on the other side, consists, I think, of 15 members. Under the provisions of the trust deeds it is possible for these shares to fall into as few as four hands. That that should be even a possibility is not in the national interest now or at any time, I think. The London papers claim that their only interest is to strengthen and extend Reuters. I must say that it is a strange way of showing their interest in Reuters to threaten to compete with a national institution performing a great work of national importance at the present time. There is nothing to prevent the London newspapers from playing their part, even now, in the direction of Reuters. Through their provincial editions they are entitled to representatives on the board. But they are not content to play their part in a co-operative enterprise. They prefer to be in a position in which they can dominate the company. I have no doubt myself that the control of Reuters should be vested in a genuine trust, representative of national interests and of Reuters' various activities.

It is all the more essential that this should be done, and I am sure the House will agree, when it is realised that there is no British news agency which can be considered as an alternative source of supply. The wireless facilities with which the Government has recently provided Reuters, and over which Reuters enjoy priority and operational control, give Reuters a virtual monopoly in the telegraphic broadcasts of world news services overseas. They do, however, offer an opportunity whereby the Government can ensure that the control and direction of Reuters is such as national interests demand. It would be easy to devise a Reuters Trust which would be representative of national interests and of Reuters' spheres of action, and would hold the shares and the income arising therefrom for the maintenance of Reuters as an independent British-owned news agency for the collection and distribution of world news through British channels. But the time is short. If the Government are going to do anything, they must act quickly. I submit that they have the means by which they can bring about the creation of such a Reuters Trust, and I beg them, in the national interests, to do so.

Sir Stanley Reed (Aylesbury)

It is the custom in this House for those who are directly concerned in any question which arises to indicate their beneficial interest, if they have one. May I make it clear at the outset that I have no beneficial interest whatsoever in Reuters, but that Reuters has a beneficial interest in me, because I have been a large contributor to its funds for the past 45 years? I want to endorse in every particular the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) in bringing this question before the House. He has discharged an eminent public service in calling our attention to this matter, because its ramifications go even beyond those which he has stated in such moderate terms.

I think the whole House will agree with him that what we want, and what the newspaper Press of the Empire wants —what the responsible newspaper Press of Britain and the Empire wants—is news. But news can be coloured and garbled in all sorts of mysterious ways. What we want is straight news, which conveys simply the essential facts, leaving the journals themselves, if they think fit, to interpret them and to draw their conclusions therefrom. News must be straight, it must be impartial, it must be accurate, and it must be free from any sort of bias or pressure or propaganda. Speaking from experience covering very nearly half a century, I say, without fear of contradiction, that that news Reuter has given us. It has given not only to the newspaper Press of Great Britain, but, what is equally important, to the great newspaper Press of the Empire, a service of that kind; and it has given to the newspaper Press of Great Britain and of the Empire a service of rapidly-expanding importance and value and educative effect. I have seen that service expand in its overseas branch from a few hundred words a day to something like 120,000 words a month; and, thanks to its energy and enterprise, there is not an overseas newspaper to-day which has not within its reach, at very moderate cost, this great and comprehensive service, entirely free from bias and as near as any human service can be free from any sort of pressure and propaganda.

It may be asked whether those conditions will be maintained following the changes which are being rushed through, and which, if this House and the Government responsible to the desires of this House do not intervene, may be consummated to-morrow. Speaking on behalf of the great overseas Press, I say that I have the very gravest doubts indeed as to whether those conditions will be maintained in the circumstances now contemplated. It is not easy for any ordinary man to penetrate the jungle of modern finance. One wants, as Sam Weller said, "A pair of double million glass miscroscopes of hextry power." As I read the proposals which are now made, and which have been interpreted by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and the facts that he has put before us—

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.