HL Deb 08 September 1942 vol 124 cc285-90

LORD TEVIOT had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the publicity given by the British Broadcasting Corporation to the meeting held in Trafalgar Square on Sunday afternoon, 26th July, at which views were expressed that "operations on a Second Front should be started without delay, and that the people of Britain were angry that this had not already been done"; to point out the damage likely to accrue to the Allied cause by such irresponsible statements, made without any exact knowledge of the true position; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want it to be distinctly understood that this is a perfectly friendly Motion. I think that when a member of this House feels that certain Government Departments are doing anything that is unwise, it is his duty to raise the question here and have it debated. The broadcast to which I refer in my Motion is typical of others—unwise and, I think, wanting in judgment. This is not my view only: it is an opinion I have heard from many sources throughout the country. During the period of the war the B.B.C. is undoubtedly an off-shoot of the Ministry of Information. The Minister himself has said that he is responsible. That being so, what is the inference that can be drawn from this broadcast of the passing in a haphazard manner of a resolution highly critical of the Government in regard to the question of the Second Front, and from the great publicity given to it by the B.B.C.? It must not be forgotten that when you broadcast, you broadcast not only to this country but to the world, and everything that is said over the air from here is picked up all over the world. It must be remembered also that we are supposed to be absolutely united in this country—Parliament and all the political Parties, with the people strongly behind us.

Here was a meeting called on a Sunday afternoon by certain Members of Parliament and others who were completely ignorant—or ought to have been—of any knowledge that would justify them in expressing an opinion on this most important problem. I do not believe, and have never heard anyone with real knowledge of the feeling of the people in this country say, that the people of this country are angry because a Second Front has not been started, but what I have heard, and what no doubt your Lordships will agree with, is that we are ail most anxious that the earliest possible opportunity should be taken to do more to help not only ourselves but our gallant Allies, the Russians, the Chinese, and all the others who, like ourselves, are very hard pressed all the time, and have been in the past.

One thing seems to be quite certain, and that is that our Allies do not wish us to embark on a venture of this kind unless we here feel, and they also feel, that there is a reasonable chance of success. Only the War Cabinet, after the closest possible consideration with their military advisers, can decide when this should take place. This is not a political operation, this is a military operation; and here were a lot of irresponsible people gathered together in critical mood in Trafalgar Square. It is quite easy to get a crowd in Trafalgar Square, particularly if there are a few tub-thumpers about, and when they have shouted themselves hoarse, no doubt they can get any sort of resolution passed, or say they have got it passed. On that particular point I received a letter this morning from a very reputable source and I propose to read a sentence or two from it. This person was at the meeting in Trafalgar Square, and this is what I am told: I noticed that a large number of men, roughly, I should think, four-fifths, did not even take their pipes out of their mouths and therefore they could not have voted. Thereafter I watched most closely and mentally noted individuals in groups nearer at hand, and was confirmed in my opinion. You will realize that I am merely recording my impression of this scene. And there is one quite certain point: 60,000 did not vote for a Second Front, as was stated. That was written to me by somebody who happened to notice a mention in the Press that I was bringing this Motion forward to-day.

I wonder what would have happened if this question—a very simple one—had been put to this vast gathering: "Do you wish these people who have been talking to us to-day, or the Government, to make a decision on this important matter?" Also I should like this question put to Mr. Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek and all our other Allies. I am quite certain the answer would be, "The Government, please, but as soon as they can manage it." There is no necessity whatever for these meetings, and somehow or other I cannot but think that there is some political purpose behind them. Certainly the B.B.C. should have other things to do far more useful than reporting a meeting of this nature. I hope the Minister of Information, who is making a very good job of a very difficult Department, will tighten up the censorship on the reporting of meetings of this kind. The Ministry of Information is entirely a war effort, and the B.B.C. in my view should be exactly the same in war. Just imagine what Goebbels could make out of this meeting—"Churchill losing his grip on the Government. The Ministry of Information and the B.B.C. advertise hostile meeting." I can imagine our Allies saying to themselves, "What on earth is happening in Britain to-day?" I say to the Minister, "Do try and stop this irresponsible sniping at the Government by people who are quite ignorant of the subject of this meeting."

In my view a great step could be taken to help the war effort if the B.B.C. were to be a little less political-minded and a great deal more national-minded. We must not forget that the B.B.C. is a monopoly. It is the greatest instrument in the country to influence public opinion and disturb the emotions of the people. We have no choice as to what is or is not in the news. Moreover, the Ministerial responsibility for the B.B.C. inevitably gives to every talk and discussion on the air an official impression, however irresponsible and ill-informed it may be. That is particularly serious in cases of statements and views in discussions which appear impossible to censor and cannot be contradicted. One more point I want to make. There is no doubt that, no matter how hard the Ministry of Information and the Governors try, there is a great preponderance of Socialist propaganda. I should take just as much exception to it if it were Conservative or Liberal. That is undesirable, and I feel that to-day we must try as much as we can to get a real spirit of fraternity amongst us all. I do not think that this undoubted bias in a certain political direction in the B.B.C. lends itself to good feeling. May I suggest that in the case of the Brains Trust, before it resumes its mental gymnastics in the autumn, the Governors of the B.B.C. should lay it down emphatically that no one known to be a propagandist of any political Party, or to hold any strong political views, should be a permanent member of it? If this is done, it will help towards a general feeling of fraternity and good will amongst the people of the country. I hope that what I have said will be taken note of by the Minister and that something will be done in the direction I have indicated. I beg to move for Papers.

THE MINISTER OF ECONOMIC WARFARE (THE EARL OF SELBORNE)

My Lords, I gladly undertake to see that the remarks of my noble friend are duly conveyed to the Minister of Information. At the same time I hope he will forgive my saying that I think he has endeavoured to whip up a rather large storm in a very small teacup. The incident of which my noble friend complains, as I understand it, was simply this, that on Sunday, July 26, there was a large meeting at Trafalgar Square, urging the establishment of a Second Front, and that this was reported in the news bulletin of the B.B.C. My noble friend's strictures on the futility of the amateur strategist, whether in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere, laying down military policy without any knowledge of the facts, were very well-deserved; but the business of the B.B.C. is to report the news. In the news broadcast that night this meeting was mentioned in a couple of sentences describing what had taken place. I do not quite agree with my noble friend when he complains about this, because it is the duty of the British Broadcasting Corporation to give an absolutely unbiased and truthful account of the day's news in its evening bulletin. Whether the event was of any importance or not, whether the speeches at this particular meeting were wise or not, some people might have thought, if no reference to this meeting had been made, that there had been on the part of the B.B.C. an attempt to suppress the fact that such a meeting had taken place. That would have been a great deal more unfortunate than any ill that could have come from mentioning the fact that such a meeting had taken place. I do not, however, think that any ill did come.

My noble friend in his speech did not mention the fact that in the same broadcast immediately after the report of the Trafalgar Square meeting had been given, the announcer went on to give another piece of information and to report another meeting, and that was a meeting addressed by the Minister of Labour and National Service. This is what the bulletin went on to say: At Pontypool a member of the Government, Mr. Ernest Bevin, told people who were agitating for a Second Front—'You are feeding Hitler and Goebbels. By creating a division in the country our friends, of the Left who shout this slogan are creating the very condition we all want to avoid.' Mr. Bevin said that as a member of the Cabinet he could not enter into any discussion on strategy but went on: No one is a greater friend of Russia than I, and I beg those claiming to be her special friends not to try and force a reply on one issue which might be a great contributory issue but is not the only one and is not the only way to win the war'. Therefore those who listened to that particular news bulletin could not possibly have got the impression (in whatever country they lived) that there was a unanimous demand in this country for a Second Front. I think that the British Broadcasting Corporation in reporting both these meetings, where contrary opinions were expressed, was doing no more than reporting the truth.

It is very important that the B.B.C. should continue to report facts impartially. I wonder if your Lordships fully realize the great reputation that the British broadcasts have on the Continent of Europe and throughout the world for truth. That is one of the most powerful weapons that we have in our propaganda armoury. Accordingly, I hope that my noble friend will not object to any broadcast which merely relates facts. Facts ought to be broadcast and any attempt to suppress facts would at once reduce the reputation and authority of our national broadcast. It is most important that that reputation should be preserved.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his very clear reply. He will excuse me if I do not agree with him. I should have thought that the reason he gave was a still further reason why the broadcast should not have been made. But we will agree to differ on that. I hope the noble Earl will convey the latter part of my speech in regard to the Brains Trust to the Minister because I really think that that is very important. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.