B.B.C. FOREIGN BROADCASTS

HC Deb 19 December 1947 vol 445 cc2107-18

3.27 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish (Lewes)

The question I wish to raise is that of the importance and efficiency of the foreign broadcasts of the B.B.C. with special reference to the Central European service, which covers Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, and to the Eastern European service, including Russia, which also covers Yugoslavia, Roumania, Bulgaria, Albania and Greece. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is an extremely important question of a non-party nature. Significance is added to this question by the breakdown of the Four-Power Conference and by the current rumour, which started as a whisper and which is now developing into a shout, that the already inadequate Treasury grant to the B.B.C. is likely to be cut by an arbitrary 10 per cent.

The first question that I wish to ask the Minister of State is whether or not a cut is contemplated. Does the Foreign Office accept the fact that the efficiency of these services very seriously affects British foreign policy? The present Treasury grant for all the overseas services of the B.B.C. is £4,400,000, of which £1,400,000 is devoted to the European service itself. Those who have recent contacts with the B.B.C. will agree that financially it is at rock bottom and that its efficiency would be gravely impaired by lack of funds were this 10 per cent. cut to be made.

The next question I wish to ask is whether the Minister will give the House a fuller explanation of the extent to which the B.B.C. does not enjoy its full revenue under the licence granted to it by this House. To put it another way, how does it some about that out of every £1 granted to the B.B.C., a certain proportion gets, so to speak, lost in the post between the Treasury and the B.B.C. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) drew most pointed attention to this matter last February during the Debate on the B.B.C. Will the Minister say whether the Foreign Office is satisfied that this is a sensible arrangement?

I also wish to say a few words about the value of these broadcasts to foreign countries. During the last 18 months I have had the opportunity of visiting Poland, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia and other countries. I came back fully convinced that the habit of listening to these broadcasts which grew up during the war is a habit which has stuck. Not only do people listen to them but they pass on the news to their friends in a very short space of time. I was recently reading the "New York Herald-Tribune" and I saw what I believe to be a reliable figure that there are in the neighbourhood of 2,342,000 short-wave receivers in Eastern Europe at this particular moment. That seems to discount stories put about that very small numbers of people ever hear these broadcasts.

I should like to make it quite clear that the criticisms I propose to make do not in any way detract from the fact that I am well aware of the very high quality in general of these broadcasts, and of the hard work which goes into producing them. But mistakes have been made, and one of them is fundamental to this whole issue. Since VE-Day the huge Communist-controlled network of radio stations has sent out a torrent of anti-British, or, if it is preferred, anti-democratic abuse and propaganda apparently on the principle that the bigger the lie the better, and the more often it is told the better. Radio for the Russians has been one of the chief means by which they have sought to spread the principles and ambitions of international Communism with its undisguised plan for world revolution, resulting in the destruction of the Christian way of life.

The B.B.C. in contrast has deliberately avoided taking sides. It has been most careful not, in its own words, "to interfere in the internal workings of any of those countries" to which it directs its broadcasts. This means they have not faced up to the facts which are staring them in the face, and those facts which are staring them in the face have surely been underlined by the recent establishments of the tactical headquarters of international Communism in the shape of Cominform in Belgrade. There are several sections in Cominform, of which the fourth is the propaganda section, whose object in life is to co-ordinate and make more efficient the whole propaganda output of international Communism through the means of the radio and the Press.

The B.B.C. and the Voice of America—which is the equivalent of the B.B.C. foreign broadcasts, only put out, of course, from the United States—are the only sources of truth—I wish to emphasise this—the only sources of truth for the inhabitants of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. That is emphasised by the fact that in those countries there is a violent Press censorship which ensures that only Communist news and Communist views are read by the populations of those regions; and by the fact, so far as the radio is concerned, that in most villages in those countries—and I have been to many of them, as I have said—loudspeakers are installed in the villages, which ensures that, whether the inhabitants of those villages do or do not wish to hear Communist propaganda, they in fact do hear it.

I am not advocating that the B.B.C. should necessarily imitate the activities of the Voice of America, of which, in certain respects, I am definitely critical; but I shall not go into detail about that. Nor am I advocating, and nobody advocates, that the B.B.C. should indulge in vituperation or abuse. I am simply advocating that, acting on Foreign Office advice, the B.B.C. should accept the fact that Russia has never abandoned political warfare, and that this fact has contributed as much as any other to the unexampled growth of the Russian empire in Europe. I do not want the B.B.C. either to raise false hopes or to exaggerate in any way. I simply want them to provide their listeners abroad with unbiased, up to the minute news on local and international events; and by local events I mean local so far as the recipients are concerned. That is the first and fundamental mistake.

The second mistake is the question of accuracy—or inaccuracy, I should say. The inaccuracies which have crept into some of the foreign broadcasts of the B.B.C. are undoubtedly in large part due to the lack of funds and the consequent shortage of staff. I have many examples which I would gladly quote to the Minister of State afterwards, but there is no time now to give more than one, which is typical of other mistakes which have been made. In a recent broadcast to Hungary the B.B.C. referred to the Smallholder Prime Minister of that country, M. Dinnyes, as a general of 64. Every Hungarian knows that he never rose above the rank of sergeant—which is no discredit to him—and that he is a man of considerably less than 50 years of age. If a broadcast from Hungary to this country referred to our Prime Minister as a man of 85 who was a squadron-leader in the Great War we should think it rather curious, and we might begin to lose faith, to some extent, in the broadcasts to which we were listening. I mention this one example only to emphasise the point that, if inaccuracies of this nature are to creep in, people will begin to stop listening to the B.B.C.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)

Was that in the news or in an individual's talk?

Major Beamish

I am not certain. I am almost positive it was in the news, but I should not like to say so definitely. There are, however, inaccuracies of that type, and I ask the House to believe me when I say so.

Mr. K. Lindsay

Oh, yes, they are important.

Major Beamish

The third mistake concerns the internal administration of the foreign service. The point I want to put to the Minister of State in this connection is that there is a feeling among those with recent connections with the B.B.C. that there is a serious degree of over-centralisation resulting in unnecessary rigidity. I quote one example. The evening broadcasts which go out to those countries in Eastern Europe, and to other countries in Europe, are usually of half an hour's duration, and a hard and fast rule is laid down—an inflexible rule, I believe—that of the half an hour, ten minutes shall be taken up with news and 20 minutes with other programmes. It does not matter how important the news may be, or that the subsequent programme may be a violin solo, or what you will, the news must not intrude upon that programme. I cannot believe that that is right at this time. Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give the House any information regarding the allocation of funds by countries? If he is not, can we look forward in February to having more information on this important matter?

I want to refer briefly to the relations between the Foreign Office and the B.B.C., which are governed very largely by paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Seventh Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. Both paragraphs are woolly, and the sentence to which I refer is particularly woolly. It is this: The Foreign Office will be responsible for specifying the scope of the service required for reception in foreign countries, and for offering to the Corporation information regarding conditions in and the policies of His Majesty's Government.… The words I should like to emphasise are "for specifying the scope of the service." Those words seem to me to be very woolly and very general, and it seems quite clear that some amplification is desirable.

My last major point—and it is an extremely serious one—is to stress the vital importance of the non-party nature of these transmissions. I am sure that, as a generalisation, the Minister of State will agree with me that there have been many complaints of Left Wing bias in the B.B.C. If they are only generalisations, I think it is unfortunate that they should be made. I propose to give one or two examples. Some of the accusations have undoubtedly been unfounded and exaggerated, but others are undoubtedly true, as I hope the cases I shall quote will show.

There are many methods by which a partisan approach can be achieved in the presentation of news. One, of course, is by inflection of the voice, but the cardinal sin is surely the suppression of news. I have here a number of examples I wish to give to the House. On 15th December, in the news broadcast to Russia, 10 items were included. On that day, Mr. Deakin had made what the whole House will agree was one of the most important speeches of the month. His speech was not mentioned, although his speech was mentioned in the foreign broadcasts to other countries, when it was given considerable prominence. Who was responsible for excluding that extremely important news item from the broadcast to Russia? Is it possible that the individual who excluded it had Communist sympathies of some sort?

On 16th December, there was a news item in the Russian broadcast on the breakdown of the Four-Power Conference. It consisted of 21 lines, and out of those lines, only two, that is less than 10 per cent., were in any way critical of the attitude of M. Molotov at the Conference, and of the degree of responsibility he should bear for its breakdown. There was an extract from an editorial in the "Daily Telegraph," which was extremely outspoken, the extract being: There is no common measure of agreement for a unified control of Germany. I can only describe that as a deliberate distortion of the tone and attitude of the editorial in the "Daily Telegraph." I should like to know whether the man responsible for this had Communist sympathies.

On 13th December, in the broadcast to Russia, 32 lines were devoted to the speech of the Lord President of the Council to the nation. I make no complaint about that. It was an extremely important broadcast; nor am I going to raise the question of how many lines might have been_ devoted to an equally important speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). In those 32 lines in that broadcast, not one reference was made to the important part of the speech which referred to Communists in Europe, whereas one-third of the broadcast to France was devoted to that part of the speech. The words I am referring to are these: The Communists, who slavishly take their orders from outside their own country, have embarked on reckless and violent policies, which might well provoke the triumph of some sort of fascism. Still, I have the feeling that democracy in France and Italy will win through. The gentleman who prepared that broadcast was a certain Mr. Dean. I wonder if it could be that he has distinct Communist sympathies. On 7th September, there was a broadcast by an employee of the B.B.C., which referred to the Grimethorpe strike. The gentleman concerned was Mr. Pickles. He said that the miners were suspicious even when he offered them the microphone: Although I showed them my Labour Party membership card. This, mark you, is an employee of the British Broadcasting Corporation, and to me that is a distinctly partisan approach, and is typical of other broadcasts made by the same gentleman.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge (Bedford)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same sort of criticism can be laid from the very opposite direction and that, in fact, there are people who say there has been too much bias in these broadcasts in his favour?

Major Beamish

I would say that is equally undesirable. My object is that there should be no bias of any kind at all.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge

Why has the hon. and gallant Gentleman then presented one aspect?

Major Beamish

I am trying to be quite unpartisan in what I am saying, and that is why I have deliberately quoted the speech of the Lord President. In my opinion, any party bias is equally undesirable. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the interruption. I am sure that any partisan broadcast is thoroughly undesirable. I have two other points and I apologise to the House for taking so much time, but I think it is really important.

There is one particular way in which one can draw attention to an important news item, and that is by the position which that item occupies in the news broadcasts. There is what one calls the "lead," which is, of course, the first item. During this year there have been three large conferences—the Conservative Party Conference, the Labour Party Conference and the Trade Union Congress Conference. The Conservative Party Conference, within the one or two days of taking place, had the "lead" twice. The Labour Party Conference had the "lead" 11 times and the T.U.C. had the "lead" nine times. Is that not distinctly partisan and, if it is, is it not thoroughly undesirable?

My last point before I conclude is perhaps most serious of all. Twice daily from the B.B.C. there is issued a production called "Evening Notes." I have an original here and will gladly give it to the Minister. It is circulated twice daily from the Director of the European News Division to regions for guidance in compiling news. It is from these "Evening Notes" that I quote these words: It must be emphasised that personal antipathies should not obscure the fact that the Royal Wedding is a major story and must be treated as such.

Captain John Crowder (Finchley)

Nauseating.

Major Beamish

As my hon. and gallant Friend said, that is quite nauseating, and I suggest it discloses an extremely serious state of affairs.

In conclusion, can I have an assurance, an absolute assurance, from the Minister of State that in future the British Broadcasting Corporation will be British in its approach to putting news out to foreign countries and that these very grave charges which I have made will be fully investigated. Many people in the Conservative Party, and I hope and believe in the Socialist Party and the Liberal Party, hold the opinion most strongly that at this particular moment any cut in the Treasury grant to the overseas services of the B.B.C. would be a false economy. I feel I should make clear to the Minister that those who hold these views, and particularly those on this side of the House, will pursue this matter further at the earliest opportunity.

3.48 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil)

We are indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for raising this subject. I cannot pretend that I agree with his analysis throughout, nor am I at all sure that the information upon which he has based his case is accurate or, indeed, impartial. I should perhaps deal first of all with some of the factual questions which the hon. Gentleman raised. He asked me if a cut was contemplated. It is true that an overall cut of 10 per cent. in our information services has been agreed upon. My right hon. Friend was naturally reluctant to accept any cut. We know how important our information services are just now. We know it may be true, even, that these radio services may be the only instruments which we could use to penetrate certain areas.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me why we should cut them. It would be equally relevant to ask why we should ration bread. The reply is that we have to cut our expenditure. Perhaps I may be permitted to say this however. We have impressed upon the B.B.C.—and we have their co-operation in this matter—that these cuts should be made in such a fashion that the efficiency of the European broadcasts should be as little impaired as possible. We have been looking at figures. I think I can satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman that in terms of time, the cut is practically negligible. I think I could also convince him that although we are achieving this 10 per cent. cut, it is taking place on the frills and not the essentials. He asked me if I could indicate the breakdown of our expenditure, in terms of European countries, but I am afraid I cannot. I could, however, offer as a rough guide the amount of time we spent, which is a fairly good indication as to how our expenditure is apportioned.

We broadcast to Germany five hours a day; to Austria one; to Poland 1½; to Czechoslovakia one; to Hungary one; to Roumania one; to Yugoslavia 1¼; to Bulgaria one; and to Russia 1¼. That is not quite a complete calculation. In addition, there are the English and French transmissions, English for 6½ hours and French for 3¾ hours. Those are the European services. We know that these services have a considerable audience in countries of Central and South Eastern Europe, so the total for English transmissions which is given to the European service is slightly misleading, since some English programmes are broadcast in more than one way simultaneously. But that would be a fair estimate of this breakdown in time to arrive at a correct indication of how we apportion our expenditure over the various countries.

Mr. R. A. Butler (Saffron Walden)

Is it proposed to keep that particular allocation of time when the cut of 10 per cent. has been made?

Mr. McNeil

My recollection is that we have cut 14 hours and these figures were operative on 1st December, so the estimate is substantially right.

Mr. John E. Haire (Wycombe)

Would the Minister give an assurance that if a cut is contemplated or carried out it will not affect the news service, although it may affect the frills?

Mr. McNeil

I would not like to pretend it will not have any effect on the news services. We have tried to save the European services. Cuts have been made, for example, much more drastically in the South American service than the European service. I can give an assurance that if we cut the programmes it will be the frills that are cut rather than the substantial part of our service, and the least cuts will be visited upon the European service.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked me if the B.B.C. had its full revenue. I cannot quite see the relevance of the question. At any rate, I do not pretend to understand it. As I see it, the distinction between the European service and the home service, is that in the home service, the B.B.C. receive revenue from their licences, but in the overseas service in toto there is no revenue—there is a grant-in-aid, which the hon. Member quoted. If he is asking me about the grant-in-aid, I say, without qualification, that the full vote is used in the dissemination of this service. There is no question of revenue, as we normally use the word, being applicable to this service.

The hon. Gentleman then went on to deal with our technique. He suggested that the B.B.C. were jeopardising by inaccuracies our wartime reputation which, I am sure, the whole House will agree, was very high. I cannot lightly accept that suggestion. I know the hon. Gentleman offered to supply me with some examples of the inaccuracies, but if the inaccuracies are no worse than the one he quoted, I would not worry in the least. The inaccuracy he quoted was one referring to the Hungarian leader. He was stated to be a gentleman of some 60 years. My recollection is that the B.B.C., in their European service, made it plain that they were quoting an agency report. Several British newspapers followed that agency report, including one of the staunch Conservative journals from which the hon. Member frequently quotes. The B.B.C. made an apology as quickly as possible, and gave the correction.

Where there is a new service, and the essence of the service must be rapidity, they cannot escape from occasional inaccuracies. The reputation and value of the news service are not jeopardised by calling a sergeant a general or, once in a lifetime calling a man of 45 a gentleman of 60. The reputation of the service will rest upon its selection and its handling of news. The B.B.C. built up a reputation of reliability and quickness during the war, and to that reputation we still are holding on by the same methods. I repudiate quite sharply any suggestion that the B.B.C. is inaccurate.

Major Beamish

I did not want to make any general charges. I said that inaccuracies had crept in, that the main reason was shortage of funds resulting in lack of staff. There have been minor inaccuracies, and it might be possible to do away with them if there was more money, but the position may now be worse, because of the 10 per cent. cut.

Mr. McNeil

My limited professional experience, which may be more than that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, convinces me that money is no substitute for time. If there is to be rapidity, there will be slight inaccuracies. The reputation of the service will not suffer. I must admit that I was slightly alarmed by the example which the hon. and gallant Gentleman gave about the selection of news, and I promise him that I will look into those matters. He mulled his own argument. I thought his fear was, from the selection he took of Soviet news, that there was a mass of Communism inside this European service, distorting and misusing it. When the hon. and gallant Member quoted the instruction, I thought his inference was that while we have Communists misusing the opportunity on the one side, in the other case he was complaining, because the director of the service took some pains to see that the——

Major Beamish

The Minister does not seem to appreciate exactly that point. The fact that the instruction had to be issued, indicated that that senior officer appreciated that there was a matter which had to be dealt with.

Mr. McNeil

Then it is plain that the hon. and gallant Member does not object to these instructions?

Major Beamish

I object to the necessity for them to be issued.

Mr. McNeil

Counsel which should be urged upon every one is that they should be utterly impartial and unbiased in the selection of news——

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. McNeil

It is a counsel which will never be achieved. I have no reason to believe that there are any unreliable people in this service. I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the House that the Controller is constantly surveying news and he is in the closest liaison with the Foreign Office, and every facility is provided to check up against background. I will investigate the examples the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given, but I am fairly certain from the response we received from Russia and Central and Eastern Europe that our service is well cared for, steadily listened to and does a great job which could not be undertaken in any other way for this country.