THE WAR SITUATION.

HC Deb 13 September 1939 vol 351 cc655-711

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Captain Margesson.]

3.51 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain)

The House will have learnt from the communiquéissued last night that the Supreme War Council met for the first time yesterday, on French soil. I think it is fitting that I should begin my progress report this week with an account of the meeting. It was attended, as the House knows, by Lord Chatfield and myself for Great Britain, and by M. Daladier and General Gamelin for France. The representatives of both countries were accompanied by a number of officials, but, as we were already in close touch with the French authorities on technical strategic questions, it was not intended to discuss such questions at the meeting, and the Chiefs of Staff were not, therefore, on this occasion summoned to attend. The object of the meeting was to make possible, at the earliest practicable stage in the war, a direct and personal exchange of views. The present situation was fully examined and the measures to be taken in the immediate future were discussed. Further meetings will be arranged as and when necessary, in order to ensure that the closest possible contact is maintained between our two countries on all major aspects of the conduct of the war.

The meeting began in the morning and was supplemented by further conversations in the afternoon. The House will not expect me to give a detailed account of the many subjects discussed; and to do so would not be in the public interest.

There is, however, one important matter to which I can properly and usefully refer. As was natural, there was an exchange of views at an early stage in the conference on the present state of public opinion in the two countries. I am glad to be able to assure the House that it is evident that public opinion on the two sides of the Channel is completely in accord. The people of France and the people of Great Britain are alike determined not only to honour to the full their obligations to Poland, but also to put an end, once for all, to the intolerable strain of living under the perpetual threat of Nazi aggression. Our French allies are, like ourselves, a peace-loving people, but they are no less convinced than are we that there can be no peace until the menace of Hitlerism has been finally removed. "II faut en finir."

For the rest, I may tell the House that I came away from this meeting fortified and encouraged by the complete identity of views which was revealed between the French Government and ourselves on every point of policy and strategy which we discussed. I need hardly stress to the House my own sense of the immense value of these personal contacts, which enable that mutual confidence to be established without which there can be no real harmony of action.

Let me now give the House a short account of the present situation in the Empire, in Europe and the several theatres of war.

Day by day fresh evidence reaches us of the determination of the peoples of the British Commonwealth overseas. Hon. Members will have read during the last day or two speeches by Dominion Prime Ministers and other leaders making this determination manifest. But it is not only by words that this resolve is shown: it is by deeds also. I cannot, of course, give the House details of all the measures of defence which have been adopted in the over sea parts of the Empire, but I can say that, both in the military and in the civil sphere, steps which in some cases are of a far-reaching character have been taken. These steps are all directed to one end— the pursuit of a common purpose, the fulfilment of a common task.

An increasing number of foreign States have declared their neutrality, but in no case has this led to any relaxation of the armed vigilance which now characterises Europe and is the direct result of the Nazi menace to our common civilisation.

For the moment, the Eastern theatre of war is still the main centre of operations. The Germans appear to be endeavouring to force a decision in this theatre before they are compelled to transfer formations to the West to meet the threat of Allied intervention. With this object in view, they have continued their relentless pressure on the Polish Army, hoping thereby to break resistance and to turn a hardly-contested withdrawal into a retreat. That these hopes have been so far frustrated is due to the indomitable spirit of the Poles, who refuse to be intimidated by the weight of material brought against them or by the overwhelming superiority of the German Air Force.

In the West the French Armies have begun a methodical advance. Hitherto, these operations have been local, with the object of straightening out the line and gaining contact with the main enemy positions. This is an essential and important preliminary phase, about which the French are naturally reticent, and it is sufficient to say that it has been completely successful.

Certain statements have been made to the effect that the British Expeditionary Force has already been engaged in France. These statements are not strictly accurate, and are principally the result of the highly imaginative reports of foreign correspondents, over whose activities we, unfortunately, have no control. Nevertheless, it is true that British troops are already in France, though they have not been in action. When this happens, as full information as the exigencies of the military situation permit will at once be issued.

In the air the normal work of reconnaissance and patrol has been continuous, and a number of Royal Air Force Squadrons are now operating from French soil.

Further successful reconnaissance flights over Germany have been carried out by the Bomber Command in this country, and much useful information has been gained, in the course of these flights, of activities behind the German frontier.

Defensive patrols proceed continuously, and the Higher Command remains in a state of instant readiness.

The Coastal Command have continued to carry out extended reconnaissance and anti-submarine patrols, and a number of attacks have been carried out against enemy submarines.

On the seas, the outbreak of the war found the active Fleet fully prepared and the Reserve Flect mobilised, but that did not include the whole of the very numerous auxiliaries which when war begins have to be brought forward to complete our sea power. These forces are now passing rapidly into service.

The Fleet has been joined by three destroyers of the Polish Navy, which have proved to be very efficient and are taking part in the strenuous life of our light forces.

The main object of the British Navy must be, as in the last War, to ensure the freedom and safety of the seas. During the War of 1914–18, and particularly in 1917, the German policy of unrestricted submarine warfare created, as is well known, a situation which was at one time very serious. In the present war, the German attack upon our merchant shipping, begun by an act of ruthlessness against a passenger ship contrary to all the rules of maritime warfare and the Convention that Germany herself had signed, is being continued. A certain number of British merchant ships has been sunk, and our losses have undoubtedly been somewhat severe. This is only what had to be expected, for the reason that the war came at a moment when large numbers of our merchant vessels were scattered over the Seven Seas, moving under peace conditions. On the other hand, the Germans had placed their U-boats and their supply ships previous to the outbreak of war in the best strategic positions and it is not surprising that some of our vessels have been caught and surprised by submarines before they were able to reach port.

It is impossible to apply the convoy system while many of the ships to be convoyed are still on the high seas. We are, however, pressing on with putting that system into force and it is daily operating with ever increasing efficiency. In the last war out of some 16,500 vessels which were convoyed to and from this country on the Atlantic, only 102 or .6 per cent. were sunk by submarine action while on convoy. But the convoy system was only applied in the summer of 1917 after we had been at war for nearly three years. That is not the case to-day. The convoy system is being applied immediately and as soon as it is in full working order I have no reason to suppose that it will prove to be less decisive than it was 20 years ago. Meanwhile, I can assure the House that submarines are being constantly attacked and that successes have been achieved.

At the outbreak of war the total German tonnage of ships at sea or in neutral or allied ports, Baltic ports excepted, was in the neighbourhood of 1,105,000 tons. Practically all that ship- ping has now been cleared off the high seas, some has been captured and much of it has interned itself in neutral ports. Moreover, the supply to Germany of vital war materials carried under neutral flags has been, and will increasingly be, limited by the contraband control imposed by the power of our Fleet.

In the statement which I made to the House on the 7th of September, I said that the organisation of the Civil Defence Services was being rapidly completed. This process has continued, and steps are being taken to deal with the various problems inseparable from the rapid mobilisation of personnel in an entirely novel form of national defence.

It was, of course, essential at the outset of the emergency to call up everyone available for whole-time service to man the home defence front. It has, I know, been suggested that as a result, in the absence of any call as yet to meet actual attack from the air, we have unnecessarily immobilised a considerable mass of man-power. I would, however, remind the House that if our Civil Defence organisation is to be effective, it is inevitable that a sufficient nucleus of men and women should be kept at "Action Stations "—standing by cannot be avoided. We are, however, endeavouring to ease the position in various ways and are considering how best we can minimise dislocation while still maintaining Civil Defence on an adequate wartime footing.

There are one or two specific matters on which I think it may be desirable that I should give hon. Members some further information. Take first lighting restrictions. It is said, and said with truth, that the lighting restrictions at present in force cause personal inconvenience, that they are dangerous to traffic, and that they slow up important elements in the productive processes of the country. But they are, in fact, required on strategic grounds, and they form part of the strategic defence of the important industrial areas of the country and all their details are the result of long experiments carried out by the Royal Air Force. The air staff are equally interested in reducing to the minimum any slowing down or interference with production, and if the existing restrictions appear irksome, it must be accepted that they are, for the moment, inevitable.

The whole preparations of Civil Defence, whether lighting restrictions, warnings, or mobilisation of personnel are conditioned by the speed with which hostile air attack can develop. There is, for example, general agreement that buildings should be "blacked out" in advance. Preparations for "blacking out" at the last moment would be too late. The "black out" restrictions apply for the present to the more remote areas as well as to the big cities. It is not that those remote areas are themselves likely to be attacked, but the lighting they give would be a signpost to built-up areas which might be of greater military importance.

Somewhat different considerations apply to the restrictions on moving vehicles and on the use of pocket torches and small lamps by pedestrians as aids to movement. I think the House will be glad to hear that some relaxation in these respects is considered practicable and the necessary instructions are in preparation.

Many of the complaints about the lighting restrictions and also the warning system are influenced by the fact that up to the present we have not had air raids. It would be very dangerous to make any drastic modification of these strategic preparations until actual air-raid experience has indicated the lines upon which modifications might safely be made.

The movement of evacuation which was started on Friday, 1st September, was completed with the evacuation of Jarrow, Hebburn and Sunderland on the 10th and nth September. Experience so far shows that the billeting of unaccompanied school children has given rise to much less difficulty than the billeting of mothers and young children. A very heavy demand has been made on the energy and initiative of the receiving local authorities and on the good will of the householders in the receiving areas. There has been a remarkable response to the demands thus made and there is every indication that the process of settling in is now taking place satisfactorily in a great majority of cases. Needless to say, a movement on this scale raises a large number of social problems. Active steps are being taken by the local authorities in this matter, and the Min- ister of Health and the President of the Board of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland will continue to cooperate in a solution of these problems.

In order to afford to the parents of school children who had not taken part in the movement a further opportunity, arrangements were made to enable these parents to register their children at schools on Monday and Tuesday of this week. No immediate further evacuation move is, however, in contemplation, as the receiving areas must be given time to assimilate the present large influx of population, and all concerned must have time to digest the experience already gained.

As I stated last week, some 200,000 hospital beds were made available by various means for the reception of civilian air-raid casualties. These beds, of course, are also available for Service sick and casualties and a certain proportion of them are now in use for this purpose.

It is also part of our scheme that these hospitals should continue to admit ordinary acute surgical or medical cases amongst the general population. This "reflux" is now taking place and will continue. There are therefore facilities available to ensure that any patient whose medical condition requires in-patient treatment shall be able to obtain it. These cases will naturally encroach upon the number of beds immediately available for the reception of casualties, but this is being met by increasing the numbers of extra beds, by pressing forward with the building of hutted wards, and by providing further temporary accommodation in large tents. The net result is that in spite of fresh admissions the number of beds immediately available on 12th September has been maintained at the figure of 200,000.

Furthermore, we have asked that outpatient facilities for the ordinary civilian sick should be maintained and this is being done. The first-aid posts, both fixed and mobile, have been in general duly established and equipped and the emergency ambulances have been assembled and fitted up. Motor coaches in the provinces as well as in London have been converted for use as inter-hospital ambulances. The full complement of casualty evacuation trains for civilian cases has been assembled and staffed and provided with medical equipment.

Some shortage of extra beds, bedding, dressings and surgical equipment has been reported from a number of places, but this is being met as rapidly as possible by accelerating the delivery of goods on order, by the diversion of supplies from places more favourably situated and by placing fresh orders. In particular surgical instruments are now being delivered in considerable numbers and others have been obtained on loan from hospitals and surgeons having a surplus available.

Finally, I propose to say a few words about a matter which will be fully debated later in the day—the creation and work of the Ministry of Information. The Lord Privy Seal will make a detailed statement in due course, and I do not intend to anticipate the things he will have to say. There are, however, one or two general points to which I desire to invite the attention of the House.

The work of the Ministry of Information is the most difficult type of work that can be assigned to a Government Department. Such a Ministry must continually seek to steer between giving information which might help the enemy to defeat and destroy our own troops and withholding information with the risk of creating an impression that terrible things may be happening of which the public has no knowledge.

In the second place, a Ministry of Information is necessarily a Department which cannot begin its real work in any real sense until the outbreak of war and then, at a moment's notice, it has to spring into the fullest activity. It is scarcely to be expected that in the face of such formidable difficulties as these errors will not be made and some of them will be serious enough to cause trouble and exasperation to the whole Press. I greatly regret such incidents and I should like now to express my appreciation of the patriotic way in which the Press generally in this country has co-operated with the Government and sought to play its part in the common struggle.

I have already declared to the House the desire and intention of the Government to give the fullest possible information to the public and to do all that we can to prevent any feeling in the minds of the public that they are being kept in the dark. That is the principle to which, through the Ministry of Information, we shall seek to give effect. Improvements in the machinery can, I have no doubt, be made, and the Debate to-day may help us to discover what some of these improvements should be. But I feel that in these early days I am entitled to ask the House and the country for patience and toleration while we are endeavouring to correct what has gone wrong and to build up a satisfactory and efficient service.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood

I should like, if I may, on behalf of Members on all sides of the House, to thank the Prime Minister for the statement that he has made, and more particularly for the statement he made with regard to our determination to fulfil our undertakings to Poland and to seek no peace until the final end of the Nazi domination. That, the Prime Minister has expressed in the most emphatic terms this afternoon, and it will, I think, allay some of the suspicions and rumours which have in recent days been floating round the world.

The right hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech, referring to the Ministry of Information, asked for patience and tolerance. I think I can say that in recent weeks I have exercised both patience and tolerance, but there are occasions when one must be a little firm, not at all to weaken the hands of a trembling Government, but to strengthen them, and I propose this afternoon to be a candid friend. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated rather more specifically the assurances that he gave last week, that it is the desire of the Government to publish, as early and as fully as possible, all the information which can properly be made available to the public here and abroad. I look back upon last week. I take the exploit in the Keil Canal where the announcement, after infinite delay, gave no meaning whatever to the people of this country of the glory of this exploit. A few days ago the Prime Minister did make a reference to it in terms, which, I think, we all appreciate. A day later the Ministry of Information allowed to leak out more about this incident. This apparently isolated incident is the one real incident which has proved the possible value and the determination of the Air Force of this country, and it is due to the Air Force as well as to the public that that magnificent exploit, undertaken under conditions of the most dangerous kind, should have been made public at the very earliest opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has admitted that they have made mistakes. Last week, nearly a week ago—I would not say quite a white sheet but a little soiled—he said, "We hope to do better in the future."

But I must remind the House of the events of this week, because we are arriving now at a completely intolerable situation. I am well documented this afternoon. I have here the whole story of the events of Monday night and the early hours of Tuesday morning with regard to the news issued in France about the presence of British troops on French soil. The treatment of that story created, among large numbers of people in the publishing trade of this country, consternation, dismay, confusion, and an enormous amount of expenditure which was really unwarranted. I happen to possess here an actual copy of the front page of one paper which was available before midnight on Monday night. I shall go into details in this case, because I want to show how bad the machine is at this present time. The "Daily Express," in its last edition in the morning, explaining why people may not have received their edition of that paper—which is not, let me say, one of my normal means of entertainment at breakfast time—issued this explanation: At 1.45 this morning police made a round of Fleet Street newspaper offices, wholesale newsagents, demanding the withdrawal of all newspapers containing news of the arrival of British troops in France. This news had been authorised for publication by the Ministry of Information at 8.52 last night to the ' Daily Express.' At 11.15 the Press Association and Reuters Agency also announced that they were authorised by the Ministry to publish similar information. Twice during the day Paris radio broadcast the news of the presence of the British troops in France. At 11.38 p.m. newspaper offices were thrown into confusion by a Ministry of Information announcement withdrawing their authorisation to print the news. By this time hundreds of thousands of copies of the ' Daily Express ' and other newspapers had been printed and despatched for distribution to all parts of the country. Representations were immediately made to the Ministry of Information without avail. Then at 1.45 an inspector of police called at the ' Daily Express ' offices. He informed us that his orders were to seize all copies of newspapers containing mention of the British troops in France. The inspector was asked under what powers he purported to act. He replied that he had no information other than the instructions he had received from Scotland Yard. Meanwhile, the circulation manager of the 'Daily Express' was receiving reports that police were seizing newspapers at railway-termini. Other reports showed that trains were being stopped at intermediate stages and "their parcels unloaded. Newspaper vans were held up in the streets of London. After the police inspector's visit the 'Daily Express' prepared a special edition omitting all reference to the British troops in France. This edition had been printing for 20 minutes, when a further bulletin was issued by the Ministry of Information. It was timed at 2.55 a.m. and once more released the news. That is what occurred to a paper produced in London. The same was true in the Provinces. Individuals going home late at night by car were stopped by the police and asked if they had a newspaper. If they had and they had read the news, and no doubt that particular news was contained in that newspaper, it was forthwith confiscated. I am not blaming the Ministry of Information, but I am blaming the lack of central direction and definite control. I am not surprised that newspapers yesterday had leading articles in which the word "muddle" was used. This is a muddle of the worst possible kind, and we are entitled to know who was responsible. This is not intelligent censorship. Monday night's proceedings were an extraordinary example of crass stupidity and vacillation, which I hope will not be repeated during the course of the war. Such a mistake cannot again be forgiven. What has happened is that somebody or some people have made fools of the British Press and the B.B.C. and have treated the people of this country as though they were children. This conduct is also serving to bring us into ridicule abroad. On this side of the House it has been said on many occasions that nobody is more anxious than we are about the effective prosecution of the war, but mess and muddle of this kind will not do.

I come now to what occurred last week. The tone of the House or the tone of the purlieus of the Chamber last Wednesday was much like that of the previous Saturday, though not on the same scale. I listened to stories about the supposed air raid on the East Coast from people who knew somebody who had told them that they knew for certain that German bombs had fallen over Chelmsford, Colchester, Ipswich and Bristol. As I listened to these stories I came to the conclusion that half Britain had been bombed by the Germans, and yet no German bomb has dropped in this country up to this very moment. This creates a serious situation. Countless half-truths breed rumours, and rumours breed unnecessary unhappiness and raise quite groundless fears. To-day, members of families are separated from one another on a scale hitherto unknown. There are people in this House and on the staff of this House who have relatives where this great exploit of last Wednesday was said to have taken place. Imagine their feelings. Imagine the feelings of people who hear that there has been a raid at XYZ. Imagine the fears of people now who are unable to distinguish one kind of aeroplane from another and who whenever they see an aeroplane perhaps say to themselves: "That must be a German aeroplane." This sort of thing is creating a situation which is undermining, and will continue to undermine, the confidence of the people in the Government. It is not for me, sitting on this side of the House, to do much to prop up the Government, although I am prepared to do all I can to prop up the cause, but I warn the Government that if this sort of thing is not stopped the Government will be playing with the most tricky thing in the country, the psychology of the people. Therefore, I hope that this sort of situation will not occur again.

The Prime Minister has given us an undertaking about his desire, and I do not question his sincerity in the matter, to see that the fullest news should be given. But we have had one folly followed by another. We have had the Ministry of Information censoring news issued by its own Department. We have had news released, then an order countermanding the release, and, finally, the news has been released again. I am even told that a Royal Proclamation published to the world from the steps of the Royal Exchange was banned by the censor. This, in a way perhaps, may be a mild example of stupidity, but I want to know by what authority a censor should blackout a statement made on behalf of His Majesty. This black-out is going further. The official news from Paris is blacked-out in this country by the censor, and the world knows what we do not know. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. I am not blaming the Ministry of Information. The right hon. Gentleman's new Department, created on paper before the war and beginning to operate after the opening of hostilities, must have time to find its feet, but that is not the real difficulty.

The real difficulty, as I see it, is that the Fighting Services appear to be a law unto themselves in this matter. I have a document here—I am not going to read it although I am not afraid of the Official Secrets Act—which shows that the absurdities of Monday night were really due to one person, the Secretary of State for War. I say that he has no right to override the Ministry of Information. Therefore, we come to what is really the root of the trouble. I am as anxious to get over the trouble as anyone. I am not making mischief for mischief's sake. The truth is that there is no really effective co-ordination between the Fighting Services and the Ministry of Information. That co-ordination we ought to have in the national interest with the utmost expedition. It comes to this, that the final responsibility must rest in the hands of one Minister, and he must not be a Minister responsible for one of the Fighting Services; he must be the Minister of Information, who, as I conceive it, acting daily, should be in daily contact with the heads of the Fighting Services and work in conjunction with a reputable, responsible and experienced journalist of the first quality. Out of that kind of common discussion there should be a decision which once taken should be irrevocable; and then we should not have this delay and vacillation. I imagine that unless something is done along these lines these incidents, for which the Government as a Government must take the responsibility, but which collectively they know nothing about, will tend to continue.

But there is even a more serious side to this problem than the home problem, and that is the problem of the foreign and Dominion Press. The world is agog for news. If they cannot get it from this country they will get it elsewhere; and if they cannot get news they will take rumours and propaganda. I have received representations from many responsible quarters, from the Press of neutral countries, and the Press of the Dominions and the United States. All these people are complaining that what messages they are receiving they are getting far too late to be of any use in their newspapers. Numbers of people in this country who are quite friendly to us, like representatives of the Scandinavian papers, are ceasing to cable their newspapers because their messages are invariably too late to be used and they really cannot afford to waste the money. A number of special correspondents well known in the newspaper world are seriously considering now moving from London to some neutral capital because of the difficulties they meet with here. Another difficulty is the regulation which insists that in their despatches they shall use English and French alone. For many neutral correspondents that means enormous delay. When the message is received it means further delay in re-translation, and in that double process of translation and re-translation the possibility of making mistakes is increased. I should have thought it would have been possible to have had censors who understand the language of these countries which are most nearly involved in this struggle.

The result of all this is important. The newspapers of neutral countries, some of them friendly to us, are relying now on German sources of information because they can get what is called news in plenty of time and in plenty of quantity. That means that during the last week in these early stages of the war, when it was desirable that we should mobilise on our side the moral influence of all the neutral countries of the world, the streams of world information are being polluted by German propaganda. Through the absence of vigorous action here and courage on our part, Hitler propaganda, in the guise of news, is now poisoning world opinion against us, and giving to neutral countries an entirely false view of the actual situation both here and abroad. German propaganda depends on lies. They live by lying to their own people. They are lying now to the world. It is the definite and deliberate policy of Herr Hitler to lie, and when he lies he never tells a little one. It is all part of his strategy—if you tell a lie, tell a big one. That policy we are now allowing him to implement. They have no regard for truth. Everyone knows that our case is simple, straightforward and unanswerable, and in the ebb and flow of the struggle it ought to be told fully to the world. I say that we should tell the truth, whatever it may be, because it is one way of fortifying the temper and the spirit of our people. It will do them no harm to hear the worst, should the worst befall, and it will encourage them to hear achievements when they come.

I realise the difficulties of this problem of the censorship and the spread of information, and in what I have said about a complete disclosure of the truth, I put two qualifications. I admit that it is right and proper, and indeed the duty of the Government, to check information about war incidents before the facts are put before the public. That, I say, should be done in the interest of truth so that the people will not be misled. I think we shall all agree with the statement that nothing should be published which could be of use and advantage to the enemy. Subject to these considerations there can be no reason, I think, against the immediate publication of the events of the war. That should be done by the Press and the B.B.C. from hour to hour and from day to day. Beyond that, I think the Prime Minister should regularly and frequently, as I understand he is prepared to do come to the House, not with a recital of individual incidents but, as he has done to-day, to give us a broad, co-ordinated survey of the developments of our activities and operations in all the various fields of national activity concerned with the prosecution of the war.

Now I should like to refer to an important problem arising out of this situation. If I have spoken strongly, I think it will not do those concerned any harm. I come to a further point which is to me of very vital importance, that is the relations between Members of the Government, especially Members of the War Cabinet, on the one hand, and the rest of us, both on the Government Benches and on these, who are not directly sharing responsibilities. We are now engaged in developing a war-time technique for Parliament and endeavouring to maintain it as a living institution playing its proper part in this great struggle. I think it is important that we should be clear where we stand. Whilst the Labour party maintains its complete independence, and will continue to do so, and will preserve its integrity—I am not drawing party distinctions to-day; the distinction that I am drawing is one of functions. I am drawing a distinction between those who are bearing the burden of responsibility in office and those who are not. Those who are carrying the responsibilities of office, in the nature of things, cannot be as fully in touch with public opinion as those of us who are not carrying those responsibilities, and those of us who are out of office, wherever we sit, not in any unfriendly spirit, come here as the spearhead of the British people. It is our responsibility. Without carrying this load of administrative work it is our business honestly, sincerely and fearlessly to represent to the Government, preoccupied with major tasks, what we believe to be the spirit and the attitude of the British people.

In this Mother of Parliaments we are looking to you, Sir, to preside over us at frequent and regular intervals so that this institution of free expression and discussion shall maintain a vigorous life and represent the authentic voice of our people. I think this is something which may govern our procedure in the future. I conceive the functions of the House to be twofold, first to hear statements by the Prime Minister and the Government and, if necessary, to debate them and question them, and by that means to keep in touch with the ever changing situation, listening with sympathy and with understanding, trying to bring to bear upon the statements, the legislation and the proposals made by the Government what we honestly conceive to be the views of the British public on whom this Parliament depends. Secondly, it falls on us who are close to the heart of the people, closer than those who are submerged by all the problems which are confronting them—I am not saying anything derogatory of Members of the War Cabinet; I am speaking of the nature of the situation—to take the initiative, as responsible public representatives, in raising discussions, to en lighten the Government, to bring home to them the questions that are troubling the minds of the people and to do our best to avoid the Government falling into difficulties. Within the last week, goodness knows, it has fallen into enough with the Ministry of Information, and I think we would with one accord do all we could to rescue them from having to come to the House to apologise for mistakes. I believe that in this way Parliament —a hated symbol to Hitler—will grow in power during this war and will not become an atrophied organ of an effete body. That, I think, is to our advantage, because it will mean that, without sacrificing principle or parry loyalty, each of us in honesty will bring to bear what we can to the national cause and the cause of liberty.

I wish to refer to one other question, reference to which was made by the Prime Minister, this issue of our industrial productivity. The Minister of Supply gave us warning only a few days ago that we have to contemplate—I hope he has realised the scale—a colossal increase in output of all kinds, and we are faced now with that problem. On the Second Reading of the Military Service Bill, which we supported, I set out what we thought were the necessary corollaries of the passage of that Bill, and now we are being faced with all that is involved in this enormously increased output. I have a feeling that this task is not being faced with vigour and that, unless we act swiftly and courageously, and perhaps in new ways, based on the experience of the last Great War, the Government may find itself faced with a crisis like the shell crisis of the last War, and it would be a crime if we did not now take every step to avoid terrible loss of life because there are fighting men who have nothing with which to fight. In the circumstances of modern warfare the requirements of munitions of war of all kinds will out-run many times the standards of use, destruction and replacement of the last Great War. I suggested, I think with the approval of Members on all sides of the House, that we can have no profiteering in this war. We can have no war fortunes made. At this moment plunder is going on on a large scale. In lots of small shops there are acts of petty pilfering but, big and small, the people of the country are being exploited individually, and the nation is being exploited as a whole. One of the key industries of the country, which anyone who knows anything about war conditions will appreciate, is the machine tool industry. That industry to-day is making profits which are a national crime. Steps should be taken immediately—because other issues are involved in this—to end any possibility of this kind of crime.

On this matter, I have spoken with leaders of industry, who do not hold my political faith, who are not what would be called Socialists—indeed, even in wartime, I think they would feel it a dreadful thing to be called Socialists—and I find on all hands, and based on the experience of the last war, that the needs of the time now demand full and complete control of all the key industries of this country. Only to-day I saw a letter which shocked me. It stated that 5,000 skilled men, called up a few weeks ago in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, have been kicking their heels all that time. Those men's services are needed in skilled production of aircraft and munitions. That is not using the national resources properly. We want to see our labour resources wisely and properly used, but we want also to see the capital resources of this country wisely and properly used; and, therefore, we must have this concentration. I do not say there should be the bureaucracy in Whitehall, for that is not the way we produced munitions when we got wise in the last War. There was decentralisation. But there must be a centralised policy, even if it be locally administered. That is fundamental now.

It is all right for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that he is getting letters from people and building up lists of people. There ought to have been a year ago a census of the machinery and plant in every factory of this country. That was how it was built up in the last War. You may look to your big firms, but they cannot handle the problem, and you will have to look to the smaller firms. They have all to be mobilised and brought into the picture, each producing according to its particular plant, skill, machinery, and so forth. These great changes which the Government will have to face—and make no mistake about it, they had better be faced sooner rather than later, for otherwise we shall lose valuable time—will have very far reaching repercussions on the workers of this country. I warn the Minister of Supply and I warn the Government that, before they start on a general policy of expansion of output on a big scale, which may involve the hours, conditions, status and future lives of the workers of this country, they had better enter into discussions with the trade unions and the employers' organisations before they lift a finger. I say that with some experience of what happened during the last War, and I say it because I wish now to stake out a claim. We believe that in all the big problems—and there are many—which will have to be solved in the immediate future, labour must be in on the ground floor; organised industrial labour must be in at the beginning, not merely because the question of labour supplies is involved, but because organised labour has a contribution to make to the wider aspects of the question, an experience which in war-time, and indeed in peacetime, ought not to be ignored. Let me say—and I think I can say this with some authority—that the trade union movement of this country is in no mood to be regarded as a poor relation of industry. It claims equality in the direction of policy, as well as in its administration, with the employers and with the State Departments concerned. I say that not as criticism but as what I hope will be regarded by the Government as good advice.

Finally, it is our duty at the earliest possible stage to point to defects. We are always glad to get honest admissions. In the piping days of peace, no Government ever makes a mistake, but in times of war the strain of honesty does appear. It is for all of us to point to defects and mistakes so that they may be remedied— not exploited for mischief-making ends, but remedied. It is equally our duty to urge speedy action on the Government if we feel that they are flagging. That is why, this afternoon, I have raised two questions both of which are fundamental issues. First, I have spoken of the question of censorship and the Ministry of Information, which is a question of the maintenance of the moral and spirit of confidence in the people. That is vital. I hope that, whenever we feel that is being threatened or in the least undermined, we shallcome to the House and tell the Government. Secondly, I have spoken of what is going to be one of the most gigantic problems the country has ever faced—and I have all sympathy with the Ministry of Supply—the problem of the organisation of our industrial resources for the effective prosecution of the war. I have spoken at some length because I feel it is important to bring these matters before the House, and I hope that we shall always do this, in regard to the problems which are uppermost in our minds, as our contribution to the common weal.

4.57 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair

I should like to join in the tribute of thanks which the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition paid to the Prime Minister for his statement this afternoon. That statement was rendered notable by the Prime Minister's account of the first meeting of the Supreme War Council. It was gratifying to all of us to know that all the major aspects of the conduct of the war were discussed, that complete identity of views prevailed, and that there will be harmony in action. There was one point which we were particularly glad to hear, and that was the clear statement that both Governments are determined fully to honour their obligations to Poland. I should like to put to the Lord Privy Seal, who is to reply, a point which occurred to me when I saw the communiqué making the announcement, and which I find has also occurred to a number of my friends, and that is, why the Polish Government were not represented on the Supreme War Council, and whether they will be so represented in future. At any rate, it was clear that the Supreme War Council determined to honour the obligations of the two countries towards Poland, and that they fully realised the relentless pressure on the Polish armies which those armies are so gallantly withstanding. There. are many other issues raised in the statement of the Prime Minister on which it would be tempting to comment, but on which it is impossible to form a full judgment without being in possession of data which, of course, it is impossible for the Prime Minister to give to the House.

That reflection brings me to comment on what the right hon. Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood) said in his very interesting observations on the functions of Parliament. I agree with him that the main functions of Parliament must be to hear and debate statements of the Prime Minister and legislation which His Majesty's Government bring before the House, and also to raise discussions and to enlighten the Government upon the feelings of our constituents. At the same time, the minds of our constituents are very easily stirred by considerations which are not easily made the subject of public debate, by those wider questions of policy which it is very difficult, if not impossible, for us to discuss in public. I think we shall have to consider whether there may not have to be a repetitionéalthough I know full well what were the disadvantages of that system in the last Waréof those secret sessions which thén took place and at which these wider questions could be discussed.

The first point with which I wish to deal, arises not out of the statement which the Prime Minister made to-day, but out of that which he made a week ago. I then raised this point in a question to the Prime Minister. I felt that it was of importance, and many correspondents who have communicated with me since have emphasised its importance, from the wealth of experience which a number of them possess. That is the question of the free enlistment of ex-service men, so as to relieve Territorials and young soldiers who are now doing guard duty on railways and canals and work of that kind, and even garrison duty abroad. It is a question of relieving them and their staff officers and commanders for training in the field. A number of young officers are acting as assistant provost marshals and in positions of that kind, and I cannot help thinking that they would be better employed in learning their jobs.

The importance of this matter will arise, I think, in this way. As the war goes on there is bound to be pressure from our Allies as there was in the last Waréthis is history which is bound to repeat itselféfor reinforcements, before our men and officers are fully trained. We must not resent that pressure. It will be very natural, but we must resist it if it goes to the point of asking for untrained troops. But we shall only be able to resist it without damage to the fabric of the Alliance, if we can convince our Allies that everything is being done which a vigorous administration can do, to release fit men for training and to expedite that training as much as possible.

I wish to refer now to one or two points in the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, particularly those affecting life on the home front, as it might be called, during the war. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the lighting restrictions. I think it vital that they should be preserved intact. In that matter military considerations must prevail over considerations of the con- venience of the public, though I was grateful to hear that the military authorities had come to the conclusion that we might be allowed to carry torches, which is a very agreeable concession. There is one point to which the Prime Minister did not refer. I do not wish to stress it, but I would like to refer to the inconvenience felt by the public as a result of the heavily restricted train services. It is natural that those restrictions should take place this week. We all know that great movements are taking place this week and I do not think we ought to grumble. I do not want to criticise His Majesty's Government, or the railway companies on that score. But people are feeling the inconvenience and I would like the Government to consider whether they could not discuss with the railway companies an improvement in the services in the near future, even if a certain number of men have to be released from other employments in order to return to employment on the railways.

Next I would like to say something about entertainments, first of all, in the evacuated areas. Surely we could have a little more entertainment, at any rate in the mornings and even in the evening though not perhaps to the full limit of capacity of cinemas and theatres at night. For example, I see that in Paris cinemas and theatres are allowed to open until half-past ten o'clock but are not allowed to be filled. They are allowed to fill only a certain proportion of their seating capacity. Might not that be considered as a temporary solution here, or at any rate as an experiment which might be tried in order to increase entertainment facilities for the masses of the people? Then, there is the entertainment of the troops. I wish to congratulate the Government on the excellent appointment of Sir Seymour Hicks to take charge of this important activity. The camps with which I am most in touch are those in the far North of Scotland, where there are important naval bases, with large numbers of sailors and large numbers of workmen employed on public works of various kinds. At the moment there are no entertainment facilities for those men. I am sure the Lord Privy Seal realises that if that state of things goes on, from week to week and from month to month, the moral of the men must suffer and the lower and coarser kinds of entertainment will be resorted to. I, therefore, press that urgent consideration should be given to the entertainment of the troops, especially in those parts of the country where the problem is really pressing. I hope it may be possible to authorise Sir Seymour Hicks to arrange for a special train or two conveying concert parties and entertainment parties to go up to the North of Scotland to entertain those troops and workmen.

The Prime Minister referred to the organisation of the Civil Defence services as being now practically complete. He mentioned that he had heard the criticism that a mass of man-power was being unnecessarily mobilised. I am glad to hear that that aspect of the problem is receiving the attention of the Government. I would make one special point in connection with it. A number of A.R.P. workers at present have little to do. They are not even receiving training. Some of those who are not fully trained for the work which they have undertaken are sitting at casualty clearing stations and places like that with nothing to do. They have not even facilities for completing the training which they ought to have, and I hope that this matter will be considered.

One final point in relation to the home front. That is the question of the evacuated children. I join with the Prime Minister in paying a tribute to the energy of the local authorities and the good will of householders in the areas to which children have been evacuated. Rut local authorities are faced with a very heavy task. It is not only the education of the children, important though it is, which has to be provided for, but also their recreation—for which inadequate facilities exist—and their health, the maintenance of which is a tremendous task to throw upon these local authorities at the present time. I hope that aspect of the problem will receive the urgent attention of the Government.

I was glad to hear what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on the importance of the thorough organisation of supply and the avoidance of profiteering. He said that the Minister of Supply ought to have had a census a year ago of industrial establishments, but unfortunately the Minister did not exist a year ago. That, may I say in passing, was not the fault of my hon. Friends and myself who, three years ago, moved an Amendment to the Address which would have had the effect, then, of calling the Ministry of Supply into existence. We agree most strongly with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be complete control of the armament industry in time of war and that vigorous measures must be taken to stop profiteering.

Now I come to the question of the Ministry of Information. Like the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, I want to make no personal criticism of the Minister, who has been indeed appointed only a very few days ago, and criticism of him would be, on the face of it, ridiculous, although it is a good constitutional principle to hold Ministers on that bench responsible for everything that their Departments do, and in time, of course, we shall not exempt the Minister of Information from that criticism. Meanwhile, we wish him well, but there has been, during the week or two that this Ministry has been operating, a shocking muddle, which came to a head the night before last in circumstances which the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition has already described.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones

If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my interrupting, I am not clear in my mind as to which Minister he is referring to. Is he actually referring to the Minister of Information, who is a Noble Lord in another House, or to the Lord Privy Seal, who is responsible?

Sir A. Sinclair

I have just said that I was referring to the Minister of Information, who was appointed two or three days ago, who is a Noble Lord in another House, and who is the Minister responsible for this Department. The Lord Privy Seal is not, as I understand it, responsible for the Department —

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Samuel Hoare)

indicated assent.

Sir A. Sinclair

I am glad that the Lord Privy Seal agrees with me—but merely represents it in this House. I do not know what was the hon. Member's object in interrupting me, but I was not criticising the Noble Lord, and I want to deal with the actions of the Ministry. I part company a little with the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, however, at the point at which he said that the final responsibility for what had occurred did not rest on the Minister of Information. I must say that I think it does, though I am not going to press the point at this moment, because he is so recently in the saddle, but I think it does rest on the Minister of Information, and, from such information as I have been able to obtain, I do not think we can acquit the Ministry of Information of responsibility for the muddles that have taken place.

I go further, and I say that I do not think that its organisation—and on this point I am going to offer some reflections to the House—is well adapted for the successful performance of its functions. At the top of the Ministry is the Minister, with a director-general under him, and then under them are 13 sub-directors of various departments, all of whom form an executive committee, all of them reporting to the Minister through what is called a co-ordinating director, who appears to be a bottle-neck through which the whole business of the Ministry must pass. He is assisted by, a policy director, who is a Treasury official, not a journalist or a man with experience of this kind of work, let us say, on the British Council or the Foreign Office publicity department. These two gentlemen, the coordinating director and the policy director, under the director-general of the Ministry, supervise the work of these 13 sub-directors, all apparently with equal status, whether their departments are policy or purely functional departments. So far as I can ascertain—and I speak subject to the correction of the Lord Privy Seal—there seems to be no distinction between those departments which are policy departments, which deal with policy in the different areas of the world—in the Dominions, the United States of America, in other foreign countries, and so forth—and those which deal with purely functional matters, like films and broadcasting, which have been at the start coequal with, instead of being at the service of, the policy committees of the Ministry.

Moreover, there is this extraordinary feature of this organisation, that it has been built up without, as far as I can ascertain—though here again I speak subject to correction by the Lord Privy Seal—the active co-operation of those two organisations in this country which alone have had some experience of at least large parts of the field over which this Ministry has to operate. I refer, of course, to the British Council and to the Foreign Office publicity department. I should have thought that those two bodies would have been the foundation stones of the new organisation, but they are hardly represented, and the Foreign Office seems to be almost entirely elbowed out.

Let us consider the Ministry's functions. The Prime Minister described its functions as being to steer between giving and withholding news, but that does not seem to be an adequate statement of the functions of the Ministry at all. It seems to me that it has two important functions. One is negative, and that is the suppression of news which is of importance to the enemy; but the other function is a positive function. It should be a Ministry of Enlightenment, both for the public at home and for the world at large. That is its most important function, and that is the function which it has so far most conspicuously failed to perform. Two aspects of this failure are important to notice. In the first place, foreign countries are getting inadequate and belated news and comment from this country. The Germans are outstripping us in neutral countries with news, and we are limping after them. I forget if it was in a Debate or at Question Time, but I think it was the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) who said that one of the important jobs of this Ministry was to win the battle for the headlines in the neutral Press.

Colonel Arthur Evans

That was said by one of the right hon. Gentleman's own party.

Sir A. Sinclair

Oh yes, of course; it was my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland). Far from winning the battle for the headlines, we are not even in that fight, and we are rapidly being ousted from the front pages of the newspapers in neutral countries. Surely we must not only be quick with the news, but we must be scrupulous to show every possible courtesy and to give every possible help to the foreign journalists in this country. The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition referred to some of the many petty restrictions to which they are now subject. As a matter of fact, he said they could only send their messages in English or French, but, unless I am mis- taken, my information is that that restriction has now been loosened and that other languages are allowed.

Mr. Macquisten

You cannot even send a Latin quotation.

Sir A. Sinclair

I am not sure whether Latin is included in the new list of languages, but I understand that the list of permitted languages has now been widened, and I hope the Lord Privy Seal will confirm that.

Sir S. Hoare

indicated assent.

Sir A. Sinclair

There is a number of other petty restrictions, and I know that some of these foreign journalists feel that it is not fully realised that not only are they anxious to get the help of His Majesty's Government in sending news to their countries, but that they themselves are anxious to help His Majesty's Government by getting interesting news to their countries and by getting the British point of view put before their countries. The successful performance of their responsible duties is no more in their interest and in the interests of their countries than it is in the interests of our own.

In the second place, the people of our own country are getting inadequate and belated news. A public accustomed to the skilled work of highly trained journalists is quickly becoming disgusted with the drabness and dreariness of the Ministry's bulletins. From the very outset of this struggle the whole of our people have been in this war as never before, and they will not be content to be fobbed off with the stale crumbs of out of date news. Give them the truth, good or bad, and suppress it for one reason and one reason only, that the news would if printed be of value to the enemy. That principle cannot possibly justify the suppression of news that has already been broadcast from other countries all over the world and which has appeared in newspapers in other countries. To attempt to stop the publication of news like that in our newspapers is quite useless from the military point of view and makes our newspapers unnecessarily dreary and drab and puts suspicions into people's minds. They begin to feel, if they hear news on the broadcasts from foreign countries and see it perhaps in foreign newspapers sent to them, that things are being kept from them and that they cannot rely on the newspapers of this country. That is very dangerous to our people in time of war.

Why, for example, cannot they be told more about the work of our Air Force? Following the suggestion of the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition that we should tell the Government what our people are talking about, I should say that the people are getting very perturbed about our apparent inability to do more to help our Polish Allies in their hour of trial. We hear in bulletins and in reports from journalists on the frontiers of Poland about the tremendous concentration of air power against the Polish army. In his moving broadcast the other evening the Polish Ambassador spoke about the Polish Army meeting the onslaught of the entire German Air Force. On the other hand, we read General Goering's speech the other day when he said, "Let the British go on dropping their leaflets as long as they like, but if they dare to drop one bomb on German soil we will make them suffer for it." It looks to the people in the absence of news as though our great Air Force, of which we have for so long been rightly proud, of which we have been boasting, is doing practically nothing at the present time. The Lord Privy Seal shakes his head, but I am not saying that this is true; I am saying what is the impression which is being made on the people's minds.

It is true that there was yesterday the bare statement that the Royal Air Force was co-operating with the French Air Force. Why cannot that statement be elaborated? Why cannot we know exactly what they are doing? Why cannot some public relations officer at the Air Ministry tell the Ministry of Information what they are doing and give journalists the opportunity of writing it up in good plain English and of telling the story of it to-the British people? Let me refer to one example, the spendid exploit of the Royal Air Force the other day in the attack on-ships in the Keil Canal. I have had an opportunity of hearing something about it. It was a stirring story. It was not only the weather, about which we read in the bulletins, against which they had to contend, but they had to contend against a tremendous concentration of defensive equipment of every sort. It was a story of magnificent courage and suc- cessful achievement. A skilled journalist should have been given the opportunity of meeting a public relations officer at the Air Ministry, or of meeting, perhaps, one of the officers who had taken part in the exploit and who could have told the story in his words. Then the journalist could have told it in plain, vibrant English prose which would have been a tonic to our own people and to our allies and the neutrals. The story would have had to be submitted to the censorship, but it could have been told in plain strong phrases of ringing encouragement to the public. I would suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that some of these skilled journalists should be sent to France to tell us what our airmen are doing there.

I believe that the British people are solidly behind us in Parliament in our determination to smash Hitlerism, but we must not take them for granted. They will not be satisfied with official assurances and uninformative bulletins. They know that we can only win this war if our methods are vigorous, unconventional, and even robustly vulgar, for war is a vulgar occupation and it cannot be won in kid gloves. I beg the Government to give us the assurance that they will give the Press every possible opportunity of filling up the gap of ignorance which is growing between the public and the Government, and will insist that the Ministry of Information is not only a Ministry of suppression, but primarily a Ministry of national and world enlightenment.

5.33 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare

More than once in the course of our Debates I have wondered whether it would have been possible in any other capital of the world to have had the kind of discussion we have had to-day. We have freely discussed together mistakes, inadequacies, and, it may be, inefficiencies. I am the last man in the House to resent any such discussion, but I say this, lest anyone outside the House in foreign countries should misunderstand this country, that it is evidence of the strength of our great machine that we are prepared to run any risk there might be in freely discussing any deficiencies that may show themselves; and the fact that this afternoon, at an early stage of the war, we have freely pointed to this or that deficiency, is a sign not of weakness but of strength.

I am glad in these early days of the war to have a discussion about the Ministry of Information. The change over from peace to war is a very difficult moment. Particularly is it a difficult moment in a democratic country. We pass straightway from freedom of discussion and liberty of the Press into a chapter in which restrictions are obviously necessary. In the course of three or four days we have made this abrupt transition. We might have set up the Ministry of Information before the war. Very definitely I told the House of Commons why, for reasons which we thought were unanswerable, we had no such intention. We thought its activities would be misunderstood and misrepresented in peacetime. Accordingly, it is only in the last seven or eight days that this great organisation has come into being. I am here to say that there must inevitably be a period of difficulty before we get the machine running smoothly on the new road. I am here not to say that there has not been friction, that mistakes have not been made, or that we are yet on a well-metalled road, but, rather, to assure the House that those in charge of this machine are working night and day at removing obstacles and are making—as I believe I shall show in the course of my speech—real progress in the direction we are all determined to take.

Let me say at this point that I accept without reservation the description that both right hon. Gentlemen have just given of what they conceive to be the duties of the Ministry of Information, duties not only for the suppression of dangerous news but duties, equally important, for the enlightenment of the public here and the enlightenment of other countries beyond the seas. Let the House remember this fact during this discussion, that in the war of 1914–18 it took years of trial, error and experiment before we set up a Ministry of Information at all. In this war we have jumped the intermediate stages, and inevitably this sudden acceleration makes that change from peace to war conditions more conspicuous and more disturbing. Ten days ago we had a skeleton with little or no body. Apart from a few civil servants and professional advisers, we had made no definite apppointments to the Ministry. The body has had to be put on to the skeleton in the course of comparatively few days.

The right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) made various criticisms of the organisation of the Department. I say at once that we do not regard ourselves as infallible in the matter of this new organisation. I think, however, he was under some misunderstanding as to the scope of it. For instance, policy will be the concern of the Minister and the Director-General, and not of subordinate people. So far as professional advisers are concerned, I take, as an instance, the relations between the Department and the Press. There are already in the Ministry a very large number of men whose profession is the profession of the Press, and I can tell the House that the Minister is in the act of increasing the number. But at this point I do not go further into detail, except to say that we will take into account the right hon. Gentleman's criticism. The position must, in the nature of things in these early days, be somewhat fluid, but I believe myself, having taken some interest in the initial work of creating the skeleton of the Department, that we have held the right kind of balance between policy on the one hand and the functional work of the Department on the other, that is to say, the Department's dealings with the principal mediums of publicity, the Press, the films and the wireless. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, even though he may still think, and think with reason, that there are many improvements that might be made, will give this new and untried Department credit for having started its operations at once, credit perhaps for having been ready—I give the House a single instance—with the organisation of the dropping of leaflets upon enemy countries. I give that as one of many instances which I think show that, apart from deficiencies that may still exist, the Department has come into being and in the course of a very few days has shown its activities usefully in more directions than one.

The Department was faced with what, after all, is one of the most difficult problems of war, on the one hand the need of secrecy, that is to say, the withholding from the enemy of any information that might be of use to him, and on the other hand the need of publicity, that is to say, the need for invigorating the moral of the nation and giving our people as much information as it is possible to give them. The Service Departments—I do not blame them for their attitude— must inevitably insist upon the first of these two duties, the need for secrecy. The Ministry of Information, on the other hand, has to insist upon the second of these two duties, the need for publicity, and one of the immediate problems of the new Department is to make a reconciliation between those two points of view.

Miss Wilkinson

It is a pity they cannot make up their mind.

Sir S. Hoare

If the hon. Lady will allow me to make my explanation she will see whether or not her criticisms are justified. It may be they are, and if they are we must take them to heart; but I prefer to give the House a statement, with as few reservations as possible, of the position as I see it to-day, and I say to hon. Members that this is the immediate duty of the Department: To reconcile these two needs, the need for secrecy on the one hand and publicity on the other. In the last week this liaison has been tested, and I admit to the House it has on more than one occasion felt a heavy strain. This, I think, was inevitable. There was a heavy strain on Monday night. There was a misunderstanding—I do not disguise these facts from the House—that led to a great deal of regrettable confusion which I hope will never recur. I do not wish to be drawn into details of these events. I am inclined to think the House is more interested to see that they do not happen again rather than know what actually happened at this or that hour upon one evening. Let me in a sentence or two—and it will not be more—give the House a short description of the kind of difficulty with which we were then faced.

As a result of the publication in France the War Office authorised at 9 p.m. on Monday the general release of messages emanating from France relating to the presence of British troops in France. Later in the evening the Ministry of Information felt it their duty to draw the attention of the War Office to the danger lest, under the voluntary censorship which still exists, details might be published over and above this general information which might be of value to the enemy. The General Staff took the view that the risk was a great one and that there should be no publication at all. I am not now criticising anyone. It is the duty of the General Staff to see that nothing is published that can be of value to the enemy. The General Staff took a very strong view upon this question. The result was that steps were immediately taken by the Ministry to withdraw the permission in the middle of the night, but by that time certain editions of the papers had already been published. Confusion inevitably resulted. It was quite obvious as the night wore on that when certain editions of those papers had already been published it was impossible to withdraw the release of the news which had been given earlier in the day. Accordingly the prohibition was cancelled and the news did eventually appear.

I admit and apologise for the confusion, and my Noble Friend the Minister of Information has made it his business since Monday to see how best the situation can be remedied so that nothing of that kind ever occurs again. I can tell the House that the Minister has now arranged with the heads of the Service Departments that a senior officer, not a junior, of each Service Department, should be whole-time in the Ministry of Information for the purpose of advising the Minister and keeping the closest possible contact between those Service Departments and the Ministry of Information. Hitherto contact has been on a lower scale upon the grade of junior officers. I am inclined to think that we must test the position by experience and that with these senior officers from each of the Service Departments, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, sitting in the Ministry of Information, and going backwards and forwards between their staffs and the Ministry of Information, I am not optimistic when I say that I do not believe that the events of Monday night are ever likely to recur.

Then there was another criticism made by both right hon. Gentlemen as to the delay in the issue of communiqués. I think both right hon. Gentlemen quoted cases that concerned the Air Ministry. There, again, I admit that there has been something wrong. Let the House remember that the position is very difficult. It is difficult for a Government Office, the Ministry of Information or any Service Department, to allow intelligence about an operation or about the threat of an attack to be published until they have verified the accuracy of the information. I have been at some pains to look into one or two cases that happened last week. The origin of the trouble was that the Departments concerned were nervous lest information should get out that subsequently would prove to be inaccurate. How can we—this is the question which hon. Members will be asking themselves to-day—while maintaining the accuracy of the information expedite the communiqués? The Minister of Information has been in consultation with the Secretary of State for Air and they have come to the conclusion that it will be possible, at any rate in some cases, to issue quite quickly some general communiqué and not to hold up any communiqué until they have obtained all the details about a particular incident. There, again, I think the House will find a considerable improvement in the immediate future.

I pass from these specific criticisms to the more general criticisms about the censorship. Let me remind hon. Members of the present position with the censorship. If any hon. Members were present at the end of the summer when we had a Debate upon the Ministry of Information they will remember that I said that I was anxious to avoid what is generally known as a preventive censorship, that is to say, a compulsion upon the Press to have everything passed by the Department before it is actually published, but to work if it were possible upon a basis of co-operation under which the Press would be given general directions, and so long as they kept within those general directions that it would be unnecessary for them to have every bit of war information passed by the Department. That is the plan upon which we are working to-day, and that is the plan upon which, with the co-operation of the Press, we hope to go on working in the future. The general principle—I would ask the attention of hon. Members to this general principle—which lies at the root of our conception of censorship should be that the Government are not responsible for the accuracy of the facts published in the Press unless they explicitly say so. The Press censorship does not exist to relieve the Press of the necessity of checking the accuracy of their information. It exists for one purpose and one purpose alone, to prevent information being published which would be useful and helpful to the enemy. That is the basic principle on which the Ministry of Information intend to work.

I do not disguise from the House that there have been difficulties in applying this principle. Let me take one or two of them. They have already been mentioned by both right hon. Gentlemen. I tell the House frankly what the difficulties have been. I begin with the difficulties of the Dominions, the neutral and the foreign correspondents. Let me say, we approached their difficulties as difficulties are approached between friends. Obviously, with the Dominions, we regard them as ourselves; but let me further say that, so far as the neutrals are concerned, I look around the world and I see scarcely any neutrals on the side of the enemy. Therefore, we have all the more to take into account the difficulties of the foreign correspondents, and to meet them as sympathetically and effectively as we can. There was, first of all, the difficulty of the telephone censorship. Hon. Members will see at once that a cable censorship is comparatively easy to apply, but when it comes to telephoning it is much more difficult to keep a check on the messages. To start with, in the early days of the war, there was the embargo upon foreign correspondents using the telephones for overseas messages at all. I think it was a necessary precaution in the circumstances, but I am glad to be able to tell the House that further consideration of the position has made it possible for the censorship to be relaxed in this respect, and for reputable foreign correspondents to use the telephones to many countries—radio-telephones, for instance, to America and so on—and I believe, from the discussions that 1 have had with the representatives of the Press of America and other foreign countries, that the fact that they will be able, under proper conditions, to use the telephones, will make a great difference to them in the transmission of news.

They were faced with another difficulty in the delay in the passing of cables through the censorship. Cables were delayed at first; but, there, again, I am inclined to think that the arrangement which has now been brought into force is going to meet their wishes. Henceforth, there will be censors in the cable offices. That, in itself, is going to obviate a considerable amount of the delay. Furthermore, the censorship in the last day or two has been greatly strengthened by the inclusion of censors who can deal with cables in various foreign languages. In the early days of the war there was a deficiency of these linguists, and there was an embargo upon the sending of messages abroad except in French and English. I think I can assure the House that that gap has now been closed. I have here a list of linguists in almost every language, who will be available, without delay, to deal with cables in the offices. Messages now will be passed, I think I am right in saying, in all the languages that are likely to be used for messages of this kind. From what I can hear, the foreign correspondents will be very well satisfied with this change in the arrangements. The House will forgive me for going into these details, but it is well that hon. Members should see the kind of problems with which we have been faced.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Are the Balkan languages to be included?

Sir S. Hoare

I think I can give the hon. Member that assurance. At any rate, I will see that attention is at once paid to the matter. There was another difficulty. I think hon. Members will see that, in the circumstances, it was inevitable. There was the difficulty of priority telegrams. Hon. Members will see that in war-time there is a great mass of Government priority telegrams and that this is, in the nature of things, inevitable. The result was that the machinery was almost entirely monopolised by these priority telegrams. The newspaper correspondents had to suffer very long delays in the transmission of their messages. I will tell the House what we are doing to try to meet that grievance. We have analysed the Government telegrams and graded them, and we are examining the possibility of altering the system so that correspondents will not have to wait until every Government telegram has gone. There will be certain occasions when Government telegrams which are obviously really important will have to go first, but after that, somewhere down in the gradation, we hope to arrange that correspondents will have their place, instead of having to wait until the end of all the Government telegrams.

I will pass to a further point which has loomed very large in the minds of some of the American correspondents. That is the difficulty of synchronising wireless communication with cable communication. It has happened in the last week, more than once, that the wireless has got ahead of the Press, and the Press correspondents have very much resented the fact that they have seemed to be placed under a disadvantage. The Ministry has now made arrangements under which both will start equally at scratch. The messages will be synchronised, so that neither gets an advantage in the matter of time. I hope that, with these changes, which I assure the House are very substantial, we shall see a very great improvement in the immediate future. The Minister of Information is keeping in very close touch with the foreign Press correspondents. He will watch to see how the position develops, and will be ready and anxious to remove any grievances that can be removed without danger to the conduct of the war.

Lastly, I come to the grievances of the British Press. I have already dealt with the unfortunate events of last Monday. I will only say that, as far as the British Press are concerned, the Ministry is most anxious to have the closest and quickest and most friendly contact with them. There are already, as I have said, a number of Pressmen in the Department. I believe the relations between the Press and the Department have improved. I will not say that they are yet by any means perfect—they could not be perfect in so short a time—but the arrangements seem to be working more smoothly. For instance, the Minister of Information met a number of representatives of the British Press yesterday, and I have an unsolicited testimonial from a number of representatives of the Press who were present at that meeting. They say that they were thoroughly satisfied with their reception, with what was being done, and with the changes that were being made in the Department by the Ministry.

I have gone through a long list of specific points, and I hope that every hon. Member will see that some of these problems have not been as simple as they may seem at first sight, but I hope that they also see that the Ministry has been attempting to deal with them in a practi- cal, common-sense way. The Ministry fully accepts the conception of the Department as described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness, that it should, in spirit and in letter, be a Department of information rather than merely a form of censorship. The Department is determined greatly to develop that side of its work. We wish to tell our story—and it is a very good one—fully and freely in this country. We wish to tell it fully and freely in the countries abroad. The greater publicity we can have of many of the aspects of our national life, the better it will be for the world and the better it will be for the national effort in this country. I hope that I have said enough not in any way to suggest that we are unconscious of the gaps, mistakes and inadequacies which still exist, but to convince hon. Members on all sides of the spirit with which the Department approaches the problem, and the determination we have to surmount these difficulties.

Mr. Beverley Baxter

May I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that if any future incident such as that of Monday night occurs—and it may happen in spite of the best arrangements— it will not be felt necessary to send the police to the newspaper offices? I do not know of anything which newspapers may or may not have done in the last few years to justify what smacked far too much of the Gestapo.

Sir S. Hoare

I can tell my hon. Friend that I hope it will never happen again.

6.3 p.m.

Captain Cazalet

I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal a question, and I will confine my remarks to two or three minutes. Can he, by administrative action, do anything to secure the opening of cinemas on Sundays in country districts? Everyone is aware that some millions of people are now added to the population in country districts. In many of them cinemas are not open on Sundays, and I believe that there is a general demand that these people, who are used to cinemas being opened in London on Sundays, should have the same facilities in the countryside. There are also a large number of people whose only day of recreation is Sunday, and in these times certain local prejudices, which may have prevented the opening of cinemas in the past, should be overruled, if possible, by administrative action by the Government.

I had certain observations which I had intended to try and make with regard to the subjects which have been raised today, but it is quite clear from what the Lord Privy Seal has said, that he is aware of the many criticisms that have been made in regard to the Ministry of information and the whole policy of the Government towards news given to the people of this country. One often asks whether Ministers are really aware of the extent of the feeling in the country. I have been with Ministers in various humble capacities, and I know full well that, even in peace time, they are nearly always confronted by yes-men, but in peace time, at any rate, they have the dual criticism of the Press and of Parliament. To-day neither of these is functioning in the usual way, and it may well be that the War Cabinet and other Ministers, because of the pressure of work and of the problems and difficulties they have to face, are not aware of the mystification, and, I do not think it is too much to say, the irritation among large sections of the community in regard to what has happened in the past few days. We have had on the B.B.C. snippets of unimaginative and uninteresting information five times a day, and the next morning the papers are merely a rehash of this news. It has had this curious effect. It has created a uniformity among the papers, which makes one hardly know when one is reading the "Times" or the "Daily Express" or the "Daily Herald." If the Government are going to continue this policy, it is better to abolish the newspapers and publish a British Gazette, which was done in the General Strike. The Lord Privy Seal himself said just now that we want to tell the story fully, fairly and freely. That is just what we are asking him to do—to tell the story.

Take the case of the Keil Canal, which has been raised before in this Debate. Why do not we tell the story now? Is there any secret as to who these people were? Cannot we get the name of one or two of them? Do tell the people something of these romantic sides of war. If they are Canadians or Australians so much the better. Even now I want to know, and I believe we all want to know, something more about this epic. We do not want to have to wait six months or two, three or four years before we know the names that ought to be in everybody's mouth to-day. Cannot we ever hear what is going on in Italy or China? Are despatches from these countries in existence? Has correspondence ceased to exist? I do not want to detail the many instances of which I could give particulars here, in regard to what has happened in the past few days. It is no good going over old ground, but I would like to give this incident, because it shows that something is radically wrong with the whole machinery. A well-known American journalist asked for a copy of the leaflet which we dropped in Germany and was told that it was a secret and he would have to wait two days.

What is happening to-day? The United States of America are getting more war news from Berlin than they are from London. The speakers who have been deputed to broadcast to America the news of the war from this country have had their time cut down because the American public or their responsible controllers believe that the news coming from this country is so limited and so dull that it is not worth putting over. There are other instances of that kind. They culminate in this incredible fiasco of last Monday night. The news of British troops being in France was published in the American papers five or six days ago. It was given out in France. Why has the whole world to know what is happening but not the English people? I know the arguments about secrecy. I was in the Supreme War Council in Versailles in the critical days of 1918, and I am fully aware how necessary it is to guard these secrets. You might be telling what would appear to most people a perfectly innocent fact but to those who know more you might be giving away something vital. But I cannot believe that news published all over the world, and which everybody in this country knows, should be withheld from the newspapers. I met an American correspondent the other day and in 10 minutes he gave me more information about what was happening in the war and in the world than I had secured in 10 days from reading the papers of this country.

Why do they treat us like a mass of unpractical creatures who merely have to obey. I will tell you why? It is exactly the same as in the last War; the Brass Hats are beginning to get control. They always do. It is perfectly natural, and up to a certain degree right, that they should, but do let us see that at this early stage of the war the functions of the Brass Hat cease where they should cease. After all, this is not a war of Brass Hats on either side. It is a people's war. It is a kind of crusade, and, if it were not, you would never get the great mass of the people to support it as they are doing to-day. I hope the Government will trust the people, tell them all the facts, and kill rumours. As the war goes on, if they give them no news, then it will be interpreted as bad news. Our people will accept news, good or bad, but one thing they will not tolerate, and rightly so, is not being told anything at all.

I hope that Ministers realise the extent of public feeling in regard to this matter. If for that reason alone, I hope Parliament will continue to sit and that these Debates will continue to go on, because there is always a danger in war time of the Executive being so occupied with the gigantic task which they have to fulfil that they are not aware of what the mass of the people are feeling. What the Lord Privy Seal has said is, I think, sufficient to show that he really understands what people are thinking and saying, and that he will take the necessary steps to correct it. The present policy in regard to news is a foolish policy to-day, and to-morrow it may be a dangerous one. It does nothing to defeat the enemy abroad, and it does still less to reassure the people at home.

6.13 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood

After listening to the speeches, I feel impelled to take up cudgels for the Ministry of Information. Monday's muddle was not the fault of the Ministry of Information. It was the fault of the Brass Hats. All that we are complaining of this afternoon is not the fault of the Ministry of Information but the fault of the material with which they are supplied and allowed to publish. I want to put in a word in favour of what they have published. It has been a great deal more than we got in August, 1914. We have had much more information and much truer information. The demand made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and the hon. and gallant Mem- ber for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) is for bright, breezy accounts of what took place at Kiel or elsewhere. The Ministry of Information are perfectly right in refusing to supply false, coloured accounts of what takes place. The Ministry must supply exactly what is supplied to them by the fighting departments. If they embroider they may supply something which may be cheering to the people of this country but in the long run it will be bad for public confidence.

We remember perfectly well the battle of Jutland. The official telegram came out when I was in East Africa. It was discouraging. It had such a bad effect upon public opinion in this country that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), although he was not at that time First Lord of the Admiralty, produced an entirely different account, which cheered us greatly. We liked it. Thank God he did it. It was a most depressing moment for us. It may be the business of isolated people to do that sort of thing, but I cannot believe that it is the business of the Ministry of Information to colour the information they get, in order to appeal to the jaded and anxious palates of people in this country, or even of neutrals, or the people in America. That is the duty of journalists and people who do not rely upon the Minister of Information for all their news. I do not see why we should censor what any journalist chooses to write about say Jutland or Zeebrugge, or Kiel. A magnificent story might be made out in that way, but once it comes from an official source, the Ministry of Information, it might damp our courage when we saw what the losses were, or it might give information to the Germans as to the number of aeroplanes they had shot down, or the number of aeroplanes that took part in the expedition. That is why I do not want official information, but I do want to have articles saying what Mr. X. Y. Z. thinks about it, or what he gets from secret sources, or straight from the horse's mouth. His account may be as cheery as you like, and it may go to America or to other neutral countries, but let the Ministry of Information stick to the truth. Then they will be in a much stronger position and much more useful to the country.

I think the appointment of Lord Macmillan to the Ministry of Information was the best appointment this Government has yet made, except that of the right ton. Member for Epping to the Admiralty. Lord Macmillan was once in the Labour Government, and he has the complete confidence of everybody who knew him in those days and have known him ever since. I do not think that anyone who has not started a new Department has any conception of the enormous difficulties. I went over the Ministry of Information yesterday. [Laughter.] Why not? It is always better to go over a place before you start talking. I found a lot of extremely smart young men, but I did not find, as I should have liked to have found, the chart that one usually finds in a new business, showing the devolution of authority, the channels through which every executive action and all information proceeds. I should have expected to see in every office one of these framed charts so that the people there would begin to know the people in other departments in conjunction with whom they are working. No doubt that will come about later. Let us, however, give the Department a little more than four days before we start to criticise.

The message of the Government which it distributed in 6,000,000 leaflets over Germany was a bad one. It appeared to me to be an apologia for the British Government. There is no possible apologia for the British Government, in my opinion. In a message to the German people we do not want to explain that the British Government was always a perfect Government. What we wanted to explain to them was (a) that the Hitler Government was not a perfect Government and (b) if they would get rid of Hitler, what they would get from us. You cannot carry on propaganda in any country unless you study what you are after. I believe that the Government of this country has one thing only in view, and that is to, get rid of Hitlerism for all time from Europe, and we want to get the Germans to lend a hand in doing that. We ought to state our case quite clearly to Germany, to let them know that we have no quarrel with the German people, that the result of this war shall not alter the boundaries of Germany in any respect, that there shall not be another Versailles, but that there shall be in the future a federation of all the Powers pooling their defensive forces and combining together, not in a League of Nations but in a federation. That is the aim and object of every thinking man. Whether we think it practicable or not I do not know, but I am quite certain that you must state what you are after if you are to persuade the German working men that the best thing they can do is to put a bullet through Hitler.

I do not like in the leaflet which was distributed over Germany a very obvious omission. Nothing was said about the persecution which Hitler has carried out against the Jews. Either we dislike it or we are proposing to condone it, and the omission to mention it was, to my mind, a sort of silly concession to Hitlerism. It seemed that we must not say that the persecution of the Jews is abominable because the German people may like it, or that possibly some of our own people may like it. It is no good trying to ride two horses. That government is an abomination, and if you leave out what has united and brought together the British people against the Hitler Government in your propaganda you will never have very much effect, for Ribben-trop, after he has dined and wined over here with English people, will still continue to think that we are in sympathy with what has been done in Germany. We are not in sympathy with it. We want to get rid of Hitlerism; and your propaganda must be directed towards that and must not be hedging towards dictatorships. Let us remember that the Ministry of Information should be a Ministry of true information; it is the best form of propaganda.

Let me come to another aspect of the question. If you are to give your Ministry of Information its full value you must have closer contact between this House and the Ministry. In all the new Ministries started during the last War Members of this House had a place in the office of the chief of the Department, acting, in fact, as a parliamentary private secretary, keeping constant contact between the Ministry, the Press, the public and this House. If that had been followed on this occasion the difficulties on Monday night would not have arisen. We must have closer liaison; and there are quite enough people in this House to volunteer for that sort of work. Ministers in the House of Commons have parliamentary private secretaries. Why should not a Minister in the House of Lords have a parliamentary private secretary; and why should not some of the heads of the departments in the Ministry of Information, which is new and depends entirely on contact with the House of Commons? Why should they not have Members of Parliament with them? It is not a full-time job, but it is a most useful job. The main advantage we have over dictatorship countries is that we have a channel between the public and the Executive always open, and every time you close that channel you increase the advantages of the dictators and the disadvantages to the public; you obstruct the only means whereby explanations and information can come from one to the other.

Indeed, the question of the use of Members of Parliament in war-time goes a little further than the Ministry of Information. I was sorry to hear the Prime Minister say that no Members of Parliament would be allowed to take on work at the Foreign Office, because I think it showed exactly the wrong spirit. Surely there is no trade unionism in the Foreign Office which will not take Members of Parliament because they are unpaid? In the last War quite a number of hon. Members did work for the Foreign Office as despatch riders and King's Messengers. There was Harold Smith and Stanley Wilson and Park Goff, and they did useful work. Not only did they carry out their duties without any charge, but they brought back to this House and to the Government a new point of view, not a strictly official point of view. In the last War, also, a number of Members of Parliament took Commissions in the Army and acted as liaison officers between the Cabinet and the Army in the field. Every one wrote continually to his own chief. Some wrote to the Admiralty and others, like Godfrey Collins, communicated with the Secretary of State for India and was responsible for getting the Mesopotamian Mission appointed by giving information to the Secretary of State. All over the world we were the eyes of the Government, reporting to the Government. We had our commissions in the Army, and the generals were very glad to talk things over with us in order to get their views sent to the Government through us, quite illegally and quite secretly, but very usefully. I think that Members of Parliament who are now going to their different regiments and garrisons will be doing equally useful work if they communicate privately with their own chiefs and with the Prime Minister, sending them precis and minutes which they can communicate to the Cabinet. That is what we did in the last War, and I think the Cabinet would be well advised to have similar sources of information now.

Let us remember that no Member of Parliament was ever put into the Army at the starting grade. We were all given decent, respectable rank so that old people over 40 were not in the ridiculous position of being ordered about and dictated to by a young subaltern of 25. I do not think any Member of Parliament should take a commission less than captain, and I do not think any Member of Parliament ought to be asked to take a commission now less than a major if he fought in the last War. That, at any rate, maintains the dignity of our position. I can assure hon. Members that they will find in the Army every desire to put a Member of Parliament in his proper place unless he has the rank to stand up for himself. For all these reasons I would ask that not only in the Ministry of Information, where liaison is so essentially necessary, but in all Departments there should be Members of Parliament able to give information to Ministers, able to act as a channel between the generals commanding and the Ministry, helping their country in a hundred and one different ways, remembering that they have one enormous advantage over all the other people in the fighting services or the Civil Service, that their promotion does not depend on their doing what they are told and never using their brains for unorthodox action, but that they are independent of career, and can without fear consider always first and only the interests of the country.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kern

The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) drew attention to the vital necessity of speed when news is sent out. Bismarck, who knew as much about propaganda as Goebbels, said that if it had to be sent out you should send it out not too long, otherwise no one would read it, but, above all, quickly. I think he was quite right when he said that the great value of propaganda is sending it out as quickly as possible. I was very relieved when the Lord Privy Seal said it was the intention of the Ministry to take the public as much as possible into its confidence. I believe that this war, more than any other in our history, is a war of the ordinary men and women of the country, the ordinary men and women who have made up their minds that Hitlerism must be swept off the map of Europe, and they are therefore shareholders in our final victory. I believe the more we take them into our confidence the more confidence they will have in us.

I remember when I left the university going for a year to work on a great London newspaper. On my first day in the office one of the leading lights, a man trained under Lord Northcliffe, gave me a piece of advice. He said, "Remember that news is not merely statement or assertion. News is facts and, whenever you are reporting, ask yourself the question, ' Am I reporting facts? ' "I believe that, in propaganda, facts are not only important, but that they should be true facts. Although it may sometimes be necessary to suppress facts, it never pays to tell a lie. Sooner or later you will be found out, and confidence will be lost. The right hon. Gentleman opposite drew attention to our reports on the battle of Jutland. I believe that was a case in point. The morning after Jutland the headlines of the newspapers startled readers with our losses, and there was, no doubt, consternation. At the same time the Germans issued a bombastic account claiming a great victory, but our version was proved to be true and the German version untrue and ever afterwards, owing to our courage in telling the true facts to our people, people believed our statements and disbelieved the German statements.

It is essential, in giving news to our people, that it should be true. I believe likewise that it should be co-ordinated as much as possible. Everyone must say the same thing. There was a case a short time ago when it was reported that Polish bombers had raided Berlin. A few days later, when our aeroplanes passed over Cassel, it was stated that that was Berlin's first air-raid warning. Obviously, those two statements did not tally. They should have tallied. I believe that co-ordination is the second principle. I believe that these raids over Germany dropping leaflets have been one of the most daring and imaginative strokes that any nation has ever used in war. I hope that in these brilliant beginnings the great principles which Lord Northcliffe laid down in the last war will not be forgotten. They were to try to find the weak link in the enemy's mind. Once he found it he played relentlessly and ceaselessly upon it. If he heard that there was a shortage of food in Berlin, he saw to it at once that the German housewife was told how many ounces of sugar, butter and meat were on the English housewife's table. If there was a movement for liberty in Czechoslovakia, he saw to it that a statement of our policy towards Czecho-Slovakia was enunciated. The secret of his success was that his propaganda made a personal appeal to each individual. It was individual appeal, and therefore the most successful propaganda in the whole War. I believe that the people of this country are sufficiently stout-hearted always to bear the truth. I believe they want the truth brought to them in the most interesting and attractive way and I hope that, as time passes, we shall see journalists of established reputation working more and more with the Ministry of Information. I believe that the principles which Lord Northcliffe enunciated in the last War will not only prove right but will bring victory to us.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. McGovern

I intended originally to raise the question of the difficulties of evacuation, especially in Scotland, but as I understand there is to be a full Debate in connection with that subject we will postpone any observations that we intend to make till that occasion, if we can catch the Speaker's eye. There are one or two points that I want to raise which I consider fairly important from the point of view of the general public. There are some points in the speech of the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition which, frankly, I cannot understand. To begin with, he condemns the Government as being feeble and fumbling and giving a white sheet with black spots on it and so forth, and he said they create the opinion throughout the world, by their propaganda, that they are not a Government which should be entrusted with the job of carrying on the war. The Opposition have endorsed the policy of the Government and they have agreed to the personnel of the Government, because of the fact that they have made no serious representations in the House or in the country that the Government should be changed, and they have been asked, as I understand from the Press, to accept positions in it and have refused to accept them. If the Press is to be believed on this occasion, liaison officers have been established between the Departments to give the intelligentsia of the Labour party a knowledge of what is going on and to contribute to the general well-being and conduct of the Government.

If that is true, that they are prepared, and have declared that they are prepared, to back up the Government and to see the war through, if they are satisfied with the aims of the Government, if they back conscription and the declaration of war, if they have refused to accept positions in the Government and have established liaison officers, and members of the party are taking picked jobs, and complaint is being made that they are not getting enough of the jobs that are going, all I can say is that there is arrant hypocrisy in attempting to make us believe that they are attacking the Government, and sending out their attack over the wireless telling Hitler and company that they are a feeble and fumbling Government unable to direct their minds along the channels of the prosecution of the war. I say that because I am against the war and will take no part in support of the war; but I try to be as logical as the situation will permit, and while being against the war and against taking part in it in any shape or form, I cannot understand that type of propaganda. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) talked about not riding two horses at once. I see an attempt to ride two horses in this matter. There is an attempt by the Opposition to pander to the feeling there is in the country either against the war or in criticism of the Government, while at the same time nine-tenths of their bodies and minds are in the war and the Government, and taking part in the general struggle. To that extent I disagree with them.

I have heard to-day various suggestions as to how the Government should conduct the war. I heard the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme say that no Member of Parliament should go into the Armed Forces, if he has served before, in a position less than that of major. I shudder to think of what would happen to the country if that were true, and I shudder to think of the glee there would be in Berlin if they heard that all Members of Parliament were admirals, majors and generals, for then Hitler's job would be a comparatively easy one. Do not let us be carried away with this nonsense that people who are ill-fitted for a task should be placed in positions of that kind. In the last War there were too many Members of Parliament going round as lieutenant-colonels. They became the laughingstock of every workshop in the country. There were jests and vulgar jokes about Labour leaders going about with swords when they hardly knew the right end of a sword. I hope none of those things will be taken seriously in this country, and much as I disagree with the war, I hope we shall not reduce the Armed Forces to a sort of Fred Karno's army, in an attempt to frighten Hitler or make people believe that we are determined to carry on the war to the last Member of Parliament.

I have heard some of the criticism and propaganda that have been made. I have heard of the raid that was made on the "Daily Express." It has been said that was like the Gestapo. Let me tell the House that the Independent Labour party are running a small paper called the "New Leader," and. as far as I understand it, it was not the Government of this country which suppressed that paper. It was Odhams Press, the "Daily Herald," who refused to publish it because they thought there were in it some things which did not conform with their ideas of criticism of the Government and the country. Therefore, their Gestapo, the "Daily Herald" and Odhams Board, refused to print our little paper because we were putting a different point of view from theirs. The Gestapo works in many ways, in many minds, and in many parties. But in relation to the "Daily Express," I think it is the duty of the Government, no matter whether or not I agree with them, to see that newspapers in this country do not run riot with imaginative stories. Last Tuesday, just after midnight, in the darkened streets of Glasgow, the "Daily Express" came out with a story in their first edition that the German fortifications in the West had been broken at 12 places. That sort of thing creates a feeling on the part of everybody who buys the newspaper that the war is going with a swing and that we have almost as good as won it. But we hear nothing about it afterwards, and that causes a feeling of depression. It would have been better if the story had never been published, for it was a false story, and anybody who had any understanding at all, even if he was not a military man, knew that it was an outrageous thing, and could not be true. How any editor published it passes my comprehension. Then there was the story of the seizure of the "Bremen." The newspapers published that the "Bremen" had been captured and was being taken 1o a British port. Evidently, that was another fabrication because, after being in different editions, the story just passed out.

There have been any number of cases of that kind. I have heard people say that there are already hundreds of British wounded in this country. Some actually claim to have seen them. In connection with the leaflet distribution, a much better type of story has just been passing round some of the coffee rooms. Even in war, it is better to have a little humour. It is said that an airman after that raid did not return to his camp for two days. His commanding officer asked where he had been. He said he had misinterpreted his orders and thought that the leaflets had to be put under the doors of the houses in Germany. But stories of that kind are more desirable than stories of the kind which arouse false hopes.

I have seen in newspapers in this country certain messages — some of which, I suppose, come through this party, and I mention this to show that my criticism is not confined to any one source of information. These messages state that German workers are sending letters and communications which show that they are ready to revolt, so great is their disagreement with the German Government. I do not believe those stories. I believe them to be written by refugees in Paris who are anxious to maintain friendly associations with the French Government. They naturally desire to do that, and so they are packing in as much of this kind of thing as possible and using their imagination just as much as many jour- nalists do. The worst type of propaganda in this country is that which creates the feeling — a feeling which always has an aftermath — that the people of Germany are all ready to revolt.

I was in Germany last September, and even though it is against my own desires I want to say this. To be honest, I cannot see those millions of young men in Germany breaking with the military machine or revolting in any short space of time. Those millions of youths are behind Hitler. There is only one revolt that could take place in Germany, and that is a revolt of the military machine itself. The others are afraid. They are afraid of the Gestapo and of secret agents in the workshops, in the factories, in the streets, and even in the homes. They are not able to express, publicly their feelings, and they have no power, because the real power in war is in the hands of the military, whether it is for or against the government. Therefore, in my estimation a disservice is done to the people of this nation by creating the impression that all is ready for an internal revolt in Germany. I have heard that story everywhere. It is amazing the number of people — business people in this country — who are particularly keen on revolt in Germany. But if you mentioned revolt in this country they would have a paralytic stroke. If it is good for Germany, it would be good for Britain. If it is approved in Germany, then it should be approved in Britain. Do not let us humbug ourselves and the nation into imagining that the people of Germany are ready for revolt.

This German army, in my estimation, will fight as bitterly and ferociously as it is possible for any army in the field to fight. It is a disciplined army, whose members act as robots and not as individuals. They have not had the long experience which we have had in this country of individual freedom and thought. They are used to thinking, not as individuals, but as an army and as a nation. They will fight in that way, and if they are winning victories they will be inspired with fervour and the desire to go on. Not only so, but they will be behind Hitler, because many of them think Hitler is a god. They think that in Germany, and especially the youth, and, to be quite frank, I can understand a large number of the young people of Germany thinking that of Hitler, because there is any number of things — and I am prepared to be misunderstood by some people who will use it for their own purposes — that Hitler has done in Germany that I should approve of. If you leave out the brutality, the ruthlessness, and the persecution, there are many planks in their social programme that I see as in advance of this country. At the same time, to me the uppermost thing is freedom of thought, whether it be spiritual or economic. It is the right to think and to act on the thought, but the great majority of people only think in animal wants, and if they get food, clothing, shelter, and a little sport, they are prepared to back any Government, no matter how reactionary; they are even prepared to back the National Government.

I have been disturbed by reports that I have heard in Glasgow during the past week. One report has been that the Glasgow Corporation, or magistrates, or town clerk have prohibited and cancelled the lettings of public halls, and they have attempted to put a stop to public meetings being held in the city. Before I heard this, I made arrangements to address a meeting in my own division at 2.30 on Sunday afternoon, to give my point of view to the constituents whom I represent, and I have been told from many quarters that I may not be permitted to hold that meeting, because it will bring together a large number of people in the open. I want to use, not a threat, but a solemn warning to the Government, and to the Secretary of State for Scotland, to this effect: I am not attempting to misuse that power. I will use it in a proper criticism, in presenting my case to the workers or electors of that area; and I want to say this, that there is a greater anti-war feeling in this country than the Government imagine at the moment, and if there is any attempt being made to prevent us from expressing our point of view, it will only be by the use of force that I or others will be prevented from addressing these meetings.

If the Government have ever given instructions to, or are encouraging, the local authorities to put that ban on public meetings, then they are raising in Glasgow a storm before which they will eventually have to bow. I only say that because I do not desire the conflict to take place, but I do desire to protect our constitutional rights in presenting to the people our case and our point of view. I have even been told that the Glasgow Chief Constable has said that he would not attempt to prevent the meetings because he understood the war was for democracy and freedom of speech, and that he could not conceive of prohibiting meetings in these circumstances, but there are some in Glasgow, conscientious objectors in the last war, who are now prepared to become Hitlers in this war and to prevent public expression in that city; and if it comes to a struggle, then, so far as I am concerned, I will take part in the struggle to protect the rights of the people of this country and to protect the right of public expression. I want from the Secretary of State for Scotland to-night an assurance that he has given no orders to that effect, that he will do everything in his power, in the position that he occupies, to protect the rights of the people in Scotland against any encroachment, because to-day we have heard from an hon. Member on the other side that the Brass Hats are getting in command. That is natural. We have always said that the Brass Hats would attempt to take command of the situation and establish their dictatorship over the people if the civilian population would allow.

In this war, if you are going ahead for three years, there are two or three things that have sobered this nation. One was the passing of conscription for single and married men from 18 to 41. That was the first great sobering Measure which brought to large numbers of homes a realisation of what they were in. The statement that the war would last at least three years, which I do not think is an exaggeration, was the next sobering statement. Now there is this attempt to prevent people from meeting and from enjoying the cinema. If there is one thing more than another destined to bring a revolution in this country, it is the continual closing of the cinemas, because they have become so much a part of the lives of the people. They look forward to going to the cinema, and they are anxious to have recreation. I, personally, enjoy watching Charlie Chaplin, Cagney and the gangsters. I am always reminded of the capitalist class when I see the gangsters. Pictures are the best recreation that the people can get, and everywhere the people are grumbling about this en- croachment on their enjoyment. I cannot see the need for it. The cinemas could be opened from 10 in the morning to 6 or 7 in the evening, and for those in employment who have no time off except in the evening, the cinemas could be opened on Saturday and even on Sunday from 10 in the morning until dusk.

The Government should not base their policy on something which they cannot carry out for the whole period of the war. If they imagine the country can go through three years of war with the shutting down of every form of recreation, they are making a mistake. If they want to keep the spirit of the people backing the war, they must enable them to get the necessary recreation. It is not enough to make them go home, as I do in the evening, and listen to the wireless bulletins. The tone of voice in which the news is given almost drives me to go for a walk in the dark because it is so depressing, what with the black paper, shaded lights and these wireless stories, which sound like funeral orations.

I think the nation is reaching the stage when in three months they would be prepared to overthrow the Government and give Hitler Poland and Colonel Beck in addition. The Government should have some sense of reality. Glasgow Town Council cancelled a trade union meeting on Sunday afternoon in the City Hall without any notice except a scrap of paper on the door saying that the meeting had been cancelled. The same body allowed a meeting of publicans because the licensed trade is more powerful. If there is a case for the opening of the "pubs," there is a case for the opening of the pictures. I appeal to the Government to give the public an opportunity of enjoying themselves and of keeping their humour, because if there is one thing that has kept me in politics it is my sense of humour. If I had not had it I would have been either dead or out of politics a long time ago. I want an assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland that there will be no attempt to interfere with public meetings, because if there is such an attempt it will raise in Glasgow and the country a state of revolt which he in the end will be compelled to recognise and before which he will have to give way. If the people are to be trained to understand that this is a war for freedom, democracy and free speech, you cannot carry on the war with the suppression of their desires and instincts. I will attempt to be as reasonable as the circumstances will allow. I believe it is wise to have the power of the lion, but it is foolish to use it unless you are compelled to. While I do not want to join in the issues of any challenge, I am prepared to take part in the struggle if any attempt is made to prevent the proper expression of public feeling. I ask the Government to give grave consideration to that point of view, and the Secretary of State to give us the assurance which I have mentioned.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart

I imagine that the majority of Members of this House, and I am quite certain the great mass of people outside, support the plea which the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has made for a much wider measure of freedom in obtaining recreation and relief from strain. You cannot win a war on gloom — gloom in the streets, and exclusion from cinemas and other places. A war can be won only by maintaining the high spirit of the people, and I join most warmly in the appeal which the hon. Member has made. The hon. Member addressed a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland and I would put one other. There is to be a Debate upon evacuation, and therefore I do not develop the point, but my right hon. Friend must know that serious reports come from most reception areas —

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville)

I would remind my hon. Friend that we are to have a Debate upon evacuation to-morrow.

Mr. Stewart

I did not realise that it was to-morrow; I thought it was next week. But my right hon. Friend must know that serious complaints have come from the reception areas as to the physical conditions of some of those who have been sent to those areas — complaints about infectious diseases and other unsatisfactory bodily conditions, and I wanted my right hon. Friend to give an assurance to-night, before any further evacuation takes place, that no other person will be evacuated in Scotland until there has been a thorough medical examination and that every person has been passed as being in an absolutely proper physical condition.

Mr. Max ton

Would the hon. Member also agree that the home into which the person is going to be put should be subjected to an examination?