HC Deb 07 July 1944 vol 401 cc1541-50

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

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling (Brighton)

I have asked to have the Adjournment to-day on the question of our broadcasts to occupied countries, because I sometimes feel that this House does not realise how much is being said on behalf of this country to those occupied territories. The people in them do not always know exactly what is the position in this country, and have to listen under very difficult circumstances. They look on the B.B.C. as the mouthpiece of our Government, and often things are said of which, if Members of Parliament realised them, I do not think they would entirely approve. It is not as if there were several broadcasting systems from Great Britain, there is only the one. People occasionally talk of "The Times" as being the mouthpiece of our Government and of this country. I do not think that is true. But still more might it be claimed of the B.B.C., because it is the only means, very often, of communication with these occupied countries. The Foreign Office may take the greatest care in making a pronouncement in this House, and the Prime Minister may take the very greatest care in weighing his words here, but very few of us know exactly what the B.B.C. says about them in the evening when they are talking to the countries most interested.

I would take as a particular example, Yugoslavia. Some weeks ago the Prime Minister, in opening the last Foreign Affairs Debate, made what I considered a very weighty statement about Yugoslavia. He had obviously very carefully weighed his words in everything he said, but the 'broadcast that was made that evening to Yugoslavia left out a very large part of what the Prime Minister had said and put in one piece, together with a quotation from an evening newspaper in this country. I raised a Question about it a few days afterwards, and I am afraid that the Minister of Information jumped right down my throat——

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken)

Oh, no.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

Much hurt, I therefore asked if I might bring it up again to-day. The actual statement, as well as I remember it, of the Prime Minister was that he had received a message that King Peter had dismissed or received the resignation of his Government. In actual fact that Government did not cease to exist, and was not dismissed by King Peter, until midday one week later. Therefore, the Prime Minister must have been misinformed by whoever gave him that message. However, that evening the B.B.C. broadcast to Yugoslavia the statement that King Peter had dismissed his Prime Minister and his Government. Practically all the rest of the Prime Minister's very weighty statement about Yugoslavia was left out. As I say, bits of an article from an evening paper, which rather inferred that King Peter had been forced to do this, were put in.

Now, I think we ought to realise—especially at a time, as it was then, when this country had to cut diplomats off from direct communication with their own people by cipher—that the B.B.C. was the only means whereby that country could hear how their King had got rid, or had not got rid, of his Government. Was it fair that they should quote only from our Prime Minister's speech? After all, the King and his Government were in London, and surely they could have got some statement from them to issue to that country. What actually happened was that a week later, on 1st June, the King did dismiss his Government and on that day an announcement was made by the B.B.C. to Yugoslavia, giving the King's message to the country. It is of interest that that message was in English, and not in any Serb or Yugoslav language. The message was handed to the B.B.C., and they had to telephone the people who had been dismissed earlier in the day in order to know what exactly would be the right phraseology to use in broadcasting the King's own message to his country. Surely we should think out a little bit what we are to do——

Mr. Bracken

My hon. and gallant Friend is making a statement of some importance. Who are the people who were rung up by the B.B.C. and asked what phrases should be used in their broadcast to Yugoslavia of the King's announcement of the resignation of his Government?

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

The person rung up was the then head of the public relations side of the Yugoslav Government in London. He is willing to give his name, and tell the Minister all about it if necessary. When that was done this statement was broadcast on 1st June. When I asked the Ministry of Information if they would answer in this Adjournment Debate the Minister wrote to me stating that the Foreign Office had a great deal to say in this matter. The Foreign Office told me that the Ministry of Information had also a great deal to say, and between the two I have the impression—I may be wrong—that no one is absolutely certain which of these two Ministries is really responsible for our broadcasts to Yugoslavia. What I mean by our broadcasts to that country is: what is our national policy? No doubt they probably both consult, but who is ultimately responsible? It makes the representative of the Foreign Office at the B.B.C. find himself, sometimes, in an extremely difficult position not only with regard to Yugoslavia but many other countries. These broadcasts very often use words which are much more loose than the words used by, probably, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a statement which he would make to this House, and on more than one occasion newspapers, which are certainly more irresponsible, have been brought in and quoted. There is a monthly, which some of us know, called "The Nineteenth Century and After." I strongly recommend people to read this month's number, where they will see statements which certainly ought to be contradicted by the B.B.C. if they are not true.

Mr. Driberg (Maldon)

It is a pure Quisling review.

Flight-Lieutenant Teeling

That does not matter; they are statements which ought to be answered, I think, by the B.B.C. in the August number. However, there are other countries to deal with besides Yugoslavia. Take the question of Finland for example. Recently the Russians have put various suggestions to Finland with regard to peace terms, and Finland has not agreed to them. We in our broadcasts to Finland have very definitely advised Finland to agree, and quite rightly so, but I think this House ought to know exactly what it is that we advise other countries to do, be- cause, supposing one day in the years to come something went wrong with the terms of agreement made with these countries, which our B.B.C. has told the people they ought to accept, how far are we actually morally responsible as a country for what the B.B.C. asks them to do? You may say the Foreign Secretary never said this, that or the other, but to these people the B.B.C. means this country, and that is what I am most anxious that we should get some clear definition about.

Who is really responsible for what is issued by the B.B.C. especially in quotations from the Press and decisions as to what is to be quoted from the Press? Furthermore, is it possible for us to have in the Library, just as we get the monitoring reports of what other people broadcast to this country, translations in English of what we state as regular news items and as statements of fact? It affects all countries, not only Left but Right as well. If we could have that we should know where we are. We may be told, as the Minister of Information told us the other day, how appallingly difficult it would be because of the many broadcasts that we do, but I am not asking for anything to be given that comes from the Governments of those countries who have their own broadcasting here—I believe the Belgians, the Dutch and the Norwegians and so on do their broadcasts to their own people, in close contact with us, it is true—but what we ourselves broadcast, as we do to the Finns, to Yugoslavia, to Bulgaria, to Rumania and so on. I should like to have some description of exactly how the people are chosen who are in control of these broadcasts. I understand, for instance, that in charge of the Rumanian section there is a very admirable lady but she has only once been to Rumania, going through on the train to Turkey. That may not be so, but it is what Rumanians in London say, and the Rumanians are worried about it because they feel that, though the broadcasts to Rumania are excellent with regard to military affairs, they are hopeless as regards political guidance, because they do not seem to understand what is going on out there.

Now may I switch over to another side that interests me immensely, the Far East—Japan, Malaya and all those areas? I am in complete ignorance of what we are doing about those countries, and I should like the Minister to give us some slight description of how we are broadcasting to Japan, or whether we are able to get into touch with Malaya, Indo-China, Burma and so on. There are so many interesting things which have been happening there with regard to the Japanese. We hear all day long of German officers and men surrendering in Normandy, Russia and Italy, but until two months ago not a solitary Japanese officer had surrendered in two years. It is only recently that 400 or 500 Japanese soldiers and a few officers had surrendered. That fact ought to be broadcast to Japan, and it ought to be very much pushed down the throats of everyone connected with Japan. Interesting, too, is the fact that these Japanese, when captured, have asked to know what settlement arrangements are made for them in Australia, as there is no possibility of their ever going back to Japan. The Australians are alarmed at the prospect of hundreds of thousands surrendering in this way and refusing to go back to Japan. It would be of great interest if we could know whether we or the Americans are in control, or whether London is in control on our side. I would like to stress the fact that it seems vitally important that we should have further guidance on exactly who is responsible for this broadcasting. We should also have in the Library, weekly or monthly, even if it is only a summary, a copy of the sort of thing that is being broadcast to the occupied countries.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken)

My hon. and gallant Friend says that on the occasion he raised this issue of our broadcasting to Yugoslavia, I jumped down his throat. I do not really believe he could seriously have formed that impression. I am the mildest-mannered man who ever sat on the Treasury Bench, and if I gave him the impression that I did that, I hope he will forgive me. My hon. and gallant Friend seems to believe that the Ministry of Information and the Political Warfare Executive are rivals of the Foreign Office. If his beliefs were well-founded, the House of Commons would have every reason to be perturbed, because I can imagine nothing more injurious to the public interest than the existence of two Departments dealing with foreign affairs. The relationship between the Ministry of Information, the Political Warfare Executive and the Foreign Office can be summarised in a sentence. The Departments for which I am responsible to Parliament do not create foreign policy. They express to the world the British Government's views on foreign affairs and on many other affairs. In matters of foreign policy, we are the instrument, not the rival, of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. There is the closest co-operation, and the most complete coordination between our respective Departments. Some people may think it is almost impossible for two Ministers to have joint responsibility and that it is bound to lead to conflict and controversy. As I was the pious founder of the Political Warfare Executive and it has existed for nearly three years, I can tell the House that it has worked wholly successfully. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I are on closer terms than Siamese twins, and we have never had a controversy of any kind. The Foreign Secretary is responsible under the War Cabinet for the policy of the Political Warfare Executive, and I am responsible for its administration. It is a thoroughly well-managed Government Department and shows that even within Governments it is possible to get full co-operation.

With regard to the B.B.C's. Yugoslavian broadcast, about which my hon. and gallant Friend complained, he asked who was the B.B.C's. authority in making the statement which he read out. It was the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister does not know what is happening within the Yugoslavian Government—and he has spent a great deal of time in trying to compose the differences between the various parties—I doubt whether there is anybody else in the country who is a better authority. If the Prime Minister was wrong in announcing that the King had accepted the former Premier's resignation on a certain day, whereas the event took place a week later, then there must have been some reason for it, but I can take no responsibility for the deferment of the resignation of the then Yugoslavian Government. The B.B.C. European service which, I may remind the House, is entirely a Government service, cannot take a better authority in these matters than the Prime Minister.

My hon. and gallant Friend fell into a slight error when he suggested that the B.B.C's. European service should answer the remarks in "The Nineteenth Century." It is well named. Its views are the worst kind of reactionary opinion. It is the favourite paper of Lord Haw-Haw. If the B.B.C. gave up one minute to answering it, I should do my best to call the attention of the Governors to the fact that we have a big war on and cannot really deal with the antiquated prejudices of that paper, with its wholly unfair statements about British foreign policy and its great desire to create the maximum amount of mischief among the United Nations. I can assure hon. Members that there is no possibility whatsoever of our answering that paper, and I am sorry that this Debate even advertises it.

As for the control of broadcasting and the suggestion that our broadcasts to Rumania are controlled by a transitory lady who spent 24 hours passing through Rumania, that is quite erroneous. All our broadcasts to Rumania are controlled by the Political Warfare Executive who have quite a sizeable supply of political advisers with knowledge of Rumania and Rumanian conditions. I think that, on the whole, our broadcasts to Rumania are exceedingly good. As for our broadcasts to Finland, I can assure hon. Members that foreign policy cannot be conducted on a basis that what is said by the B.B.C. must commit His Majesty's Government for evermore. The B.B.C. has told the Finns, time after time, that they ought to surrender. If they had taken the advice offered by the B.B.C., they would be a much happier people today; but nobody is to tell me that, because the B.B.C. have said that it is a good thing for the Finns to surrender as their independence had been guaranteed them by Russia, that commits His Majesty's Government. If His Majesty's Government are to be committed on every subject mentioned on the B.B.C., you can cut out all your future planning arrangements and make up your mind that you cannot set up any of those wonderful regional councils to control the world. If the Government tried, they could do no more than concentrate on about one-fifth of the B.B.C.'s output and when they had reached a high level of insanity, they would be forced to chuck the job. Of course, the Government are not committed by anything said on the B.B.C.

My hon. and gallant Friend has served a useful purpose in raising one question to-day. He wrote and warned me about it and I made a note about it. He asked me to give him a description, roughly, of our policy about broadcasting. I will tell him in a very short space of time. Our broadcasters are not Foreign Office officials. The latter are not required to make public announcements in their own name. They merely give anonymous advice to the Foreign Secretary. Secondly, we address our broadcasts, not to foreign Governments but to the people. I think that is a very good idea. Many shades of opinion are expressed by different broadcasters. The only essential is that the trend of the broadcasts should be in line with Foreign Office policy.

Consequently, it is no use quoting isolated sentences or even scripts. They must be read in conjunction with the whole output. I am satisfied that, as regards Finland, Rumania and Yugoslavia, our output has followed the general directive, drawn up by the Political Warfare Executive and approved by the Foreign Office. It is a mistake to think that our broadcasts are, or should be, in the nature of Foreign Office pronouncements. If they had been, the B.B.C. would not possess in Europe the enormous audiences which it now has. We have built up those audiences and achieved our results—and very good results they are—by a policy of truthful news, supplemented by sincere and lively comment. If the House has the leisure and the inclination to read the B.B.C.'s European output, there will be no difficulty in arranging this, but hon. Members should be warned—

Miss Ward (Walslend)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Bracken

The hon. Lady should not say "Hear, hear" before she knows what I am going to say, which is that this question of reading the scripts involves a total of about 300,000 words a day.

Miss Ward

Hear, hear.

Mr. Bracken

I admire the industry of my hon. Friend opposite and I look forward to the day when she has her 300,000 words to peruse. I think she will find it will seriously interfere with the admirable public work she does. It is not within possibility for anyone to read the daily output of the B.B.C.

Miss Ward

If my right hon. Friend will give way for one minute I should like to tell him that I am not suggesting that we should read everything but that it should be there, in the same way as HANSARD. It would be very useful if it was there to read, if one wanted to look up a particular point. Everything should be available to the student to get the best results.

Mr. Driberg

And indexed.

Mr. Bracken

That is another question. If anybody thinks we can find a staff to index the 300,000 words a day put out by the B.B.C. he forgets that the Minister of Labour is not at all anxious to release people for this work.

Mr. Driberg

Just a general summary index.

Mr. Bracken

Let me turn to the important point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend about broadcasts to Japan and Japanese-occupied territories. These broadcasts are made both by the B.B.C. in London and the Far Eastern Bureau of the B.B.C. in New Delhi. The policy directives are drawn up in London in the same way as is done for the European service of the B.B.C. There is also close co-operation and consultation with the American authorities. The Far Eastern Bureau at New Delhi is responsible to the Ministry of Information. The conduct of propaganda to Japan was never put directly under the Political Warfare Executive, because the Minister of Information had staff available in the Far East, whereas the Political Warfare Executive had not, but the Political Warfare Executive, as well as the Foreign Office, have a full say in the policy to be followed. Indeed, co-operation has become very close since the head of the Far Eastern division of the Ministry of Information took up the headship of the Far Eastern section of the Political Warfare Executive as well.

I thought it necessary to give the House these facts. I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising the matter. I want to make it clear to the House that there are no loose ends in our propaganda or in our relationships with the Foreign Office. Members in this House, from time to time, become very shocked by something they hear over the B.B.C. I am told by the party opposite that the B.B.C. is run by the Tories, and I am told by a large number of my colleagues on this side that the B.B.C. is run by the Socialists. When both sides take that view, it seems to me to show that its policy is reasonably independent. But I say to the House it is a matter of very great importance to show a certain amount of tolerance in dealing with broadcasters. They have to put out news and give talks, which cannot be phrased in what I might call Foreign Office lingo. You have to make a story attractive, and, from time to time, our broadcasters make statements which offend some section of public opinion. But those worthy listeners who are offended, ought to take note of the fact that, in the immense volume of stuff we have to broadcast, we are bound to make mistakes, and the marvel is that we make so few.

I consider that the European service of the B.B.C. is, by far, the liveliest broadcasting instrument on earth. I think it has done the most splendid work for our war effort. I think it has done more to stimulate resistance to the Germans in many countries in Europe than any other human agency. It has invaded the minds of the people under occupation and it has prepared them for the physical invasion that will in due course release Europe from the hideous tyranny of Germany. I would say that the staff of the European service of the B.B.C. work in the closest possible association with the Foreign Office and are doing such an admirable war job that I am really very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this matter today, because the more compliments I can pay them, the better it pleases me.

Captain Plugge (Chatham)

Before my right hon. Friend sits down may I ask him if he has any plans in hand to establish advanced radio bases nearer to Japan? We do not at present dispose of many spots near Japan where we can build stations broadcasting on medium waves in order to reach Japan properly. Have we plans to erect such stations?

Mr. Bracken

We have certainly got definite broadcasting plans. I am not going to discuss the location of our stations, but that point has not been overlooked.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn" put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly till Tuesday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.