§ Mr. G. Brown (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what changes in restricting publication of defence matters have recently been made and if they were made with his authority.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)A D notice was issued on 27th July, reducing the restrictions contained in two previous notices.
The D notice of 27th July was, like all D notices, issued after agreement in draft with the Press representatives on the Services, Press and Broadcasting Committee. I did not authorise it personally myself.
§ Mr. BrownWill the Prime Minister bear in mind that under the guise of reducing it, on the face of it, the restriction would appear to have been increased very much, and that there is a blanket black-out on news? Will he consider suggesting to the Press, the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the others, that they look at the level of the calibre of their representatives on the Committee? Since we have the Radcliffe Committee, and all other matters affecting security are being referred to it, will the right hon. Gentleman refer this notice for the consideration of the Committee, as to whether it is necessary?
§ The Prime MinisterThe old notices asked for a general restriction on information about all kinds of weapons and equipment. The new notice specifies the type of information which cannot be published, and leaves it open to the Press to publish any information not specified in the notice. Therefore, the new notice is less restrictive than the old notices.
I will, of course, consider whether the Press is satisfied. It makes its own appointments, but if there is anything in that, we will certainly consider it.
Regarding the third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, about the D notices, which have been operated for many years with agreement, and what 1650 rôle they should have in the general security arrangements, I should be glad to refer that to the Radcliffe Committee and ask for its advice as to the value of the notices.
§ Mr. BrownThe right hon. Gentleman's answer to the third part of my question was not quite an answer to what I asked. No doubt it is my fault. Would the Prime Minister refer this particular notice to the Committee and ask whether the Committee feels it is necessary, since many of us consider that the description given by the right hon. Gentleman is not the description which it merits?
§ The Prime MinisterNobody can deny that it is a fact that this notice is less restrictive than the ones before, which were general in character. This one gives a particular list. However, I will refer both this specific question and the general question to the Radcliffe Committee. I think that it would be of great value for the Committee to advise us whether this is useful or whether there should be some alteration.
§ Mr. StracheyHas the Prime Minister considered the importance of the feeling of almost all journalists concerned that the position is exactly the reverse of what he has now expressed, that the old notices were specific and that this is general, and that the effect will be far more restrictive, though possibly it was not intended to be? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this again, because that is the opinion which is held about the real effect?
§ The Prime MinisterThe old notices asked for a general restriction on information on all kinds of weapons and equipment and the new notice specifies certain types. I will certainly look at it again, or ask the Radcliffe Committee to look at it. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the chairman of the Services, Press and Broadcasting Committee is an official of this body. There are three other official members and eleven members representing the Press, the B.B.C. and Independent Television. Therefore, this is not a decision which the chairman can take, or about which he can overrule the Committee. This is an agreed decision of a Committee on which the officials number four against, I think, eleven others.