§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. A. S. L. Young.]
§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)I regret having to detain the 2017 House at this late hour for what may appear to be a comparatively trivial point, but there is no alternative, since the Minister of Information has resolutely set his face against dealing at Question Time with the entertainment policy of the B.B.C. and of course it is quite right that the Minister should not be drawn, at weekly intervals, to give an opinion on the details of B.B.C. administration. On the other hand, we have to remember that £200,000 of public money goes into the coffers of the B.B.C. in that same period of seven days, and that simple fact alone imposes on Members the clear duty of raising the topic of broadcasting from time to time. My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) and others have, more than once, called attention to the desirability of regular Debates on the constitution and administrative policy of the B.B.C., and especially are such Debates desirable now when we are drawing near the time when its Charter will have to be renewed. I shall certainly join those who want to press the Government to give later in the year time for a full day's Debate on the subject. Meanwhile here is an opportunity of a more modest kind for hon. Members to put points to the Minister.
The question I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is whether he has taken note of the favourable public reception given to the General Forces programme, and whether he will invite the British Broadcasting Corporation to extend the period of its transmission to listeners in this country from 11 p.m. to midnight. The programme has been in operation for only a week, but, so far as I have been able to ascertain, it has had on the whole, a good reception from listeners in this country. It has certainly made a very good impression on me and those of my friends who have been able to listen to it.
The main purpose of the General Forces programme, we are informed, is to link the thoughts of those serving overseas with those of their friends and relatives here at home. Whether it will achieve that objective, time alone will show. If I might allow myself one word of criticism of the B.B.C., it would be to say that I do not think they will gain their objective by over-publicising the reasons for their action. The Englishman, who is only too keen and enthusiastic 2018 to kick a football through a goal on the football field, is nevertheless very reluctant to allow the forward march of humanity of which he forms a part, to be directed through the particular pair of golden gates designated by his governors. On the contrary, if an Englishman approaches any golden gates at all, it is generally by walking backwards, blindfolded, and with his hands tied. Therefore, the B.B.C. would be wise not to make too frequent mention of their spiritual goals, lest we deliberately avoid them and go in the opposite direction.
Furthermore, I think it is unprofitable for a private Member to air his personal views on the quality of entertainment provided on the radio, and to say there ought to be a little bit more of this and a little bit less of that. We have to remember that the General Forces programme is not a new programme. It has been gradually compiled over a period of eight months, and the B.B.C. have their own sources of information which are well established and from which they can improve, alter and amend in detail. One hopes that one of the improvements that may be made in future will be to join into the General Forces programme the new American programmes which are gradually finding their way into this country for the entertainment of the American forces. Generally speaking, our business in this House is to watch and criticise general policy and major trends. When there is a change in policy we ought to take note of it. The elimination of an old programme with some unsatisfactory features and its substitution by a young programme with healthy indications is an important change. It is, therefore, a subject for comment and endorsement in this House. I take encouragement from the fact that my hon. Friends, who would, but for the fact that the hour is advanced, be sitting on these Benches, and I, are in happy association with the B.B.C. in this matter of refreshment and invigoration. But it is to be noted with regret, that the more the Conservative Members of this House and the B.B.C. change, the more Members on that side remain the same.
Having arrived at the conclusion that the fare provided by the B.B.C. is delectable, I naturally ask myself whether we cannot be given more of it. The General Forces programme is now going out from 6.30 in the morning to 11 at night, and if 16½ hours is no surfeit, another hour 2019 would not cause indigestion. My hon. Friend cannot say that the public would resent it. What evidence there is points to the opposite conclusion. He cannot say that people ought to be asleep at that hour, because it is well-known that those who do not want to sleep switch over to the Home Service programme until the hour of midnight; also because the war effort is largely sustained by night-shift workers who desire musical encouragement at those times.
My hon. Friend also cannot say that fuel economy will be jeopardised to any very great extent, because, as we have seen, people will not switch off their wireless sets at 11 o'clock, and the fuel consumed by those sets is many times greater than the amount of fuel consumed by the General Forces Programme transmitters. Finally, the Minister of Information himself has often said that he cannot compel the B.B.C. to do anything, and least of all what they do not themselves want to do. I have no idea what the B.B.C. want to do in this matter. I am sure that they will do what is in the public interest, with such help as my right hon. Friend can give them. I hope that I have not made my hon. Friend's path more stony than he likes for an evening's constitutional, but I await with confidence what, I am sure, will be a most satisfactory reply.
§ Mr. Driberg (Maldon)There is one point which I should like to raise briefly, and which is strictly relevant to the issue raised by the Noble Lord. I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to give me an answer straight away, because I have not given him notice that I was going to raise it; but I should be glad if he would give us an assurance that he will look into it with the Governors and the Director-General. I am sure that many hon. Members must have listened with great pleasure to the weekly feature called "The Week in Westminster"—particularly perhaps when it is contributed by the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George). It is an admirable feature, and very good for what the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) always describes as the public relations of Parliament. But it occurs at what is really a very bad listening time of the week. Although, generally speaking, the week-end is considered 2020 the peak listening time, 7.45 on Saturday evening is a time when many millions of people are enjoying their Saturday night outing, at the movies or a dance or a pub or whatever it may be.
Now an entirely new situation has arisen, because the General Forces programme also has a weekly Parliamentary survey, admirable of its kind, but of quite a different kind from "The Week in Westminster." It is a straightforward, almost pedestrian, objective record of what has been going on in the House of Commons during the past week. It is done every week by the same speaker, Mr. Atkinson, a journalist of high repute, who does it very well indeed; but I do not think that he himself would claim for a moment that his feature had the variety, or quite the same authority perhaps, or the interestingly different personal approach, of "The Week in Westminster" as contributed by hon. Members. This General Forces survey occurs at one of the best listening times of the week, 9.30 on Sunday night, when those millions of people who have enjoyed their Saturday night outing are probably at home listening to the radio. I simply want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would consult with the Governors and the Director-General to see whether it would be possible to change around the times of those two features, or in some other way to remedy this slight anomaly.
§ Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)I do not want to stand between the Minister and the House, but by private arrangement with him I said that if I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, I would speak for two minutes. I want to put a point which is often put, sometimes humorously, sometimes seriously, in connection with the Forces programme. May I say in parenthesis, without undue effusion, that my hon. Friend behind me, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), made most valuable suggestions, and I should like to associate myself with them. One cannot deal with this matter extensively now, but is it really necessary to continue in this new Forces programme the number of female crooners we had before? I do not wish to attempt a competition in epithets or description regarding these people. I would only say that their accent resembles no known American accent, and that the women Cockney singers who sing it remind me of the 2021 caterwauling of an inebriated cockatoo. I may say again, in parenthesis, that I have a little hesitation about speaking of broadcasting because, like the hon. Member, I am a fairly frequent broadcaster myself, particularly in the Overseas Service. I listen from an English broadcasting point of view to the half-hour musical programme which Germany sends out principally for its troops. I must confess it seems to me infinitely better than ours—patriotic songs, light opera, an occasional modern song, and even when the Germans attempt the form of crooning I think it is less objectionable—I have no doubt I shall get some abusive letters for this—than the Cockney attempt to imitate the worst type of American accent.
There is a much more serious point. I cannot believe that all this wailing about lost babies can have a good effect on troops about to engage in a very serious pursuit in which their Eves will be in danger, and who are to take part in some of the biggest operations we have ever seen. I consider this matter should be studied from a scientific point of view, and that the B.B.C. and my right hon. Friend's Department should get into close touch with people in the Army responsible for dealing with the question of morale. If this is done to please the American troops, well and good, but if it is for British troops I cannot believe that the English character has altered so much in the last 24 years that it requires songs of that nature.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle)My Noble Friend in introducing this matter said very truthfully that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information had set his face resolutely against any attempt to interfere with B.B.C. programmes, and I am here to-day to say that my right hon. Friend has no intention at all of changing the direction of his face in that matter. It still is the position that he does not intend to interfere with the B.B.C. in its arrangement of programmes. This new General Forces programme was brought into operation by the B.B.C. without any consultation with us. We did not expect to be consulted and we were not, so that it has been brought in entirely on the responsibility of the B.B.C., and if it has got merits, as my Noble Friend says, we cannot claim to share the credit of its merits, and if it has defects, as the Noble Lord opposite says, we cannot be blamed for 2022 those defects. Regarding the particular point raised by the Noble Lord as to whether the programme could be continued from 11 o'clock until 12 o'clock, that again is entirely a matter for the B.B.C. I will make a point of seeing that all the observations made on that point are conveyed to the B.B.C., and I have no doubt that the B.B.C., which is very anxious to conform to public wishes, if it really feels there is a desire for that change to be made, will give it the most careful consideration. But it has to be looked at from a considerable number of angles; and, although my Noble Friend dismissed rather lightly the question of fuel economy, that is one aspect which will have to be taken into consideration. On the somewhat caustic comment made by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton), regarding the female crooners—
§ Earl WintertonThe excess of crooners.
§ Mr. ThurtleHe certainly commented on that crooning in somewhat caustic terms. That also is a matter for the B.B.C., and I will see that the Noble Lord's observations are brought to their attention.
§ Earl WintertonAlso, those in the Army will have to judge of the effect on morale of these songs.
§ Mr. ThurtleI would not take that very seriously. I do not think that a certain amount of crooning by female—what shall I call them?—singers is likely to affect, one way or the other, the morale of the British Army. As far as the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) is concerned, I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of his suggestion, because I would be entering upon ground which my right hon. Friend wants me to avoid; but I am sure the B.B.C. will read his observations with interest, and, if they think it would be an improvement to make such a change, they will probably make it. On the question of raising in this House matters concerning the B.B.C., I think it is a little unfair to the B.B.C. to suggest that it needs publicity in this House for the Corporation to direct its attention to particular features of its programmes. It has a very well-organised system of assessing the amount of interest which the public take in particular items, and it is only fair 2023 to say that the Corporation is also very anxious to conform to public wishes. Therefore, I do not think it needs prodding by Parliament. However, I am a Member of Parliament myself, and it would ill become me to stand up and suggest that another Member of Parliament should not exercise the undoubted right which he has of raising a matter of this sort in the House. I think that, with that observation, I have covered the points which have, been raised in this brief discussion, and I will leave the matter there.
§ Mr. Mathers (Linlithgow)I think that this House is as important a sounding board for the opinion of people in the country as any that can be possessed by the B.B.C., and I hope that the observations 2024 that are made here will be given their due weight by the Governors of the B.B.C., who hear through this House what general public opinion is. Arising out of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), I might say that I also have listened to the new Forces broadcast of the doings in Westminster, and my opinion is that it was excellently done. It occupies only 10 minutes, and I think it is worth at least as long as the "Week in Westminster" feature, which is given normally by a Member of Parliament in 15 minutes. I hope that that particular suggestion will also be noted by the Governors of the B.B.C.
§ Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.