HC Deb 18 November 1946 vol 430 cc645-54

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

10.14 P.m.

Mr. Edelman (Coventry, West)

An earlier Debate this afternoon concerned itself very largely with the question of Anglo-American relations. Whatever our views on that subject, it is quite clear that in order that there should be a good Anglo-American understanding there must be adequate understanding of Britain in America and of America in Britain. I feel, therefore, that it is apposite this evening to raise the question of the adequacy of the aid which the Government are giving to our British Information Services in the. United States. During the war those information services, generally known as B.I.S., did a most excellent job of work. They were concerned with interpreting the British case, with projecting Britain to the Americans, with explaining what was happening in Britain, and with giving Americans an understanding of the British war effort. Everyone must agree that their work in these respects was excellent.

As soon as the war came to an end we had to consider the question of the conservation of dollars, and the B.I.S. was one of the first British agencies in the United States to suffer. From January to June, 1945, we spent approximately £243,000 on these services, but from January to June, 1946, we spent only something like £149,000. In fact, one of the first acts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in seeking to save dollars was to cut down the budget of the B.I.S. If one regards the B.I.S. as being in the nature of a luxury that would seem a perfectly proper procedure; but if, on the other hand, one recognises that the need to interpret British policy and British affairs in America is every bit as urgent and important now as it was during the war, then instead of cutting down the budget, it might have been more appropriate to have doubled it.

I recently had an opportunity of seeing the B.I.S. in action in the United States. I saw how, with a comparatively small staff, they were tackling the immensely important job of explaining both the work of the British Government and the position of Great Britain in the world. They had enormous difficulties, because they were being assailed simultaneously not only by the traditional enemies of this country, but also by its traditional friends. On the one side they were being attacked by the mid-West isolationist Republicans who have a long tradition of criticism and deep—seated hostility to our country; on the other side by those liberals who were our staunch supporters during the war—liberals who have very serious doubts about our policy, often for the most mistaken reasons but who none the less are foremost and amongst the most vocal in attacking Britain. Here we ought to bear in mind that when the question of the American Loan to Britain was considered in America, more Republicans voted against the Loan than for it; and if we regard it as an asset, we must be grateful to those American liberals who were very largely responsible for our having it. But the liberals have turned against us. And so, to a great extent, have the Zionists who are bitter and despondent about British policy in Palestine. Consequently the task of B.I.S. is now every bit as important as it was during the war, and they need all the help we can give them.

I saw the condition under which B.I.S. is working. Today it has only four major offices, in Washington, New York, Chicago and San Francisco. And here I would say in passing that no American getting his first view of Britain from the Washington office could be particularly impressed. When I went there, I ascended in a dreary, dowager—like lift, stumbled over several garbage cans, and finally found myself in a dingy, drab, sordid—looking office—the first of a series. I cannot believe that Americans, who pay much attention to external appearances, are likely to be impressed with their introduction to Great Britain in such a place. On the other hand, New York, Chicago, and, I understand, San Francisco are models of what such offices should be. The fact is that all of these offices are working with very limited and completely inadequate resources.

Let me give one illustration. The Press and Radio Division of the B.I.S. in New York has an establishment of 21 employees, including typists. This office has to concern itself with literally hundreds of radio stations and dozens of newspapers. Despite the most excellent work which it does, and did throughout the war, it is clearly inadequate, through lack of staff, to cope with the demands made upon it. It is true that the B.I.S. works in association with the consulates, but a consul is not really equipped to carry out the specialised work of public relations. He has many urgent day-to-day routine activities to which he must attend, and it is, consequently, impossible for him to act in the capacity of a public relations officer for this country, to interpret what is happening here, to explain a policy which perhaps is misunderstood in America, and in a general way to encourage friendship with the Americans. The result is that there are vast areas of America which have no contact at all with Great Britain, either through the B.I.S. or the consular offices, or through any other of our publicity agencies. That is a great gap in the link of friendship which we want to create with the United States.

We must, therefore, consider what we can do to strengthen our British Information Services in America so that they can be fully equipped to carry out the task for which they are intended. In the first place, we must give them more adequate financial support. I recognise that the Chancellor, wishing to save dollars, has tried to lop off what he regards as frills and furbelows. But the fact is that the B.I.S. represents for us an invisible export of great importance. It represents an export of goodwill. It is impossible to assess in dollars how much that goodwill represents materially, but I am sure it represents a considerable amount. I would further urge that we should attach to centrally situated consulates or consuls—general in the United States regional information officers. In France, I have seen Press officers, who form part of the Foreign Office news service, do most excellent work in covering wide areas. They get into friendly and personal touch with editors and various personalities of the territories which they cover, and the result is that they generate an enormous amount of good will. In America, too, we could have the same system, which would enable mobile information officers, attached to a consulate, to cover a wide area and to have that area as his information parish.

I would further urge that if we send out lecturers to the United States they should be first class. The Americans, strangely enough, like to be lectured, but not by old hacks trotting out their dreary anecdotes. The Americans appreciate what is best, and value the opinions of experts; and I hope my hon. Friend will consider the question of sending out more experts to America to interpret British life. I saw one such example in the excellent and successful lecture tour carried out by Air-Commodore Frank Whittle. He went there as an expert on jet propulsion, and spoke to his counterparts, and, I am sure, created an enormous amount of good will, which amply repaid any expenses which were involved in his tour. I hope, therefore, that B.I.S. may consider it desirable to cut out a wide expenditure on a host of mediocre speakers, and concentrate on importing into the United States first—rate men, who can talk to the Americans in a language which they can understand and which they will appreciate.

Finally, I would suggest that one of the most important things for the workers in an organisation such as the British Information Service in America is to have an opportunity to return at least once a year to Britain in order to freshen up their ideas and put them again in touch with the mother country. There is nothing which tends more to staleness and failure than for an official in the Foreign Service and certainly in its information service to be cut off for a long period from his home country. The result is that he looses contact, and is often no more in contact with what is going on in his native country than the people in the country to which he is accredited.

I hope, therefore, that the Foreign Office and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be parsimonious, but give the people who work in B.I.S. the opportunity of at least one refresher course per annum. My hon. Friend, who I know is in sympathy with the work of B.I.S., will, I trust, consider some of these suggestions which I have put forward. We have in America an Ambassador who has created an enormous amount of good will for Great Britain. He is an Ambassador of whom we can really say that he is "Britain's best ambassador." He has won the affections of multitudes of Americans of widely differing views. I hope, therefore, that we will give him, through the British Information Service the help which he requires to facilitate his work. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will cast a few more dollars across the waters, because I am sure that they will return a thousandfold.

10.27 p.m.

Captain Marsden (Chertsey)

I would like to support the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman)—it is a great day for Coventry today—in what he says. I do not agree with him one hundred per cent. on the tremendous efficiency of the British Information Service, because I am not sure about that, but I realise the value of an information service in the United States. I am not quite sure that the staff are recruited from the right source. From one point of view, of course, it is useful to have people with B.B.C. experience and university qualifications, but in my line of life, I consider that these are disqualifications, because they do not get enough among the life of the people and do not understand the general mixing, which is so essential in the United States if we are to put anything across at all. For that reason I was glad to hear the hon. Member say that he approved of them being attached in some way to the Consuls General. Apart from the Ambassador himself—and the last Ambassador did everything that was right fine and proper for our people and country—I would like to miss out a great many others, until we come down to the Consuls General in the back States, who really understand the citizens of that great country far better than many people tucked away in the Embassy.

I was in America for four years, and the B.I.S. stopped me speaking once or twice in the Middle West because of my English accent, although I do not know what sort of accent they thought I ought to have. When it was a question of information that was wanted, they would fall over backwards to provide some news that was required; they would telephone to England and think nothing of it. But when it came to publicity—I had to avoid the word "propaganda"—they were not so very good. Over and over again, I came across officers sent over from the heat of the battle, men of experience who had been through all sorts of dangers, to speak in the United States, and by the time they had seen the British Information Service they were shivering with fear because they were told of all the things that they must not say because of the fear of treading on people's toes.

I say that, although the people representing B.I.S. are serious people, honest people believing they are doing well, I do not think they are the right sort at all. I do hope this service will have the great attention it deserves. The hon. Member wants more money spent on it. I think he is right. What I would go for is a little more quality and not so much quantity. When I was there, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as he then was, came over with instructions to cut down the Britishers by 8,000. "And you are the first organisation I have been told to chop off," he said to me. I said, "You won't chip me off, because I have the British Admiralty behind me, and recommended him to the British Information Service because I thought he would have had better result there. I would only add this—a little more quality and not so much quantity, pay the money and get the very best.

10.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew)

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) for raising this matter and making such a helpful and constructive speech. I am very glad also to have heard his tribute to the British Information Service which I think was very well deserved and I know will be well appreciated there. Since I have not very much time perhaps I might get down to the detailed questions he raised. I agree with him about the premises in Washington. I myself have been up in the lift in Washington. I agree that we want the British Information Services, to be as typically British as possible But the accommodation is too representative of the kind of conditions we see over here. If I cannot have the lift speeded up I assure him I will have the garbage cans removed and see that the premises become more suitable.

As far as the Press and Radio Department is concerned, I agree about the importance of this and I have to say that we have taken steps to strengthen the staff: we have appointed an Assistant Director and we will see they get a fair chance. We have plans to send out suitable speakers at the rate of six per year and we are considering plans to send over Members of Parliament of all parties. About the regional organisation of the Information Services again I am sympathetic to the point of view of the hon. Member. I think on the whole we do tend to be rather concentrated on New York but there are some regional offices and more regional officers than I think he said. We believe that our officers should go out and around as much as possible. The suggestion about mobile officers at Consulates—General receives much warm sympathy and will be borne in mind.

The main point he raises is about the reduction in expenditure and the reduction in staff since the war ended. Of course, it is true we have had to reduce our activities and the basic reason for this he will be familiar with. The war brought special responsibilities for Governments in keeping communications open and the dissemination of news going. The war separated the American and British peoples by reason of security restrictions. Personal contacts were broken down, and some hampering of the Press and radio was inevitable. In these circumstances, the Government had a special responsibility for seeing that in wartime, information was got across and therefore heavy expenditure was inevitable. Today there is a big and important task for our Information Services. But in peacetime I think it is a slightly different task. On both sides of the Atlantic the freedom of the Press and radio has been restored and communications generally are getting back to normal. For example, we no longer need the daily cabled news summary from New York which was absolutely vital during the war, but would be superfluous today. For some of these reasons I think it is reasonable to expect that the scope of our activities and expenditure should be slightly less today than they were when the war ended. I think we can still organise a service perfectly efficient but on a slightly less expensive scale.

Therefore, in order to get the service as effective as possible, we are planning a reorganisation of the B.I.S. In June last, Mr. W. P. N. Edwards was appointed Counsellor in charge of British Information Services. He has had long experience of Anglo-American cooperation, especially on the economic side, and he has also had experience at the Board of Trade. He is in close consultation with the Ambassador, and the experienced staff of B.I.S., and he is reviewing the whole scope of our information service with a view to making sure that the best possible use is made of the resources which we have. But I would say that the efficiency of the service is not just a question of money, but also the use of the right men, too; and the dollar factor does come into this matter. Dollars are getting increasingly scarce, and they go less far than they used to because of present conditions in America. We have to bear in mind that factor when deciding on the scope of our activities.

Then, there was the point made about the refresher courses, and in this, I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member who has just spoken. Arrangements are being made to bring back members of B.I.S. for these courses, and twenty members have come home in the last six months for stays varying from three weeks to three months.

Mr. Brendan Bracken (Bournemouth)

Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what he means by refresher courses?

Mr. Mayhew

The idea is that members of B.I.S. should come back in order to get the feel of ordinary life over here, and they see not only London, but go to the provinces as well. They visit schools and factories and clubs in the provinces with the idea of keeping in touch with the feel of ordinary life in Britain. We have worked out a plan for the exchange of members of B.I.S. with the American Information Staff over here. Under this scheme, twelve B.I.S. people will come over here, and six American Information Department people will go over there. We are going to press on with these—refresher courses because we consider that they are a means of keeping the staff in the best state of efficiency. I would like to say that the hon. Member showed a proper appreciation of the purpose of B.I.S. work and he realised its importance. We are not out to "propagand" the Americans, for we realise that it is no use trying to put Britain across by propaganda. The Americans would not take that, and it would only end in self—defeat. Our, object is to make available material about Britain on which the Americans can make up their own minds. We want them to get the true facts in the most helpful and most efficient way, and I think that we can say that good results have been, and are being, achieved. There is a need for good and true understanding of Britain in America. Our aim is to provide a friendly, businesslike, and efficient service of true information, and, although the United States still harbours many strange beliefs about Britain and the British Empire, on the whole, I think, knowledge and understanding are going up. Partly I think this is due to the shrewd coverage of British news by American correspondents. But partly also I think it is due to the excellent work of the British Information Services. I want to assure the hon. Member (Mr. Edelman) that we do understand the importance of the British Information Services, that the cutting down of expenditure is due to the change—over from war to peace, and that we will do everything in our power to keep the service efficient and effective.

10.41 p.m.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone)

In a San Francisco journal recently, there appeared a leading article, which alleged that Great Britain and her Colonies had now put in a demand against Italy for reparations amounting to 11,520,000 dollars. This article went on to say that it was their opinion that this enormous claim for reparations meant that this demand would be satisfied by the ceding of the Italian Colonies to Great Britain. The article claimed that that was exactly what it had said during the war years, and it was now being proved correct. That is typical of the sort of thing which is happening from time to time in American journalism. It seems to me important that the activities of the British Information Services should be directed to refuting allegations of this kind. It seems to me that when matters of this kind appear, which are untruthful, they obviously ought to be answered, and that active steps should be taken at once in various ways to see that allegations of this nature are answered. It seems to me that the size of the British Information Services and the amount of money at their disposal at the moment is not sufficient to enable the sort of answer which ought to be given to this kind of allegation to be made. For that reason, I think that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) for raising this matter. I hope that, as a result of what has been said here tonight, much greater support will be given in the coming months to the work of the British Information Services in the United States of America.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)

I would like to put a question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I do not think it was dealt with in his very interesting speech. I have myself seen all these stations in the United States, and I gather that they have been cut by two. Is it the attitude of the Government today that they think that this job can be better done by American journalists, or do they think that the interpretation of Great Britain can be done by the British Information Service, either in its present or an extended form?

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes to Eleven o'Clock.