HC Deb 28 March 1947 vol 435 cc1620-32

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

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Boardman (Leigh)

If there is one piece of ground which is common to hon. Members in all parts of the House, it lies in the fact that, irrespective of party allegiance to any Government of the day, all hon. Members would agree that our British Parliamentary system, with all its imperfections, is the finest system of government in the world. That being so, we might go a step further and say that we all agree that any Government which may sit on these benches at any time is, at least, entitled to a fair crack of the whip from those people whose position allows them to mould or influence public opinion. I desire to speak very briefly on the relationship between the Government and the Press. I shall speak critically but also, I hope, constructively. During one of the Debates last week an hon. Member on the opposite side of the House told us that he did not believe one half of what he read in the newspapers. That statement is particularly noteworthy not because of its originality but because so many people are saying precisely the same thing. I quote from a letter which appeared in the "Daily Express" this morning: I have been a regular reader of the 'Daily Express' for years and have now decided to change. The letter praises the sports editor and the sports writers and says that they are the finest in the country. Then it adds: Your political convictions override everything else and what was at one time, a friendly, invigorating newspaper has become a hard machine, determined to turn its readers against the Government. That is very interesting at a time when the technique of newspaper production has reached the very highest level. The popular Press today—and there are very honourable exceptions—is becoming progressively unreliable. This is an extremely bad thing, not particularly from the point of view of the people who might be injured by the unfairness, distortion, understatement or overstatement of the Press, but it is an extremely bad thing for the newspaper world itself. Whether the Press knows it or not, it is in the process of destroying its own dignity and influence with the men and women of this country. Probably all that arises from the fact that the daily Press of today is becoming much more interested in the presentation of views than in the presentation of news. I want to make myself perfectly clear on this particular issue. I regard a free Press as an integral part of a healthy democracy and I also regard the right to criticise as the hall-mark of freedom, but surely it is a strange twist of irony that while this freedom is one of the strongest features of our democratic system, it is becoming one of the greatest weaknesses of our democratic Government. I also want to stress this point. There are people, particularly hon. Members on this side of the House, who say that the Press have abused that freedom. Be that as it may, I want to make perfectly clear that I would rather see that freedom abused than see it abolished.

In such cases as the daily Press does attempt to give the Government's point of view it does so, I think naturally and probably unconsciously, with its own particular slant, but I try to take a reasoned view of this question. I realise that most men find it extremely difficult to see things except through their own eyes, and I think I have lived long enough to know that most men think their own particular opinion the most important thing in the world. Personally, I prefer facts to the predigested opinions of the Press proprietors, whoever they may be. I have this in common with hundreds of thousands—probably the majority—of men and women in this country, that as long as I can ascertain for myself what are the facts and what is the truth of the situation, I would rather be left to my own devices to form my own judg- ment and my own opinion in any particular matter, particularly on political matters. While I believe that it is right and good and a healthy sign that people should be critical, and particularly critical of the Government, people cannot criticise effectively without first getting hold of the facts.

I, therefore, think that is the prime function of the Press. A lot has been said about the Press during the last few months and a lot will be said in the next few months. I do not want particularly to associate myself with that subject. During the last election, we on this side said a lot about "facing the future." I do not want to enter into any form of recrimination and I only propose to look backward, in so far as it may provide guidance for going forward. But I believe that during the short period this Government have been in office they have done magnificently. I believe their greatest weakness has been a complete inability to find an effective means of getting information across to the people. The problem is quite understandable. The position in which this Government find themselves is that the announcement of their political achievements is in the hands of their political adversaries. That is not a very healthy state of affairs, but we come to a point now where it is absolutely necessary, not merely in the interests of this Government or in the interests of any political party, but in the interests of the nation as a whole that we should get across to the people of this country particulars of the contents of their "Economic Survey for 1947."

We must impress on the people the grimness of the task that lies ahead. I am satisfied once we get that across, we can depend entirely on the loyal co-operation of every man and woman in this country. We can find consolation in the glorious precedents in our national history when grimness has brought forth greatness, and we may take it that on this occasion we can rely on the people in the task that lies ahead. When all is said and done, we are dependent for our economic rehabilitation on the unquestioned loyalty of the people, and the Government owe it to the people of this country—the men and women of any party or of no party—to tell them precisely what we are doing, and why we are doing it, and where we are going, and why we are going there. If I may say this in criticism of the Government, I do not think it is good enough when people have empty grates, merely to tell them why we have no coal. I think we should be able to assess trends and inform people what we see six months or 12 months ahead, and what we have to do to meet a particular situation.

I am not asking the Government to indulge in any form of propaganda. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that all political propaganda should properly be left to the political parties. But I am asking that the Government should find some means of informing the nation as a whole of their policy and intention, and I suggest that this might be done as part of our daily news service. It may be also that people will say that at some time or another the Government are bound to indulge in some form of propaganda, for instance on a Bill like the National Insurance Bill where the vast majority of the community will benefit. All I can say in reply is, that if the standard of achievement of the Government is so high that it seems to be propaganda, so be it. We cannot help it. But if we are to carry the people with us through good times and bad—perhaps I should say through bad times and good—I think we must keep the people particularly well informed.

I want to make a proposal here which hope may be considered by the Government and may also be noted by the Press. I think the Government probably place too much reliance on White Papers like the "Economic Survey" and I think what the Government have so far failed to realise is that men and women would very much rather read the "News of the World" than a Government blue book.

Mr. Walkden (Doncaster)

There is good stuff in the "News of the World."

Mr. Boardman

That may be, I am not disputing that. All I am saying is that we have to find a means of popular presentation of our case to the people. I think we can do that. During the war quite a number of admirable little pamphlets on the fighting Services were produced by the Stationery Office. In fact, they became best sellers. I want to put this proposal to the Government: that they should consider employing the best that we can get hold of in British journalism. Instead of giving the newspapers the ordinary formal hand-out, which the Press do not want in many cases, they should say to these journalists, "This is news. Now you go and make this as bright and as readable as possible, as bright as you know how, with this overriding qualification—that you must stick essentially to facts and that, in the last analysis, a Minister in this Chamber can be responsible for every word that has been written." Some hon. Members may think I am particularly naive or overoptimistic on this line, but I think that instead of the Press and the Government partly kicking one another to death, we must approach this in. a commonsense way. I think there is a commonsense solution. I would invite the Press to print what has been written by these sponsored journalists. I want to underline that. I would invite that, but if they chose not to print it, then that is their circus.

Mr. Wilson Harris (Cambridge University)

Is the hon. Gentleman asking them to print news or views? I do not quite understand now what he wants to be printed.

Mr. Boardman

I thought I had made that perfectly clear, that instead of the ordinary formal hand-out of Government news, those journalists should be asked to make that news as presentable as possible.

Mr. Harris

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that any newspaper, in its own interests, makes news as presentable as possible? How can it be done differently?

Mr. Boardman

Precisely, that is just it—in its own interests. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain—

Mr. Harris

I have been waiting a long time.

Mr. Boardman

The hon. Gentleman has waited precisely 14 minutes, and in the fifteenth I will give him what he is waiting for. I would say to them, "Alongside this Government news you can print your own leader, you can print your own version, and so far as the Government contribution is concerned, you can criticise it, you can pull it to pieces, you can do what you like with it, but that is news." Then, having done that, I think we could leave it to the intelligence of the average reader to decide which way he himself should go at any time—whether he should support the Government that might be in power, or use his influence to go against it on any particular issue. I think this would be not merely for the benefit of the Government. Above everything else, it would be for the benefit of the people as a whole. Secondly, it would be to the advantage of the Press, and finally to the advantage of the Government. I think it would be to the advantage of democracy itself in helping to make it a real, virile, living thing.

A few weeks ago political weeklies were suspended, and during those weeks the editors were invited to go on the air. I believe the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) took part in those debates. Outside the "Itma" programme, I think those broadcasts were more praised than anything I have heard on the radio in recent times. That was simply because we had people putting their own point of view, sometimes conflicting and sometimes agreeing, but, nevertheless, putting their own opinion clearly and straight from the shoulder, and that was very much appreciated. I think that would be the effect of what I am asking the Government and the Press to consider.

There is a line on which the Government and the Press seem to have some measure of co-operation. Both are appealing to both sides in industry, to management and men, to co-operate in the interests of our national and economic advancement. If the Government and the Press can demonstrate their co-operation—in fact practise what they are preaching to both sides of industry—that would be a gesture on the part of the Press which would help the Press to re-establish its dignity and influence. It would help to get our democratic people properly informed. It is no use paying lip service to democracy, unless we are prepared to take some steps to get democratic people properly informed. It would help the Government, because the people would have some proper appreciation of what the Government are doing, and if it was necessary to go through a tough time, they would carry the people with them, which would be definitely to the advantage of all parties concerned.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris (Cambridge University)

I undertake not to stand for more than three minutes between the House and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I have listened with very great interest to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), I have listened with a genuine endeavour to understand what he wanted, but I must confess I have not been entirely successful. He was kind enough to refer to a broadcast in which I participated. Actually those who took part in it were asked to make over the air just the same statements as we would have made in our papers, if our papers had been published that week. So far from there being any distinction between the broadcasts and the habits of the weekly papers, the two presentations were in fact identical.

After a fairly long experience, I am perfectly convinced that there is only one safe rule in relations between Government and Press. I entirely agree with the hon. Member that the Government must give the Press all the news it has at its disposal, and that it can disclose consistently with the public interest, but it must give plain, unvarnished news. In the early part of his speech, the hon. Member said he wanted to get the facts, and to form his view irrespective of what the leader-writer said. I do not think that would be achieved by his method of getting someone to take the facts, dress them as attractively as possible, and hand them out in that form to the individual daily papers. The papers must have the naked facts, and treat them as facts. Generally speaking, with regard to relations between Government and Press, the Government should interfere with the Press as little as possible, and the Press on their side should, if they think it well, not indeed interfere with the Government, but be perfectly free to criticise and comment on it as much as they choose. That is what is in fact happening today. Mistakes are no doubt made, papers are fallible, but I claim that the position is, in the main, satisfactory. I cannot, in spite of the most sincere endeavour, realise how anything the hon. Member has suggested today would improve the present situation. However, as I hope to hear some development of this idea from the Financial Secretary, and because I think we ought to have the full benefit of his observations, I will not detain the House longer.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith (Hertford)

I, too, followed with great interest the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman), and I also had great difficulty in understanding the precise scope of his recommendations. I believe it is true that never before have any Government had at their disposal such elaborate machinery for communicating news and, possibly, their point of view to the Press.

Mr. Boardman

And probably no Government before have ever had such an elaborate machine which was so completely ineffective.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I cannot go into that, and in any case, I am not competent to do so. No doubt the Financial Secretary will address himself to that point. The hon. Member for Leigh has criticised what is being put in the newspapers. I think it is obvious that with the present shortage of space and, if you like, the embarras de richesse in respect of news, there must be some compression and selectivity of news. I think it is true, however, that most papers try to represent the important facts as facts, and to keep comment reasonably distinct from facts. It may be right that certain White Papers, like the Economic Survey for 1947, are written in insufficiently intelligible or attractive language but that, of course, is not the fault of the Press. It is the fault of those who write these documents. It may be that in this respect the hon. Member was making a good point but was making it, as it were, against the wrong target. I will not say any more now, as the House will wish to hear the Financial Secretary.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay (Combined English Universities)

I believe that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) had the best intentions in raising this subject today, but I felt that the further his speech proceeded the more it tended to become dangerous, for this reason. During the war the Government were identified with the people, to the extent of almost 100 per cent. The British documentary films that were produced, and the brochures from the Service Departments and other places, were representative of the nation. But now we have returned to party Government. The whole set-up is basically different. However, I hope that this Debate may lead one day to a Debate on the present functions of the Central Office of Information.

I think some of us would like to know precisely where that Office draws the line between matter which is non-controversial, and matter which may be very controversial, whichever Government is in power. I hope that we shall have a longer Debate in future on this subject.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Walkden (Doncaster)

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) was quite sincere in trying to promote a Debate on something about which he felt critical, particularly with regard to public relations officers, hand-outs, and information which comes from Government Departments. But it was as though my hon. Friend went into battle armed with a bladder on a stick, instead of with the proper ammunition. There is something pathetic about Government Departments in their publishing of information. After all, the Press are entitled to express opinions, views, and criticisms. The strength of the Government of the day determines whether or not they can stand up to the newspapers. But the question to which criticism should be directed, is that of whether material which concerns a particular Department is or is not being properly presented to the newspapers. I would only say this to my hon. Friend. He has recently been appointed a P.P.S. I do not know much about the public relations department of his own Department. But I have been a P.P.S. myself. I say, frankly, that there is need for a shake up; there is need for a sorting out; there is need for a comb out; there is need for an elimination process. It that is what my hon. Friend wishes to commend to the Financial Secretary, I second his speech, and I shall encourage him for all I am worth, in any effort he may make to have another Debate on this question in the very near future.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe (Brighton)

I shall be very brief because I know the House wants to hear the Financial Secretary. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) his inability to understand exactly what the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) wanted to say. He started by suggesting that there should be closer relations between the Government and the Press, and went on to say that the Government were not getting a fair deal. That, really, is quite without foundation. The truth of the matter is, that this is like selling any other commodity. If one has a good article to sell, one can sell it all right; and what the hon. Member is really doing, by saying the Government are not getting good publicity, is denying his assertion that it is a very good Government. For good publicity in the newspapers is a general reflection of public opinion, and if public opinion really believed this was a good Government, there would not be any difficulty in getting adequate support from the newspapers. That is what the trouble is.

Mr. Boardman

No.

Mr. Marlowe

The hon. Gentleman's complaint should not be towards the newspapers; it should be towards the Government. I know that the House wants to hear the Financial Secretary, but I will go on for a moment longer because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wants to say very much. On this subject one has to be very careful about getting near to any sort of control of the Press. I did not know this Debate was going to arise today, but I happened a few days ago to be looking through a book of lampoons of the eighteenth century, and I found this which struck me as rather amusing. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be offended by one particular line in it: When wicked Ministers of State, To fleece the lamb combined, As guardians of our liberties, The Press was first designed. But now the scum is uppermost, The truth must not be spoke, The world is topsy-turvy turned, And justice is a yoke.

4.27 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall)

As I understand it I have five minutes, including a couple of minutes beyond the half hour. I believe I can cover the ground that we have to cover in that time. Unlike other hon. Members, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Boardman) on his speech. I thought that he spoke with restraint, and with a good deal of common sense. He said it was the right of the Press to criticise, and that it was the hall-mark of democracy that that right should be there, and that he would rather see the liberty of the Press abused than taken away. I think these things should be said, and I am sure that hon. Members present will agree with him. He also said—and this cannot be underlined or emphasised too much—that propaganda is not part of the work of the Government. That is, in fact, our sheet anchor in this matter.

The Government's job is not, in my view—and, I am positive, in the view of other hon. Members here—to use the machine at their disposal to put over their own purely party point of view. They should use what facilities they have in order to get to the public the facts of any given situation, so that the public can be fully informed. I think it was rather to that end that my hon. Friend desired to raise this Debate, and to get some expression of the Government's point of view. He said the Government should not only get over what they were doing, but also get over to the public the reasons why they were doing it.

I share with hon. Members opposite the feeling that we are hardly likely to get too much co-operation from the Press along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. It would, of course, be necessary to get journalists together, and try to get them to co-operate in the way he visualised. But I should like to tell him—I think he knows it already—that, generally, the Press does exist to put over the point of view of some political party, and to support a political party—except, of course, periodicals of the calibre of that edited by the hon. Gentleman thug junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris).

Mr. Wilson Harris

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the papers are, in fact, often called together by Ministers, and do readily co-operate for particular purposes?

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Yes, indeed; but I cannot, unfortunately, go into that. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), who said that the Government now, more than ever, are able to command an elaborate publicity machine. That is not true. I suppose there was never a time when a Government had less of the public Press behind them than the present Government.

Mr. Walker-Smith

The machine referred to was that of the public relations officers, and all that.

Mr. Glenvil Hall

Even so, I do not think it is quite true. During the war we had the Ministry of Information. I know the times were peculiar and that the need was particular. But I do not think it is true that this Government have behind them a more elaborate machine than any previous Government had. I do emphasise that we in this Government do not intend to use the machine to put over our own peculiar party point of view. But the presentation of full facts not only informs but heartens the public. I hope that, in spite of the things that have been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walk-den), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh in portions of his speech, I may fairly claim—if there were time I could elaborate this—that the Government are fully alive to this need, and are doing their best to meet it, even during the present difficult times.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes to Five o'Clock.