Lords Sitting of 6 February 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

ROAD SIGNS
2.35 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any alterations are being contemplated in road signs; if so, whether they would conform to the road signs abroad and to the international code in such matters; and what cost would be involved.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, new traffic signs regulations will be laid before Parliament on Friday this week. They will not alter the general character of the present system, but they introduce a number of new and improved signs; they will bring out-of-date regulations into line with current practice and will save a great deal of administrative work. Some of the changes incorporate ideas derived from Continental practice, as contained in what is known as the European Protocol, but efforts to secure an international code of universal application have been unsuccessful. I can give my noble friend no precise estimate of what it would cost to adopt the European Protocol system in this country, but it would certainly amount to several million pounds.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer to my Question, though I am afraid I could not hear quite all of it. Is it not of considerable importance that the resolution en road signs which was adopted at Geneva a good many years ago should be adhered to as closely as possible and that we should try to conform so far as we can to the road signs in constant use abroad? Otherwise it may produce considerable danger, especially for the large
534
number of foreign tourists who, we hope, will be cruising round in this country.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl's view. We have attempted to stick as closely as possible to Continental practice, but there is also in existence a possible international code, which also has certain claims. I think that, so far as we have gone, we have come to an effective compromise, though I fully appreciate that others, like the noble Earl, would probably have wished us to go further in copying Continental practice.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the proposals he is going to lay before the House on Friday will entail considerable expense?
LORD MANCROFT: Some expense, my Lords; not "considerable."

ATOMIC-POWERED SHIPS
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCIITER: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order
Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the declared intention of the United States of America to construct atomic-powered merchant ships and tankers and, in view of the possibility of such vessels calling at British ports and of the potential dangers involved, whether they are in a position to make any statement in regard to the safeguards that will require to be applied.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, my noble friend has asked mc to reply. It will probably be some years before merchant vessels propelled by atomic energy are in operation. I can assure the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government are keeping in close touch with developments and that they are fully alive to the necessity of considering, when the time is ripe, whether any special safety regulations, or other measures, will need to be introduced as regards entry into British ports.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is not a

535
certain amount of waste from any atomically-propelled ship or device, and is not this waste radioactive? If it is, how is it proposed to dispose of the waste when the ship is in harbour or at sea? Is this not a case where there should be international regulations governing the whole matter?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we shall be in close touch with the Americans on this question of how they propose to dispose of waste in such ships as they build. It would seem that it is necessary to have some international code covering this new invention.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, may I say, with your Lordships' permission, that since I put down my Question it has been reported in the Press that British shipping interests are planning to build atomic-engined ships which will be in commission within three years from now? May I ask the noble Earl if he could inform us whether any fracture of an atomic engine casing or rupture of the shieldings used with such engines, say, as a result of a collision, would result in the release of radioactivity, which would be highly dangerous to life, especially in populous areas like the Thames and the Mersey?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we all hope that we are going to have ships propelled by atomic power as soon as possible. The Atomic Energy Authority are studying the technical aspects of the problem, of which there are a great many—some of them have been mentioned by the noble Lord opposite. I can only say that the Government are watching this carefully so that they will be able to act in time to prevent any of the damage that is anticipated by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, is it not the fact that we have reached that stage of progress in naval investigation in which atomic apparatus is almost ready, if not ready, to be put into submarines for trial? We should therefore be having some immediate experiments available tom which to obtain knowledge. I was rather disappointed at one phrase in the noble Earl's reply. He said: "when
536
the time is ripe." I should have thought that the time is ripe now for the fullest investigation of all these problems. I gathered from his supplementary answer that certain investigations are going on, and I hope that no delay will take place in investigating the whole question, both by research and by pursuing the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the development of international regulations.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, in regard to matters on the naval side, on which I am not informed, perhaps noble Lords interested would consider putting down Questions to the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty, which he would be in a position to answer. But, in general, I am right in saying that we are alive to these problems, which must be dealt with if ever atomic ships are going to be able to sail the seas.

BRITISH SUBSCRIPTION TO U.N.O.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what cost to the public is involved on account of this country's membership of U.N.O.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, the United Kingdom subscription to the budget of the United Nations in 1956 amounted to £1,261,000.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, can Her Majesty's Government say whether our country is getting full value for this large sum contributed to this organisation?
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, what is the value to this country of the main tenance of world peace?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think those are hypothetical questions which each noble Lord will have to answer in his own conscience.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, are we not important members of this organisation?

537
Do we wish it to be maintained? We have always said that we do. Do we not have a responsibility to make that organisation as fruitful as possible?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Viscount, I can only say that I think we should wait for the debate on this subject which I believe is down on the Order Paper for some future date.
LORD JEFFREYS: My Lords, I would repeat the supplementary question that I asked the noble Earl. Are we getting full value for this large sum of money that we pay for membership of the United Nations? Surely, the Government have some views on the subject.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, your Lordships will realise from various happenings in the past that this organisation is far from perfect; but we must obviously all work together to see that it is made as perfect as possible for the future peace of the world.

MR. SANDYS' AMERICAN VISIT
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Private Notice Question: Whether they will make a statement on the discussions between the Minister of Defence and the United States and Canadian Governments on defence of mutual interest?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I will, with your Lordships' permission, seek leave to intervene in the debate this afternoon, probably at about a quarter to four, to make a statement similar to that being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence.

B.B.C.'S EXTERNAL SERVICES
2.45 p.m.
LORD STRANG LORD STRANG rose to draw attention to the inadequacy of the provision made for the external broadcasting services of the B.B.C.; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: When, a short time ago, a Motion was put down by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, about the sound and television services of the British Broadcasting
538
Corporation and the Independent Television Authority, with special reference to the domestic services, it seemed to one or two noble Lords and to myself that it might be useful if the external broadcasting services of the B.B.C. could also be brought up for discussion. The time seems to be ripe for this, because it is now over two years since the question of the overseas information services as a whole, including, of course, the external services of the B.B.C., were the subject of a Motion introduced by the noble Lord. Lord Birdwood. That is the excuse for the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper to-day.
I should perhaps explain that though, together with forty-four other persons, drawn from many walks of life, I am a member of the General Advisory Council of the B.B.C., I am speaking to-day on my own behalf, and not in any sense on behalf either of the General Advisory Council or of the Corporation. The General Advisory Council, as your Lordships will know, is appointed by the Corporation under their Charter to advise them on the business and affairs of the Corporation. The Council can advise, question, criticise or commend the Corporation, but it has no responsibility for their acts.
Anyone who wishes to speak with knowledge about the external services of the B.B.C, is in some difficulty. These programmes are broadcast from London in over forty foreign languages, as well as in English, and they are transmitted for a total of about eighty hours each day. There is therefore no easy way to test the quality of all these broadcasts, or to assess their impact upon the minds of listeners overseas. All too often, we are apt to rely upon the isolated report, generally adverse, by some chance listener to some individual programme, and from this we are all too ready to judge the output of these broadcast services as a whole. But, fortunately, in addition to the copious information published by the B.B.C. themselves, there is one source of information and one independent judgment on the value of these services on which the greatest reliance can be placed: I refer to the Report of the Independent Committee of Inquiry into the Overseas Information Services, most ably presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, who, I am glad to say, is to intervene in

539
this debate after me. That Report was presented to the Government in July, 1953, and a summary of it was published in April, 1954. The Report of the Committee of Inquiry covers the departmental information services and the British Council, as well as the B.B.C. external services, though it is only about the last—that is to say, the B.B.C. external services—that I am venturing to address your Lordships to-day.
The members of the Committee of Inquiry approached their task in a healthily sceptical state of mind, and they treated the claims of the broadcasting services in a cool and discriminating spirit. This hard-headed approach on their part adds weight to the favourable judgment which the Committee pass on these broadcasts and to the recommendations for their extension to which they commit themselves in their conclusions.
There is one matter on which some preliminary remarks may be permitted, and that is the system—I think it is a unique system—under which the B.B.C. external services are conducted. The essential point to notice here is that broadcasts from London addressed to foreign countries, to Commonwealth countries and to British overseas territories, whether in the General Overseas Service, in English, or in the various special services, in foreign languages, are not prepared or passed by the Government. The Government find the money for them by way of annual grant-in-aid, which runs at the moment at somewhat over £5 million a year. The Government also lay down from time to time the languages in which the external broadcasts are to be made, and the number of hours which are to be devoted to broadcasts in each language. But that is as far as precise Government direction goes. The actual content of the broadcasts remains the entire responsibility of the B.B.C.
This independent rôle of the B.B.C. has been emphasised by the Government themselves. In the White Paper on Broadcasting Policy, issued in 1946, it is stated:
"The Government intend that the Corporation should remain independent in the preparation of programmes for overseas audiences."
The White Paper then goes on to add a balancing reference to the national interest:
540
"The Corporation should obtain from the Government Departments concerned such information about conditions in these countries and the policies of His Majesty's Government towards them as will permit it to plan the programmes in the national interest."
But the B.B.C. has not only to be independent; it has also to be objective. The White Paper of 1946 is emphatic on this point. It says:
"Great care should be taken to ensure the complete objectivity of the news bulletins.…The Corporation's reputation for telling the truth must be maintained, and the treatment of an item in an overseas bulletin must not differ in any material respect from its treatment in current news bulletins for domestic listeners."
But there is more than this. In addition to observing complete objectivity in the broadcasting of news, the B.B.C., with the formally stated approval of the Government, uses complete impartiality in the treatment of controversial issues—that is to say, objectivity in the broadcasting of news, and impartiality in the treatment of controversial issues.
The B.B.C. have been under heavy fire from some quarters for the handling of their news during the Suez crisis. The profound division in domestic opinion at that time faced the B.B.C. with a problem the like of which they had never had to meet before in their overseas programmes, and the like of which we hope they will never have to meet again. It has been suggested that they should have concentrated on the Government's case, and should have played down all contrary views and suppressed inconvenient facts. But the duty of objectivity which is expressly laid upon the B.B.C. by the Government, and the policy of impartiality which the B.B.C. have adopted for themselves, do, it seems to me, carry with them the consequence that, if public opinion is deeply divided on any issue of foreign policy, this fact must needs be reflected in the overseas broadcasts. In point of fact, it would have been fruitless to try to conceal it. But it can, I think, fairly be required of the B.B.C. that, in the national interest, the Government's case should, as a matter of priority, always be put as vigorously, as cogently and as persuasively as possible, and that opposing views should be reported on their merits with a due sense of responsibility.
I have just been reading what is certainly a voluminous, and what I believe to be a widely representative, selection of

541
the news bulletins, news reviews and news commentaries put out from London to a variety of countries by the B.B.C.'s external services at the height of the Suez crisis. Having read them, I am glad to be able to record my opinion, to the best of my own judgment, that, with one possible exception, the temper and content of all these broadcasts were in complete accord with the principles laid down in the White Paper of 1946. I go further. I would say that, as I read, I could have wished that the Government could always have made as good a case for themselves as the B.B.C. commentators sometimes made for them. Your Lordships may have noticed the tribute paid to these broadcasts by Sir Richard Boyer, Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, in a letter to The Times of January 25. Sir Richard said that he was in the East at the time, and that the honesty of these programmes made an immense impression on Arab-Asian opinion. Even hostile critics were moved to admit that in the long term there could be little fundamentally wrong with the heart of a nation which could show such practical liberalism at such a time. Those were the opinions expressed and the views reported by the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
There is also a striking reference in the Drogheda Report to this duty of objectivity. The Drogheda Committee say that they believe the B.B.C.'s high reputation for objective and honest news reporting to be "a priceless asset"—that is the phrase they use. And they add that this high reputation "must be maintained at all costs", and that they "would deplore any attempt to use the B.B.C. for anything in the way of direct propaganda of the more obvious kind." These seem to me to be wise and weighty words, and I would ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether Her Majesty's Government still adhere to the views about independence and objectivity expressed by their predecessors in the White Paper of 1946. That is my first main question.
What are the main objects of these broadcasts? They have two separate purposes. One is to provide links with the Commonwealth and with British communities abroad by direct contact with the individual listener. This is done chiefly through the General Overseas
542
Service in English, which is a kind of world-wide 21-hours a day Home Service. The second purpose is to present British views and policies to individual foreign listeners, both in English and in their own languages. This is done as a part of the great struggle for men's minds in which the free world is now engaged. It also serves as a support to our diplomacy in the promotion of our own political and economic interests throughout the world.
If it is a mistake, as I think it is, to underestimate what these broadcasting services can do, it is no less a mistake, it seems to me, to overestimate their capabilities. There are some things that the B.B.C. external services cannot do. For one thing, they cannot in normal times attract great nation-wide audiences like our own more popular Home Services. You can put out programmes but you cannot compel people to listen. You must attract and hold your listeners. In fact, quite a good number of people do listen, and listen regularly. For example, in certain cities in Pakistan, about 30 per cent. of licence holders listen to the B.B.C. English programmes, and about 20 per cent. listen to the B.B.C. programmes in Urdu. In France, there is an audience of about 3½ million, or about 11 per cent. of the adult population; and of these abort 300,000 listen daily. There are not many national French newspapers with a circulation greater than that.
There is another thing which the B.B.C. services cannot do. They cannot, it seems to me, meet untruth with untruth, and hate with hate. Lies can be more exciting and more interesting than the truth. Hatred can be more exhilarating than cool reason. Men, alas !, seem to like having their evil passions roused, and there are broadcasting services, whether from Moscow or from Cairo, which play on these passions. It is hopeless to expect the B.B.C. to sway the mob in Cairo, in Damascus or in Amman, as is done by the "Voice of the Arabs", but even behind the Iron Curtain, even in mob-ridden Middle Eastern capitals, they can reach a minority, the minority who are anxious to know what is going on outside the Iron Curtain, the minority who still think soberly and critically about world affairs.
If examples are required, I would quote the Moscow taxi-driers who told their

543
clients the story of Warsaw, as heard over the radio from London, or the Moscow University students who posted up transcripts of the B.B.C. Russian news bulletins about Hungary. I would also recall the moving message of appreciation received by the B.B.C. on November 3 from the Free Hungarian Radio in Budapest during its very brief existence. And I would not omit the remark by the Sheikh in the Aden Protectorate:
"I listen to the 'Voice of the Arabs' and I like these broadcasts because they come from an Arab country and I am an Arab, but afterwards I tune in to the B.B.C. in order to find out if what they say is true."
So the B.B.C. believe, and the Drogheda Committee confirm, that these broadcasts will make their best impact if they are good, if they are regular and if they are honest. There is hardly a part of the world where it may not quite suddenly become important that the British view should be driven home to the man in the street. That is why it is essential that the B.B.C. should be able to maintain a stable world-wide service which can maintain a steady body of listeners at all times and which can attract a wider audience when times of crisis create a wider interest.
External broadcasting is a long-term operation. Programmes cannot be turned on like water out of a tap. That is a truth which other Governments have learnt. Whereas in 1947 the B.B.C.'s external services from London ran at about 700 hours a week, they have since 1952 been running at no more than 560 hours a week. This means that the B.B.C.'s services have been overtaken and surpassed, not only by the United States, with 930 hours, and the Soviet Union with 668 hours, but also by the Eastern European Communist countries, with 730 hours. The Drogheda Committee, for all the scepticism of their original approach, confessed that they could not in the end avoid the conclusion that
"a modern Government has to concern itself with public opinion abroad and be properly equipped to deal with it."
But they also said that it would be better not to do the work at all than to skimp it.
In the light of all the facts, my Lords, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this is just what the Government have done. They have skimped the external broadcasting services. On grounds of economy,
544
year after year for the past eight years, cuts have been made in these services. Your Lordships will note that I have said "cuts in the services" and not "cuts in the grants-in-aid". The figures of the grants have, indeed, usually been slightly increased from year to year, but costs have risen faster than the grant. Costs have risen by about 60 per cent., while grants have been increased by only about 30 per cent.—only half the figure required to maintain the programmes at a level.
The net result of all this is that the grant-in-aid for 1955–56 represents a net loss of £1 million worth of broadcast services, as compared with the position in 1947: that is to say, a loss of £1 million worth of services on a budget of a little over £5 million. By delving into the B.B.C.'s Annual Reports, as I have done, it is possible to gather details of what these progressive cuts have meant in practice. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with a catalogue. The main figures are to be found—and they are very depressing figures indeed—in a Written Reply given in another place on February 1. I would only say that the effect of the cuts has been world-wide, but that they have fallen with special severity on the Latin American and Western European services. They have not merely reduced hours of broadcasting from London: they have also caused very heavy reductions in local re-broadcasts and transcription services; and they have seriously adversely affected the quality of the programmes.
Let us not overlook that this whittling down of this great and indispensable service has taken place during the years when the beat of Communist propaganda throughout the world has grown more pervasive, when the opportunities to exploit the widening chinks in the Communist armour have become more promising, and when Cairo Radio has attacked our positions throughout the length and breadth of the Middle East, and in Africa. This process has been described, unkindly, as "death by a thousand cuts"; but, so far as I know, there has been no intention to kill the B.B.C. external services. I sincerely hope not. But they have certainly been effectively hobbled. The art of hobbling on organisation without entirely crippling it is one which, as I know to my cost, is well

545
understood and is practised in Whitehall. But, the external broadcast services having been effectively hobbled, Government Departments, with each new crisis that arises in the world, call upon the B.B.C. at short notice and expect them to make a sudden sprint or spurt in one direction or another.
The Government cannot say that they have not been warned. The Drogheda Committee said that these broadcasts were virtually the only form of propaganda capable of penetrating the Iron Curtain. They accepted the view that they were the main information weapon in the Middle East. They expressed the opinion that the Far Eastern and Latin American services were inadequate for their respective purposes. They made three main recommendations. First, they made proposals for the expansion of certain of the services, involving additional annual revenue expenditure of £620,000, set off by projected savings in Western Europe of £135.000—that is, a net increase of £485,000. Secondly, they estimated the requirements of capital development at about half a million pounds a year over a period of from five to ten years. Thirdly, they recommended that all overseas information work, including, of course, the B.B.C. external services, should be based on a long-term plan, not subject to short-term financial fluctuation. There was the position in 1953—inadequate programmes for many important parts of the world; and a growing inadequacy and obsolescence of transmitting equipment, particularly for relay purposes in South East Asia and the Middle East. This had left the B.B.C. a long way behind the United States and the Soviet Union; so much so that the Drogheda Committee said that
"the first priority for broadcasting must be a large scale programme of capital development designed to put the external services on a proper technical footing."
And finally, a continual annual pruning of the services instead of an element of financial stability.
Is the position any better to-day than it was when the Drogheda Committee reported? My Lords, it is not; it is even worse. Year after year, rising costs have eaten into programmes and technical equipment. Though the Government of the day stated that they accepted the broad principles of the Drogheda Report,
546
practically nothing has been done to carry out its recommendations so far as the B.B.C. broadcast services are concerned. Except in one particular, the Committee's recommendations have remained a dead letter. A slight extension was, indeed, made in the B.B.C.'s Arabic service, giving four and a half hours a day instead of four hours as before. But this was made possible only by making reductions in B.B.C. services elsewhere. The principle of robbing Peter to pay Paul was the only way the B.B.C. could meet the new demands made on them. And what is more, the B.B.C. were still unable to supply themselves with the relay equipment necessary to allow their Arabic programmes to compete technically with the "Voice of the Arabs" put out from Cairo.
This is what the B.B.C. said about that in their Annual Report for 1955–56:
"An important need in the Middle East is the provision of a medium-wave transmitter in the Eastern Mediterranean to relay the B.B.C.'s Arabic service and other related services for the Middle East. The case for the necessary capital expenditure was put to Her Majesty's Government sixteen years ago and has been pressed upon them on many occasions since then, but no funds have yet been made available for this purpose."
I hope the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to tell your Lordships that this situation is to be improved. Of course, I am aware that Her Majesty's Government have recently requisitioned the facilities of the Near East Arab Broadcasting Station in Cyprus, and that they themselves are putting out programmes from that station. I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell your Lordships what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are as regards the future use of the facilities of that station.
To sum up this part of the argument, apart from partial reconstruction out of revenue of a transmitting station at Tebrau, in Johore, in 1949, for relays to the Far East and Australia, no appreciable capital funds have been made available at any stage for the modernisation of the B.B.C.'s transmission equipment since 1943—thirteen years ago. In the light of all this, I beg to ask the noble Earl whether he can state the present position of the Government on the three main points raised by the Drogheda Report—namely, first, the expansion of inadequate services; secondly, the provision of long-needed equipment; and

547
thirdly, the need for financial stability. That is my second main question.
Among the recommendations of the Drogheda Report was a recommendation that the French, Italian, Danish, Norwegian, Portuguese and Swedish services should be terminated. That recommendation, I am glad to say, has not been carried out either. I do not know whether the Drogheda Committee would have reached the same conclusion if they had been sitting to-day. However that may be, I wish to put in a strong plea for the retention of these Western European services. The Suez crisis showed that Western European opinion is not so firmly on our side or so well informed through other channels that we need not cultivate it. In fact, even in the friendliest countries, the internal broadcasting systems were so biased that the British case almost went by default. For example, I believe it to be the case—I do not know whether the noble Earl can confirm this—that in Norway the content of the Prime Minister's broadcast of November 3 would not have come to the knowledge of the Norwegian public at all had it not been carried in the B.B.C.'s Norwegian service. One Norwegian listener wrote:
"Even if we did not all agree with Eden's action, through the sober presentation of the facts behind it in the B.B.C's programme, one has come to realise that it was the right thing to do."
But there is another point. If N.A.T.O. means anything, if Western European Union and the Council of Europe mean anything, if the European Free Trade Area is to mean anything, surely we must neglect no means of building up the community and developing the intimacy of our relationship with our European partners. The B.B.C. services can contribute to this. So long as they continue, they stand as a symbol of our desire for a closer relationship. To discontinue them would cast a chill over that relationship. It would also leave the field more open to the constant and increasing attacks upon the cohesion of the Western European Community put out from Moscow. There are trends of opinion in all Western European countries to which these Moscow broadcasts can make an appeal. There is good evidence to show that in Norway, for example, the reduction of the B.B.C.'s service some years ago was
548
followed by a considerable increase in the number of listeners to Moscow broadcasts. In my view, it would be a grave mistake to shut down the Western European service.
My general plea, therefore, is, that Her Majesty's Government should look upon this external broadcasting question in a large way. The external services are, as Sir Richard Boyer said in his letter to The Times from which I have already quoted:
"one of the strongest arms of British diplomacy."
I would add that, as such, they are also one of the arms of our defence, and one of the means of promoting our vital economic interests overseas. In the world as it is to-day, we need these supplementary arms more than ever before. In our present position in the world, we need them more perhaps than does any other Power. We have been told in the plainest terms and on the best authority that the services are inadequate and that the equipment is deficient.
It is not as though vast sums of money were required. Our expenditure on the external services is at present running at about one-third of 1 per cent. of our defence budget. I am not competent to say what additional annual sum would be needed to put these services on a sound and secure basis; but I gather that if the grant-in-aid could be raised by about £1 million a year (that is, to about £6¼ million a year), with adequate provision for any further rise in costs, the work could be done more nearly in the way it ought to be done. Of the increase, £500,000 would be for the modernisation of equipment and £500,000 for the restoration and development of services; and that, in fact, is not far off what the Drogheda Committee themselves proposed nearly four years ago.
Are we really to say that we cannot afford £6 million or so for these essential services? We have been told that they are a "priceless asset." Let us treat them as such and get the most we can out of them. No vast programme of expansion is called for. There is no need to try to shout down our rivals in the field. What is required is that the British voice should be heard everywhere in the world to be speaking day by day. There will always be listeners. In the less critical times, their number may not everywhere be

549
large, but in times of crisis they will multiply overnight. The continuous maintenance of services throughout the world is the only means of ensuring a hearing for the British case wherever it may be urgently needed. I beg Her Majesty's Government, in their own interests and in the interests of all of us, to make this possible. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strang, for the kind things he has said about our Report, and I am, of course, very grateful to him for having taken it out of its pigeon-hole and given it another dusting. I should like also to say how much we owe the admirable secretary whose services were lent to us by the Foreign Office. I could wish that the noble Lord's Motion had referred to all the information services, because, although the British Broadcasting Corporation services are probably the most important of the information services, that is not true in all countries or in all circumstances. Anyone who has had the stamina to read through the summary of our Report will know that there are many other services—the information offices which are maintained abroad by the Foreign Office, by the Commonwealth Relations Office and by the Colonial Office; the much-criticised British Council, whose main work is. I think, largely misunderstood and underrated; the Central Office of Information, which provides written and other material to be used abroad; the News Department of the Foreign Office, to which foreign journalists go for information, and the many other agencies that are maintained in this country by Government Departments. So I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I say a word on the picture as a whole, and not only on the B.B.C.
The noble Lord, Lord Strang, is quite right in saying that we approached our inquiry in a spirit of some scepticism. I believe that most, or at any rate many, people in this country have a kind of mistrust and dislike of propaganda. It is a fairly expensive form of activity and one which can never be proved to have any practical result. I believe that, to a certain extent, we shared in the bias which many of us have felt towards an activity which is somewhat alien to the
550
British character. But we had not proceeded very far in our inquiry when we were driven to the conclusion that our services really were vital to this country; and the further one got away from this country during the inquiry, the more strongly did the need for the information services present itself. I believe that one is more likely to think rightly on these subjects when one is Thousands of miles away than when one has returned home, when the sense of urgency has been dulled.
Having decided that the services as a whole were vitally essential, we then had to look at the means that were available to carry them out. We found that, although the need for the services had been increasing since the war, the means for carrying them out had been steadily diminishing. Taking into account rising costs, on the one hand, and the reduction in the money available, on the other, we found that between 1947 and 1953 the effective effort deployed had been approximately halved; and I imagine that costs have risen a great deal since 1953. So we recommended that Her Majesty's Government had no option, but to choose between a considerable strengthening and expansion of our services or a considerable curtailment of some of the activities, in order that what remained might at least be effective.
We did not advise considerable curtailment. What is necessary, above all, is that there should be a long-term plan, with proper pay and security for the men employed in these services, and that there should be an end of the recurrent and haphazard cuts that have gone on every year. It seemed to us that what had happened was that somewhere towards Budget time each year the services were told: "There has got to be a reduction. Only this amount will be available, and you can tight it out between yourselves who is to have what." I can think of nothing more discouraging or inefficient than such a system and I hope that one day it may be done away with. I can well understand that the Treasury, faced as it has been with one financial crisis after another, must look with a jealous eye on all expenditure, and perhaps particularly on expenditure on such an imponderable as the information services. But we must consider not only what we can afford, but also what we cannot afford to be

551
without; and I feel that the information services are something that we must have and must keep efficient.
There is this to be said for the information services: they constitute, in this seemingly never-ending cold war, the only weapon that does not become obsolete or obsolescent the moment it is forged, and almost as soon as it is off the drawing board. In broadcasting, at the end of the war we were the most efficient nation, with the largest programme of hours. But that is not so now. Not only has there been, on the one side, financial stringency in this country, but, on the other side, there has been a vast increase in external broadcasting by other countries—I think that by 1953 it was ten times what it had been at the end of the war. The powerful and efficient B.B.C. transmitters could no longer be relied upon to be heard all over the world. The "Voice of America" and Moscow Radio have met their problems by setting up stations near the "target areas." I think I remember that, even by 1953, the strongest signals heard in Delhi came from a Russian station at Tashkent. By and large, that is probably the sort of thing which obtains all over the world. We have not been able to afford to do that, and it makes it very difficult for us. But, at any rate, I think we ought to see that what we have got is as efficient as it can be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Strang, has referred to what our Committee said about the unique reputation for honest reporting that the B.B.C. acquired during the war. I certainly think that we should still feel that this is a precious asset which must be kept, whatever happens. We did make a few suggestions of economy, but they were not, of course, very well received by anyone—except possibly the Treasury. I am not sure now that we should have suggested cuts in the Western European services to which the noble Lord has referred. I do not think that we should have done so at the time, had it not been one of those times of financial crisis which are now endemic. We thought that the greatest need was to strengthen the Far Eastern services and also, for commercial and other reasons, the Southern America Services. We felt that there was then less need for the European services, because the countries of Western Europe are pressed much
552
more together and they have other means of keeping in contact with British public opinion.
I wish to end by saying once more how vital it is to have a long-term plan, and to stick to it. What I am about to say is probably most Utopian, but I could wish that the scale of our information services could be decided by an all-Party body, so that continuity could be assured over a long term of years.
3.34 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I rise strongly to support the Motion standing in the name of Lord Strang—
THE EARL OF SWINTON: Are we going to keep to the order of the list of speakers?
LORD KILLEARN: I have already arranged that, if I may be allowed to say so. I asked subsequent speakers if they would mind my intervening for a few minutes now, as I have an important engagement at four o'clock. With the greatest readiness and courtesy they both agreed.
Now, if I may begin again, after that personal explanation, I rise strongly to support the Motion standing in the name of Lord Strang. My justification for doing so is very simple, and it will not take long for me to put it to the House. I served for twelve and a half years in the Far East, for twelve and a half years in the Middle East, and for two years in South-East Asia; and I can only say, as someone who has been at the receiving end, that I do not think we can exaggerate the importance of the external broadcasting services of the B.B.C. To cut them down I should deplore. I am absolutely convinced that it would not be in the best public interest. I think that Lord Strang made an admirable case—and I feel sure that the House will think so also—for increasing the efficiency of the services. The noble Earl, Lord Drogheda (if I may express another personal opinion), made an irrefutable case for the maintenance of the other information services.
My Lords, I have risen specifically to support the Motion standing in the name of Lord Strang. I have done so because of personal experience at the receiving end over a period of twenty-five years,

553
as I thought that that might perhaps interest your Lordships and appeal to you as testimony of some value.
3.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure we are all delighted that Lord Strang, from whom we have become accustomed to hearing classical expositions of foreign policy, has added another item to his Parliamentary repertoire—the subject of overseas broadcasting. Of course, the two subjects are closely connected, and no one is better qualified than Lord Strang to show the importance of overseas broadcasting for foreign policy. I am also sure that your Lordships were extremely pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, spoke to us from a different quarter of the House. I do not imagine that there is any Member of either House who has greater knowledge of our overseas information services than the noble Earl, who was, of course, chairman of the Committee of Inquiry. He conducted a peripatetic party to explore these services in different parts of the world over a long period of time. I think we all realise that, while we gain from having the noble Earl as Chairman of Committees, we lose because he cannot speak more often as an independent Member of the House.
I think we ought to start, as Lord Strang did, from the general position, and I feel that we all agree about the vital importance of external broadcasting to the position of this country in the outside world. I myself believe (I do not know whether Lord Strang shares my belief; I hope he does; I am sure he will tell me later on whether he does or not) that the security of our country will depend at least as much on the good will we can earn from familiarising people in the outside world with our policies and with our way of life at home as it will on the military strength and the defensive arrangements we can make with other countries. That is the justification for our plea for the strengthening of all overseas broadcasting, because overseas broadcasting is an essential adjunct to national policy, foreign policy, defence policy, and the maintenance of peace in the world.
That is the approach which I think all of us who are making this plea to the Government have in common. We regret, as the noble Lord, Lord Strang, has regretted, that the B.B.C. external services
554
have been allowed by successive Governments to decline—I do not allocate more blame to one Government than to another—over a long period of time. The main reason for this decline has been a false assessment of economy, an assessment resulting from a failure to appreciate the essential value of external broadcasting, overseas broadcasting, front the point of view of national policy. No Government have been willing to spend enough in the shape of their annual grants to the B.B.C. for services to the Commonwealth and foreign countries to cover the steady rise in the cost to the Corporation of these services. And the B.B.C., like any business organisation in the country, have had to face this steady rise in the cost of the services they have established over a long period of time.
The result has been that, in spite of small increases in the amount of annual grants, the B.B.C. have had to prune away their external services every year for the past eight years. That fundamental fact was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, but I feel that it is so important that it can bear repetition. Two years ago, the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, speaking on behalf of the Government, in reply to the debate we had on the Drogheda Committee Report, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 190, col. 305] that it was the policy of the Government,
"… to maintain approximately the existing level of broadcasting."
But, as the noble Lord, Lord Strang, said, this level has not been maintained, and the position is worse now than it was. There were further cuts in 1955 and 1956. The amount of grant for 1957–58 has not yet been settled, but it will soon be decided, and I very much hope that the views that have been expressed, and will be expressed, by noble Lords this afternoon may have some influence with the Government in making their decision.
This gradual erosion of overseas broadcasting is very striking when we compare the amount of broadcasting to foreign and Commonwealth countries six years ago, in 1950, with the amount done last year. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a catalogue of figures, any more than did the noble Lord, Lord Strang, but I think that a few figures are essential if we are to have a basis on which to form a judgment of the change

555
in the quantity of our overseas broadcasting. Looking at the broadcasting to foreign countries, we find that the weekly hours of broadcasting to Latin America in the Spanish language have been roughly halved; they are now 21, instead of 40¼, in 1950. Broadcasts in Portuguese have been reduced to one-third; 8¾ hours, instead of 24½. In 1947, B.B.C. programmes were relayed in South America from 183 stations, as compared with only 11 in 1956. So the "Voice of Britain" is really almost inaudible now in South America. This is a lamentable state of affairs. It has happened at a time when trade with South America has never been more important for British exports which we need to balance our payments.
The hours of broadcasting to our neighbours in Western Europe have also been reduced, and this again—I will not go into details—at a time when we ought to strengthen our economic and political ties with all these countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Strang, has said. Even the broadcasting to the Commonwealth has been heavily cut. Personally, I regret that more than anything else. The general overseas service in English has fallen from 168 hours to 147 hours a week and the Commonwealth services from 12 hours to 10¾ hours. Taking our general service to the Commonwealth, we find that the South African service in Afrikaans has been reduced proportionately more than the service in English to other parts of the Commonwealth by falling from 4½ hours to 1¾ hours a week. I mention this because it seems to me that this is an absolutely vital Commonwealth service. Our relations with the Union of South Africa are particularly—what shall I say?—touchy, difficult—
LORD MATHERS: Delicate.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am grateful to my noble friend behind me—delicate, I think, is the right word for a diplomat to use. There is no country in the Commonwealth with which our relations are more delicate than they are with the Union of South Africa, and it is clearly to Afrikaans-speaking people in the Union that our case should be addressed. We should say to them: "You ought to understand our point of view and know what is going on in this
556
country." So I hope that reconsideration will be given to the service to South Africa in Afrikaans.
When all these cuts are added up, it is not surprising to hear that the B.B.C. have already lost something like 400 of the expert staff they employed in 1949. These reductions in hours and staff give some idea of the absolute decline of overseas broadcasting in relation to the 1950 level, but the collapse of British broadcasting in relation to that of other great Powers is no less striking. The noble Lord, Lord Strang, gave us some figures. He quoted the Soviet Union as giving 668 hours a week last year, as compared with our 564, and even the satellite countries are doing more hours per week than we are. Surely, from the point of view of policy, this is vitally important. We know that the Soviet Union's policy of peaceful co-existence is based on economic penetration and propaganda instead of the use of force, and this is the new method of undermining the capitalist countries. Well, we have to answer in the same medium. We certainly do not want to answer with any form of unjustifiable force, but we do want to answer, I am sure, with the impact we can make on people's minds.
Even if the "Voice of America" does much more than the Soviet Union, we cannot leave the "Voice of America" to take the place of the "Voice of Britain." I believe that our standard of broadcasting, certainly in my experience not only of America but also of many other countries, is higher than that of any other part of the world. I do not believe that there is any other broadcasting system that can take its place. I am not saying that, with our limited resources, we can rival either the Soviet Union or the United States of America—of course we cannot—but I do think that we could compare more favourably with these Powers than we do at the present time. What we should like to know from the Government at the end of this debate is whether they are going to allow this decline to continue, or whether they have already in mind ways and means of stopping this gradual falling off in staff and equipment before the damage has become irreparable.
I should like to allude to one or two hopeful steps which the Government appear to be taking. The first of these

557
is the appointment of a Cabinet Minister without a Department
"to co-ordinate Government information especially en the overseas side."
There was a parallel for that in the 1945 Government when the Lord President of the Council was responsible for information policy, and it is in line, I think the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, would agree, with the recommendation of this Committee, to put
"… a senior Minister without portfolio"
in charge of information. Of course, we cannot tell whether this step is right or not until we know the duties and functions the Chancellor of the Duchy will discharge and how these duties will be carried cut. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, will be able to give us a little more information on the duties and functions of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
We shall all agree that he should co-ordinate the different channels of Government publicity, but a certain amount of anxiety has been expressed already lest he might interfere in some measure with the independence of the B.B.C. and the British Council and use them rather more as organs of Government publicity. That is a danger which we should all wish to avoid. I think that nobody in your Lordships' House would want a Minister of Information in peace time. Perhaps we may have an assurance from the noble Earl. Though I do not think that these doubts have crossed the minds of noble Lords, they certainly have crossed the minds of people outside, and this matter of authority and interference is no part at all of the assignment of the Chancellor of the Duchy.
We have also heard officially that Dr. Hill will examine the Overseas Information Services, presumably—although this is implied—only to report to the Government on how they can be improved. This, in itself, is a welcome step. Perhaps we might have more information of exactly what the Government have in mind. How long is this investigation likely to take? It is clear that we should like it to be as short as possible. The Drogheda Committee made a long inquiry into the same subject, and their views are, I suppose, the last word on the matter. So I do not imagine it ought to be necessary to spend a long time on
558
making an inquiry and producing recommendations on which the Government can act and which would be the basis for a new information policy.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, when the new Cabinet Minister in charge of information has disharged this task of examining the Overseas Information Services and recommending improvements that can be made, they will be willing to publish a White Paper, which will give the views of the Chancellor of the Duchy, and tell us what action they can take on those views. After all, this is a matter of great interest to Parliament and the public. Therefore, I hope the Government will be willing to publish a White Paper. It is, I suppose, the first occasion on which a Cabinet Minister has been given the sole duty of dealing with information. If I recollect rightly, the Ministers of Information during the war were not members of the Cabinet. When a Cabinet Minister has been given this responsibility, he has also had, as a rule, a Department. When the Lord President of the Council of the 1945 Government, with whom I worked closely (because I was at the Post Office at the time, and there is always. by virtue of the Charter of the B.B.C., a special relationship between the Postmaster General and the B.B.C.), was in charge of information he was also Leader of the House of Commons. So that this is a unique departure, and one which gives a Cabinet Minister the opportunity of thinking more about information policy than any of his predecessors. For that reason, there is all the more reason to hope that the result will be fruitful.
I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, also, whether he can say something about the administrative set-up that has been provided for the Chancellor of the Duchy in his capacity as Minister for Information. I noticed in the Press this morning that Mr. Evans is to be the new Public Relations Officer to the Prime Minister and that he will also advise Dr. Hill. Mr. William Clark, who was Mr. Evans' predecessor, found his work at "No. 10" a whole-time job. How much time will Mr. Evans be able to give to Dr. Hill? I think that either job would be a whole-time job for any average person like myself, and even for a more than average civil servant. Perhaps

559
the noble Earl can say whether Dr. Hill will have any staff of his own or whether he will be given a substantial slice of the time of Mr. Evans. I apologise to the noble Earl for not giving him notice of this question. The only thing I can suggest (I imagine that he has thought of it already) is that he might be able to consult his advisers in the Box before the end of the debate. However, I shall quite understand if he cannot reply to these questions now.
I hope that the reference in the Government's account of the duties assigned to Dr. Hill, to the examination of
"ways in which the balance of effort might be adjusted in different areas of the world"
is not a hint that Ministers are now considering the termination of British broadcasting to seven friendly countries in Western Europe. This is the one recommendation of the Drogheda Committee with which most of us disagree, and it was interesting to hear the explanation of the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda: that the reason for this recommendation was not that his Committee thought this service was not a useful one, but because at the time there was need for economy in public expenditure. I am not going to say anything more about the service to Western Europe, except that the Suez crisis has shown that there are still moments when the British case needs to be put most urgently, even to our best friends. We cannot ignore our friends just because they are our friends. If it had not been for the B.B.C., the Government's policy in these countries would have gone largely by default. Another reason, I think, for maintaining the service to Western Europe is that we are entering into a new form of economic relationship with Western Europe—we all hope that we shall join the Free Trade Area—and it is more than ever essential that our point of view and our special position in relation to the Commonwealth should be appreciated in those countries.
I am not going to weary your Lordships by dealing with the content of B.B.C. broadcasting, but I hope that noble Lords who take part in the debate will support the vital principle referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strang: that at all costs the B.B.C. must maintain their objectivity and their absolute truthfulness, because it is on this that their reputation in the outside world has been
560
based. We are all, I think—including the Government, because this is a matter of fact and not one of opinion—agreed that the external broadcasting services of the B.B.C. have been running down steadily for a number of years. Those of us who have spoken in the debate so far would like this process not only stopped but reversed. We hope that the Government will now begin to improve and expand these services.
We should like particularly to see improvement in broadcasting to three areas of the globe, and in this order. First of all, the British Commonwealth and its dependencies. Round-the-clock broadcasts in English should be regarded as one of the essential and indispensable ties between the members of our Commonwealth family. The cut of three hours in the General Overseas Service should be restored at the earliest possible opportunity. The service to the Far East and Southern Asia, to which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, bore such eloquent testimony, should be strengthened by making full use of our own broadcasting station in Malaya. The importance of preventing the uncommitted quarter of mankind from being turned against us by hostile propaganda cannot be exaggerated. The third part of the world in which I think our services must be improved is South America, because our trade and good relations with them will suffer even more if we do not make a substantial improvement in the Latin-American service.
As the noble Lord, Lord Strang, has said, however, there can be no improvement or expansion of these broadcasting services until the Government are prepared to spend more money. The crux of the whole problem is finance. The Drogheda Committee recommended an increase which, clearly, would not be appropriate now. I should not like to hazard a guess, but the figure needed to-day to obtain the same result would no doubt have to be larger. Two things are clearly necessary. First, the annual amount for external broadcasting should be increased; and secondly, it should be divided into two parts, a capital grant covering a period of years, and a grant for recurrent expenditure, which is the way that any reputable local authority runs its affairs. It is only in this way, instead of including all these items, as is done at the moment, in a lump sum,

561
that the B.B.C. can possibly plan their external broadcasting over a period of time. This is a matter of urgent national importance. If this opportunity is lost, it may mean that the services of the B.B.C. will run down, in depletion of staff and obsolescence of equipment, to the point at which recovery is impossible. So I beg the Government to act in this matter, as soon as they have the information and the considered thoughts of the Chancellor of the Duchy, in an effective way, and to produce what is really required, a new, revised policy for our overseas information services.

MR. SANDYS' VISIT TO AMERICA.
4.0 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to intervene to make a short statement upon the recent visit of my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence to Washington and Ottawa.
The main purpose of my right honourable friend's visit to Washington last week was to have a thorough exchange of views with the United States defence authorities on a wide range of military matters. Similarly, his two-day visit to Ottawa gave him an opportunity of discussing a number of problems of common concern in the military and international fields with the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Defence and the Canadian Chiefs of Staff.
His discussions with Mr. Charles Wilson, the United States Secretary of Defence, showed that there is full accord between our two Governments on the broad objectives of the defence policy to be pursued. En particular, my right honourable friend and the United States Secretary of Defence reaffirmed the importance of N.A.T.O. and other regional alliances as a vital means of safeguarding peace and stability.
They reviewed the arrangements previously made for collaboration between the United States and Britain in military research and development, with particular reference to guided rockets. It was agreed that both countries had derived considerable benefit from co-operation, and they decided to extend still further this joint work. A possible scheme for the adoption by Britain of certain American
562
weapons was discussed, and this is now being examined by the two Governments and their Service staffs.
My right honourable friend explained to the United States Government that, for economic as well as for military reasons, we were reviewing the shape and size of our forces and that Her Majesty's Government had decided that a substantial reduction in the demands of defence upon manpower, materials and money must be effected. Although no country welcomes a reduction in military effort by its allies, he found in Washington a sympathetic understanding of the circumstances which make it necessary for us to lighten our defence burden. In this connection, it is fully recognised that financial and economic stability is an essential foundation of military strength and that due account must be taken of this in considering what contribution each nation can reasonably be expected to make to the common defence effort.
Throughout his meetings with Mr. Wilson and the American defence authorities, as well as in his talks with Mr. John Foster Dulles, my right honourable friend found a warm desire, which is fully shared by Her Majesty's Government, to see an immediate resumption of the special and intimate relationship which has so long existed between Britain and the United States and which is so important for the peace of the world.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for making in this House the statement which has been made by the Minister in another place. I welcome it for three or four specific reasons. The first is that I am glad to note, in the last paragraph of his statement, a return to a better understanding between ourselves and the United States, which I hope—and I am sure all your Lordships hope—will be very much progressed. It is over seven, years since I signed in Washington the military agreement on the first real wide basis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Those of us who had connection with it then were seriously concerned about the events of the last few months, which led to a feeling of strain, and possible deterioration in the relationships that had led to that Treaty. I welcome the statement, too, because it shows that the Government have been having an inquiry, at least of their own,

563
into our defences in relation to our present economic position and into the modern trend of events in arms generally.
The House may recall that for, I think, almost every year since March, 1952, I have been asking the Government to have a comprehensive inquiry into this matter. I am glad to notice, in what the noble Lord said, that the basic argument I used on those occasions is now put into this statement. That is, that
"it is fully recognised that financial and economic stability is an essential foundation of military strength and that due account must be taken of this in considering what contribution each nation can reasonably be expected to make to the common defence effort."
I welcome the statement, therefore, from the point of view that some inquiry has taken place, and that one of the basic reasons we have advanced has been accepted.
The third reason why I welcome the statement is that at last something is being done, and apparently the serious difficulty in which we have been placed by the constant changing in the office of the Minister of Defence is to be overcome. There have been seven Ministers of Defence since I left office in that Department in March, 1950, six of them in the last five and a quarter years. That is quite an amazing sequence of events in such a vastly important Department, one which will be increasingly important in the future. I hope that now that a start has been made on doing something, we shall find something done. I am sure that we are all in favour of having our defences, in agreement with our allies, brought into proper relationship with what we can afford, and having regard also to what contribution certain other countries in the N.A.T.O. organisation can make. But obviously this will mean a considerable upset in our own economic internal affairs for some time to come, and I hope the Government will be able to say that they are already studying and making plans to try to deal with that situation in the best possible manner; otherwise we may be in for rather a serious period of dislocation in industry and employment.
LORD REA: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Lord for his statement, and to couple with our thanks our congratulations to the Minister of Defence not only
564
on the success of his Mission but also on developing the atmosphere which he found on the other side of the Atlantic. The noble Viscount who leads the Opposition has indulged in a little of, "I told you so." Perhaps I may be forgiven if I say the same in noting that Her Majesty's Government have decided that a substantial reduction in the expenditure on defence, on manpower, materials and money must be effected. One or two lone voices were crying in the wilderness a year or two ago saying this, and I claim to be one of them. That view is growing, and it gives us great satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government are coming round to the fact that one cannot spend without limit on defence, irrespective of the economic situation. That particular position seems to me to tic up with the debate which we are in the midst of this afternoon, and perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words about that later,
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken for their kind reference to the success of my right honourable friend's mission to Washington and Ottawa. I am glad that the statement I made meets with their approval—mainly, so far as I can see, because it is what they themselves have been saying in the years gone by. I am glad to say that much of the statement was also included in a maiden speech which I made in your Lordships' House more than seven years ago.

B.B.C.'S EXTERNAL SERVICES
4.10 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD REA: My Lords, I take it that we now resume the debate on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and I rise to support him most strongly, as others have done, and to thank him for having brought this matter again before your Lordships' House. I am a little surprised that the list of noble Lords who intend to speak on this Motion is not far longer than it is, because this matter seems to me, as it always has seemed, a matter of prime importance—possibly the most important with which the Government have to deal. As your Lordships know, it is over two years since we discussed it in detail on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Birdwood; but,

565
apart from that major debate, this subject has in various forms cropped up and, if I may say so, surfaced at various times and in various guises. There has been no occasion on which I or one of those who think like me have failed to take the opportunity to ask the Government what they are going to do to increase overseas information and all that it implies. We have, I am afraid, not made very much progress. We have had little success; we have had blunt negatives time after time, in terms varying from the evasive to almost the abusive.
I am not going to cover the ground which has been gone over to-day but I cannot refrain from again underlining the extreme disparity between the expenditure of £1,500 million on instruments of war, death and destruction, and the expenditure of a quarter of 1 per cent. of the national expenditure on overseas propaganda. "Propaganda", as a word, has an unfortunate aroma about it, presumably because we were subjected to most unpleasant propaganda during the last war. I do nor believe that any of your Lordships, in principle, and particularly those who are concerned with the composition of your Lordships' House, object to the word "propagate", but this version of the word "propaganda" seems to have something less attractive about it.
I beg Her Majesty's Government' to make a reassessment of the balance which we hold between physical and psychological warfare. Psychological warfare is rather a term of war, but it may be adopted and adapted to many good uses in peace time. I think the time has really come when no country, rot even Russia or the United States of America, can fill the place which this country used to hold 150 or 200 years ago in a world based on physical power. Military power is no longer, I suggest, any criterion, either of success or of prosperity; and, as we have just heard from the statement read by the Minister a few minutes ago, it has been recognised that we cannot compete with the biggest nations of the world. We cannot continue to be the supreme military power or anything like it. But I suggest that there are things more worth being than that of being the supreme military power.
We must somehow re-establish ourselves in the front rank of the world as we used to be. It is obvious that we are
566
not going to do it by the old methods. But I suggest that we can do it by presenting truth, giving enlightenment (if I may refer to propaganda as enlightenment, because that is what I truly mean) where calumny and falsehood are undermining all that civilisation holds dear. This country is dragging its feet. We have had comparative figures given us to-day. We are not doing very well. We are getting into a dangerous state. Not only that, but we are appearing to take a course which seems to smack of the irresponsible, if not of criminality. It is vital that those outside this Kingdom and Commonwealth should know of our good intentions, of our constructive, co-operative ideals for world prosperity and world happiness; that we are not colonialists it the worst sense; that we are not out to exploit those who cannot save themselves from being exploited.
I beg Her Majesty's Government to review this matter in a spirit of foresight, not of just squeezing the odd million here and there. I would go much further than do the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Strang, in what I would ask for on the financial side. By taking money which we are able to save on the Defence programme, because we cannot any longer usefully spend it on that, we should launch out on an inspired new programme of great dimensions to harness the forces of peace and good will throughout the whole world by revealing truth and counteracting the devilish machinations of distortion and falsehood.
4.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, we are all greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, for initiating this debate and for putting as effectively as he did the case for more broadcasting. If I may say so, I profoundly agree with my noble friend Lord Drogheda that we cannot look at this simply as a broadcasting proposition; that, if we are to find a right solution, and, indeed, if we are to appreciate what it is that we are discussing to-day, we must see the situation in all its aspects. In the last war, of course, the position was really very simple: the whole country and Commonwealth were united in a life and death struggle. Every agency, including the B.B.C., had one single common objective, and followed the broad directives which were given by the Government of the day.

567
In all that, the B.B.C. played a signal and a noble part. "Ici Londres" was a voice of inspiration to millions of people who heard no other voice of encouragement at all. But to-day the situation is much more difficult and much more complex in many ways.
As the noble Lord who has just spoken has said, the cold war is intensified; it has "hotted up", and there is an infinite variety of propaganda which is put out against the United Kingdom and our Allies all over the world. It takes every shape and form. Sometimes it is false news—not only an inaccurate presentation of news but a pure invention: broadcasts like those from Cairo, that the Russians were bombing London and Paris. I need not go on elaborating. We all know that these broadcasts have been prevalent. Through the use of high-powered transmitters, they are heard all over the world. Every kind of lie is manufactured and put out. There is, of course, complete misrepresentation of policy and intention. Subversive propaganda is sown broadcast, stimulating unrest and discord anywhere and everywhere; internal discord in any country and discord between the Allies. Every medium is used. All this is an integral part of a co-ordinated cold offensive. It is extremely effective, especially among uneducated or uninformed people. This offensive, as I see it, has to be counteracted, and counteracted promptly and effectively. To do that there must be action, positive and negative.
On the negative side, of course, it is necessary to refute the lies that are told; but it is much more important to act positively. In merely denying lies or trying to catch them up, very often you do not catch them up; and, anyway, when you deny a lie you also give currency to the lie as well as to the denial. What is much more important is positive action, the exposition of policy and intention, and of the true facts. It is not at all enough to be on the defensive. We have to take the offensive and we have to keep it. It is nothing less than cold war. It is just as easy—indeed, it is probably a good deal easier—to lose a cold war intensively waged, as it is to lose a hot war. This cold war is being waged by unscrupulous enemies, with no holds barred—a sort of unarmed combat in which
568
really it is not possible to "turn the other cheek." I suppose that there is hardly any noble Lord in the House who would disagree with that diagnosis.
What is the cure for that? What has to be done to make the great, aggressive plan and policy which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has advocated? I am sure that the B.B.C. can play a useful part—certainly, for instance, in South America—in all trade propaganda. But they cannot do it all. Even if we were all united in policy and action, as we were in the war, it would still need an overall direction. Unhappily, we are not united; we certainly have been disunited. I most sincerely hope that we can come closer together in a bipartisan foreign policy at home and in full Allied agreement abroad. The nearer we get to this the easier will be the task. I hope that in this debate the House will not beg this question and deal merely in generalities—a sort of lowest common denominator on which we can all agree. We all agree that we must have good information; we all agree that the B.B.C. do some good work. But we have to face up to the difficult sector where the B.B.C. just cannot cover the situation.
What, then, are the Government of the day to do, and what is to be the policy? I would put this proposition to the House. I would submit that any Government, whether Conservative or Socialist, is entitled, and, indeed, bound, to try to make its policy effective. And, to be effective, that policy must be understood all over the world. But where there is a strong Party difference, the B.B.C. cannot act to put that policy across. By their constitution the B.B.C. have to be impartial. I entirely agree with Lord Strang, and others who have spoken, that it would be quite wrong to interfere with the impartiality of the B.B.C. I should be sorry to see the B.B.C. dictated to, or receiving directions from any Government, whatever its complexion, as to what they were to put out—except in war, of course, when the Government must take complete control. It has to be impartial. That means that where there are differences of opinion, the B.B.C. have to put both sides of the case.
I do not share a condemnation which I have, quite frequently, heard and read against the B.B.C. for putting two sides of a case. I honestly do not think that

569
they can do anything else. That is all right in this country. When we here have domestic differences, it is perfectly all right that the B.B.C. should put out, quite objectively, what are the two points of view, or the three, or more, points of view. Intelligent people listen and look, and talk about it afterwards, and make up their minds, just as they do at election time. It works quite well in an intelligent and a reasonably unprejudiced democracy. But it does not work at all that way when you are dealing with completely uneducated people in places where anti-British propaganda is rampant. Let me put forward this example. Suppose the B.B.C. present a nicely balanced, two-column parallel of Sir Edwin Herbert's report and Dr. Edith Summerskill's report. People here can make up their own minds about it—I think they have done so. But what do your Lordships think is going to be the effect of that kind of thing if it is presented in the Middle East?
I read in The Times, as Lord Strang did, an interesting letter by Sir Robert Boyer on the valuable effect of B.B.C. broadcasts among some Arabs in the Middle East. I do not think that he claimed that it was among more than a minority—what Lord Strang himself called, that very small minority which one hopes still exists in countries, however violent the mob may be. Certainly, it can only have been among a small number. About the same time, or a little before, I read a letter in the Daily Telegraph from a man, who, I imagine, is an equally impartial observer—a man whose business it is to travel every year in the Middle East and in Africa—on what he found to be the effect of the B.B.C.'s balanced, objective broadcasts in Africa. I will quote a sentence or two. He says:
"Atrocity stories and highly coloured protests from Egypt, as broadcast over Cairo radio, were put out again by the B.B.C. as statements of fact without comment. At no time in the news broadcasts for West Africa during the crisis was there any British comment as such beyond broadcasts of statements of the Prime Minister and the diametrically opposed statements of Mr. Gaitskell.
"From the point of view of traditional British fair play, this was no doubt excellent, provided the listeners were equipped and qualified to farm their own conclusions. The effect, however, on intelligent Africans, and on the unintelligent ones who are becoming…politically conscious, as well as on British
570
listeners without the benefit of the background, was deplorable.
"Only about 15 to 20 per cent, of the B.B.C. broadcasts appeared, in fact, to be pro-British, and 80 per cent, were anti-British in effect. The result was complete bewilderment and despair"—
He goes on:
"The effect in the Moslem Northern Region of Nigeria, where…there is good reception of Cairo radio's incessant anti-British propaganda, was disastrous."
I am sure that that letter is objective reporting of what an intelligent observer found. But it surely shows that the kind of objective, balanced presentation which may be admirable in this country may, from the point of view of petting across the case of any Government, be absolutely disastrous in these countries where one is meeting the full blast of the attack of the cold war.
If I may take a parallel, there was a very good rule (which I hope still exists) which I am sure all of us who have been in public life, on any side, have most scrupulously adhered to; that is, that, wherever we travel abroad, however much opposed we are to the Government of the day at home, we never attack that Government when we are in a foreign country. Noble Lords opposite have been just as scrupulous to observe that rule as I hope we on this side of the House have been. It is a very important rule. Yet when one gets these objective, balanced broadcasts all over the Middle East, over Africa and India, it is exactly as if we went out there and made these speeches against one another, attacking one another.
Such speeches are perfectly all right and proper when they are made here. As a matter of fact, when we make a speech in the United States or India, or elsewhere, we probably have—even the best of us—a limited audience, and perhaps get on to the local radio station but one of the excellent things about the B.B.C. is that it has such a wide circulation. When such speeches, made by noble Lords or Members in another place are put out in that way, impartially, they have exactly the same effect as if they were being addressed to an incomparably larger audience. It is indeed a worldwide audience. Therefore, what I would put to the House, and I hope it can be endorsed to-day—it is no reflection on the B.B.C.—is that any Government of the

571
day should accept the responsibility of taking a vigorous counter-offensive over the whole propaganda field in the cold war, and that all of us, to whatever Party we belong, should accept that, whether or not we agree with Government policy, this is an essential duty of any Government and we should expect them to undertake it.
4.33 p.m.
LORD GLYN: My Lords. I rise to support my noble friend Lord Strang in the Motion he has moved. I think it is very suitable that it should come before your Lordships at a time when the Chancellor of the Duchy is considering what action he shall take; and presumably Parliament will have an opportunity of knowing what decision the Chancellor of the Duchy has reached. It seems to me, therefore, that at this moment those of us who are interested in this matter can best hope that this debate will be drawn to the attention of Dr. Hill and that some of the remarks made by your Lordships may bear fruit.
The noble Earl touched on one point which I think is of the utmost importance—the fact that a short time ago, during the Suez crisis, a station that had operated normally was taken away and given the title of the "Voice of Britain". Surely that was an astonishing action, because up till now the whole world has always looked on the B.B.C. as the voice of Britain. That was so during the war. That has been one of its great, strong points. Then suddenly there came this "Voice of Britain", which I believe was broadcasting from Cyprus. The broadcasts were 100 per cent. propaganda, and if they are read now, coldly and dispassionately, a good many of the statements they made certainly do not come up to the standard mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, which was recommended by the Drogheda Report. They were amateur attempts at propaganda which were absolutely laughable and brought this country into contempt. I hope that no station will ever again be taken by our Government for propaganda purposes and given the title of the "Voice of Britain", because that action did irreparable damage and it will take a long time to get over that.
The noble Lords, Lord Strang and Lord Drogheda, have mentioned what
572
must be the basis of any form of broadcasting which this House and this country supports: that no matter what may be the crisis here, it is essential that it shall be impartial, factual and true; and I believe that that is the strength lying behind British broadcasting. It is for that reason that people listen to it. There is one other matter which ought to be mentioned now. If we are going to recover lost ground in the Middle East, we have to concentrate on the forms of broadcast that were so effective in the past, and on no account whatsoever cut down a single service, because that would be a fatal thing to do at the present time.
There are certain members of Her Majesty's Government who believe that broadcasting can be switched on and off like electric light, but it cannot be, because the people who have to carry out the broadcasting are hand-picked people who have to be carefully trained, and, as noble Lords will remember happened during the war, their voices became well known. People recognised the voices of particular broadcasters, both British and enemy. Less educated people in a foreign country get to know the voices of those who they believe are speaking the truth, and look forward to hearing them again. Therefore, when we are talking about the finances of the B.B.C., do not let us neglect the fact that the staff must be carefully selected and must be absolutely first-class people; and if they are going to be that, then they have to carry a good salary.
Another point that arises in this matter is that the broadcasts that come from Moscow are not the only ones that decry this country. There are other countries also which, under the guise of presenting their own goods and services, tend to cry down the credit of this country. That has been happening lately, especially in the Persian Gulf, where there are other oil interests besides British. There have been broadcasts and also television broadcasts from places where television transmitters have been installed. Naturally television, which people can see as well as hear, gets more attention paid to it by the less educated people than purely sound broadcasts.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government three questions to which I attach considerable importance. First, what additions or subtractions have been

573
made to the transmitting resources of the external services since 1947, first, at home, and secondly, abroad? The second question: is enough money being made available to ensure that the resources that do exist can be used to the full? Third: what is being done to provide effective services to British overseas territories, especially those in Africa? All that turns on the point of the actual material that is employed by the B.B.C.
I sometimes think that we ought to have a sense of proportion. Noble Lords have probably been reading in the papers lately of the scrapping of three or four battleships. each of which cost a good many millions of pounds. Every day ships have to be scrapped. If a fraction of the money spent on those ships had been set aside for broadcasting we should have been in a very different position now from that in which we actually are. I think that in these days, with a sort of mad diarchy in the United Nations, it is more important than ever that we should use every means we can to impress British points of view on other nations, to ensure that what we are aiming at is known by people in different parts of the world. And the process must be continuous. It is no use carrying it out for a short time and then cutting off.
Some years ago, when I was Chairman of the Estimates Committee in another place, we reviewed the whole question of the broadcasting services and we made the strongest possible recommendation to the effect that it was uneconomic and bad policy to have an annual grant. It was impossible, in our view, for the B.B.C. to frame a continuity policy, and, as some noble Lords have already said, it led to waste of money. There is no doubt that until the annual grant-in-aid system is changed, at least to a quinquennial one, we are not going to get the results which this country expects from the expenditure. I only hope that noble Lords may find time to read the recommendations in the Report of that Committee. They were accepted, but nothing was done: they remained just pious hopes. But it will make a great difference to the future of broadcasting if the grant-in-aid on an annual basis is changed.
In addition, there must be an immediate review of the expenditure on obsolescent material. It is no use trying to carry on a world broadcasting system
574
with obsolescent material; it gives a bad impression and it is a frightful waste of money. It is necessary, therefore, to replace some of the transmitters. It would not cost more than £500,000 a year completely to re-equip all the broadcasting stations that are available. Furthermore, I think it must be remembered that if we are going to succeed—as I hope we shall—in having a transmission station powerful enough to reach every part of the world, it takes from eighteen months to two years to construct the machinery necessary for the transmitting station from the time of giving authority for it to the time when it is erected and in service, to say nothing of the time it takes to train people in the local languages and all the rest of it—people you must have if you are going to make full use of your transmitting station.
Finally, there is one other matter which I should like to mention because it came up in the inquiry which we made. It relates to the future of television, and have already touched on it once. Do not let any of us forget that we stand on the threshhold of a new method of communication—especially to backward peoples. I am sure that in the whole sphere of external information it is of the utmost importance, especially in British possessions in Africa and elsewhere, that we should sec how far it is possible to make a start, at any rate, with a television system and local transmitters. I am not talking now of colour transmission but only of black and white and the ordinary way in which we may put over authentic news. There is a very real danger that other people will step in and start upon that before we get a chance of doing it. Lot us remember that most of the broadcasts that are directed against this country are broadcasts which foster enmity, hatred and malice in every direction; and having television and sound broadcasting made more effective, made more powerful, under the control of the B.B.C. will make a greater contribution to the hope of peace in the world and do more to improve relations between this and other countries than almost anything else. I think it is criminal to neglect it.
4.46 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those which have already been expressed to the noble Lord. Lord Strang, for bringing this

575
Motion before your Lordships' House today. Before dealing with it, perhaps I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, with regard to their references to the B.B.C. during the war and the work of transmitting which was done during the war, that I am sure they would also wish to give especial credit to the people who received the messages. It was relatively easy, even in the heat of the battle, to transmit from London, but if one has read some of the spy stories which are current just now, one realises that the job of receiving them was a very different matter. I am sure that both the noble Lord and the noble Earl have that in mind.
To-day there is a radio war in progress. We have heard it referred to as a "cold war." I beg to differ. In my view, it is a very hot war on the radio air waves. In proof of that, it is only necessary to consider the 7,000 Yemeni tribesmen who for the first time have been mobilised to think, act and work together, in order to fight against our troops in the Aden Protectorate. That is one very small example of the success achieved in the Middle East against our country, and against free democracy, in this radio war. A term which has become well known now is "radio barrage", and the success which the B.B.C. have achieved in penetrating radio barrages, and indeed in creating a radio barrage of their own, can be judged from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strang, when he mentioned that B.B.C. broadcasts did penetrate to Budapest. It is not often that messages can get through the Iron Curtain radio barrage. When it is said that the B.B.C. equipment is out of date, I think that is not entirely accurate, for it is up to date in this country for transmitting to the world. It is just a question of how that equipment can be used. I shall, I am afraid, differ somewhat, in what I am going to say, from some of the things which have been said by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and other noble Lords.
I am delighted, as I am sure other noble Lords are, that Dr. Charles Hill is to be the representative of Her Majesty's Government for broadcasting. I hope that we shall hear that he will have one special responsibility, because I believe that lack of this responsibility
576
is the reason we have had so little success in this radio war. There is no Department that is responsible, whether in the B.B.C. or in Her Majesty's Government, for the reception of messages, which are transmitted from this country or from any other broadcasting station in the world, originating in this country. The B.B.C. may put out most excellent material (I will call it information rather than propaganda), but after that information has been put out, there is no one to make quite certain that it does, in fact, come out of the wireless set, perhaps inside an Arab tent, or in a school or in a factory in one of our own Dominions or Colonies. I can well remember how, during the war, when I was in Canada, there would often be a rush of English boys to hear the B.B.C. news; but they were always defeated because the Canadian boys wished to hear their own news, sent out from their own small local station, which no doubt would be preceded by some attractive programme which they wished to hear. It is useless to send out the finest material unless there is also a department concerned with reception.
The economies that have been made, and are being made, in our overseas broadcasting are equivalent to a reduction in our Defence Estimates; but not only do they reduce the amount we pay for such defence, they also increase the effectiveness of our enemies' defence mechanism in the radio war. In the Middle East the medium frequencies are the only frequencies which can be obtained on the small sets of the sort the Arabs have, and our stations are almost always overpowered by foreign stations, operating at frequencies very near to those of the B.B.C. I have been told by people who have come back from the Middle East that they have complaints with regard to the difficulty of hearing the B.B.C. out there, and I was amazed to hear this afternoon from the noble Lords, Lord Swinton and Lord Glyn, how effective were the broadcasts of the differing opinions which existed in another place. Somehow, it seems an accident that that message should have had such a great hearing in the Middle East at that time.
I think that one of the basic reasons why the B.B.C. cannot get their message across is that they have to try to stick to the objective truth, as the noble Lord.

577
Lord Strang, has mentioned. Every other competitive broadcasting station has a particular message to sell, and they put their message over by every possible means. The B.B.C. are tied by strict rules of procedure and have to observe strictly the international conventions on radio broadcasting. I have notified the noble Earl who is to reply that I would ask him whether the Government are satisfied that the Middle East foreign stations are broadcasting according to the rules laid down in the Atlantic City Convention of 1947. That Convention deals with the frequencies and strengths of broadcasting stations. There are all sorts of ways of increasing the power of a radio station, and in the near future there will be ways of increasing the range and power of television stations. Whether the Government and the B.B.C. like it or not, the time will come when a commercial television station, equivalent to Radio Luxembourg, will be broadcasting on a range available on all our television sets, putting across the message of foreign advertisers. That has already happened in the United States, where the competition for air speaking time is the strongest and fiercest that has ever been.
I suspect that another reason why the B.B.C. are not able to have their message broadcast more widely is that not enough money is spent upon sponsoring their programmes on foreign stations. May I also suggest that very likely the sort of material which is put forward by the B.B.C. is not the sort of material that listeners, say, in South America, would choose of their own free will to listen to; and that is of vital importance. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Strang, will be the first to agree with me when I say that anybody can broadcast to people who wish to listen; but it is far different to send your message to people who do not wish to listen, or, worse still, who have an alternative programme to which they cart listen. I hope that Dr. Charles Hill, in his new capacity, will be able to become responsible for the reception of B.B.C. material. I believe that it is vital to get our message over if we are to get anywhere near to winning the radio war, which is on in all severity. I hope that we shall hear from the noble Earl whether he thinks that the B.B.C. are the right vehicle for putting over information to other countries. Somehow I rather doubt that a body which is owned by the
578
country, and whose responsibility under their Charter is to put forward unbiased and fair information from all sides, is really the vehicle that can push forward the hard truths that have to be pushed through the radio barrage coming from other countries.
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, before the debate closes, I should like to intervene for one moment, not for the purpose of taking part in the broader issues so admirably introduced by my noble friend Lord Strang, but for one purpose, and for one purpose only—that is, with the desire of supporting in such humble way as I may the point made by my noble friend Lord Swinton at the conclusion of his speech, in regard to the difficulty that arises about the presentation of the "Voice of Britain" in foreign countries, I am fully alive to the sentiment that was so forcibly expressed both by my noble friend Lord, Strang and by the noble Earl who followed him, as to the importance of scrupulous adherence to truth, and to the extreme importance of avoiding any prejudice to the impartial position of the B.B.C. I share entirely that sentiment. On the other hand, I should have supposed that everybody must agree upon the importance of this country's speaking with one voice to foreign countries. It is really impossible for those who speak on behalf of this country to speak with many voices.
What does that mean? It means, as my noble friend has said, that the responsible Government of the day must be supported by the B.B.C. in putting the Government view abroad as the view of this country. The arguments, the differences and the different points of view are properly incorporated in the Party broadcasts within this country. That is right. Where people have to make up their winds, where public opinion has to be formed, and people need to have the arguments in order to choose and decide, they must have the arguments. But it seems to me suicidal, when we have this cold war, which is every hit as important for our future as any other kind of war, that we should deliberately, under a mistaken sense of what is incumbent upon us, set out to weaken the impact and the power that this country should have in the world by presenting ourselves as a people with

579
no unity, torn by discord, and utterly ineffective and leaderless. That must be disastrous. I therefore suggest that, whatever Government are in power (and I should feel exactly the same if the Party of noble Lords opposite were the responsible Government), they must be the responsible people to speak for England abroad. And, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said, we must apply the same principles to broadcasting as we apply to ourselves in speeches when we travel abroad.
5.1 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Strang, reminded us, it is just over two years since I raised the whole broad question of the overseas information services. On that occasion our debate centred round the effect of the Report of the Committee under the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, and it is interesting to find that some, at least, of the important matters that we discussed then were apparently put away into cold storage to be given an airing again only to-day. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, for giving us a second opportunity to review some of these matters; and I should also like to say how glad I am that the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, was able to help us on this occasion, because on the last occasion he could not partake in the debate due to illness.
I suppose that increasingly we are all aware that up and down the country a discriminating public is recognising the great gap in the whole complicated setup of information, and that is reflected in the appointment of Dr. Charles Hill. Noble Lords this afternoon have covered the whole field of information, and I shall confine my remarks to one branch of the information tree—namely, the external services of the B.B.C. All I shall hope to do is to try and define the principles on which I believe the external services should function in the future, and to apply those principles to the immediate situation in the Middle East, and perhaps discover where we have gone wrong.
The aims and purposes of the B.B.C. external services are defined in their handbook, and the noble Lord, Lord Strang, has stressed them. I believe one could reduce them all to just three words:
580
disseminating objective information. When one speaks of information, I think one has to make a clear distinction between two quite different conceptions—one might almost say two problems. First, there is this straightforward projection of British life, British method. British policy, the selling of British goods abroad, the exporting of British culture, and so on: very important indeed for the long term, but innocuous and innocent. We all recognise that the B.B.C. do this excellently. Secondly, there is to-day an extension of that first normal obligation, but an extension with this difference: that there is nothing innocuous or innocent about it. I can only define it—and I gather from what your Lordships have said that you would agree—as "to wage and win the war of co-existence." I think that "Minister of Co-existence" might be an alternative title for the Minister of Co-ordination.
In other words, if the Governors of the B.B.C. were to take another look at their aims and purposes to-day, as defined, I think they would perhaps have to consider adding another paragraph. I should not be so bold as to suggest the phraseology of that paragraph, but all I would urge is that it should be placed on record that there is a function now far more dynamic and vital than the mere considering of objective information, however efficiently that may be undertaken. If that extra vitality is to be applied to waging a cold war, in turn one asks: against whom is it to be directed? I suggest that for that we have not only to take within our purview the Communist, whom we can all recognise, but all those countries which, by reason of certain possessions, so easily lend themselves to Communist influence. There, then, for our purpose is the enemy; and it would be misleading and we should be deceiving ourselves if we regarded him as anything less. I suggest that the text for this kind of work might be found perhaps in that verse of the National Anthem, too frequently discarded these days:
"Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks."
I would make one qualification, and it is that it is usually leadership we are attacking rather than the poor sheep who are led. That leads us to the conclusion that great sublety is required in

581
this kind of work, and a high sense of psychology.
As to these normal functions of the B.B.C., we all agree that they perform their services in competition with other national services in the world as successfully as we could possibly imagine. After all, they are, as the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, suggested, usually talking to people who, on the whole, want to hear them. In those circumstances, you can adopt the technique of commercial advertising. We all want to drink tea, and, on the whole, we will drink the tea which is most frequently and most attractively presented to us, whether it is a matter of gazing into a small space from a seat in an underground train, or of looking at a great disfiguring hoarding in the middle of a green field. It is, however, a different matter from dealing with friends, who, on the whole, want to hear what you have to say, when you turn to foes, who do not. But it is a matter of life and death, if not for us, certainly for our children.
I fully endorse most of the recommendations of the Drogheda Report, but there was one paragraph which seems to me to be not quite within the terms of realism the light of the present-day situation. Paragraph 7 says:
"Winning the cold war is but one of a number of current aims of our information work."
I would put it this way: that if we lose that war, it will not matter very much if we win one hundred petty campaigns, political or economic, sprinkled about in different parts of the world. We are not dealing with the loss of a British contract abroad, or considering the exhibition of a British picture in a foreign capital, but are considering the whole substance of democracy, its existence and its defence.
To pass to the application of some of these thoughts to the Middle East, the Drogheda Report, in my view very rightly, says:
"No amount of propaganda is a substitute for policy"
Recently that was applied in criticism in the Middle East, where it was said that the Government had no policy, the inference being that it did not matter very much what we broadcast. It is true that that is an attractive proposition, but it has this danger. I suggest that no lack of a policy nor even a bad policy, absolves
582
any Government from the simple duty of refuting, immediately and forcibly, the direct lie, and, as some noble Lords have said, in the Middle East it is the technique of the complete lie which is directed against us. Certainly much more than mere scrupulous objectivity is needed. It must need those two views which have been presented to us this afternoon: one the view of Sir Richard Boyer, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and the other the view of Mr. Courtenay in the Daily Telegraph, quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. To my mind, the lesson from those two conflicting views is that we have yet a lot to learn and apply about discrimination between one audience and another.
"According to the needs of the many audiences," is the direct injunction in the aims and purposes defined by the B.B.C. What goes down in Cairo will not go down in Paris; and what goes down with one audience in Paris will not go down with another audience in the same town. Apply that to the Middle East and you might find to-day that a family in Damascus would turn on their set after dinner and listen in to the B.B.C., with a view to checking up on the veracity of their own local station. But how many people in Damascus have their sets and turn them on after dinner? I think we could say quite safely that 80 per cent. of the listeners in such a town are what one might term the "coffee-house listeners"; and for them, objectivity is most certainly meaningless.
The conclusion I come to is that, somehow or other, we have to cater for two audiences with two separate programmes. I do not claim to prescribe a remedy; I only give the diagnosis. I would stress that the B.B.C. at this moment have absolutely nothing on the ground in the Middle East. In fact, when we talk about the external services we are, of course, referring to the Arabic service broadcast from London. Some may wonder exactly what we have in the Middle East. I would remind your Lordships that until October 30 there was a private company operating in Cyprus called Sharq al Adna, a private company selling time in exactly the same way as Radio Luxembourg. It had a few Arabist experts from this country, and it had a large Arabic staff. I will not go into the story of the requisitioning of that company on October 30, because.

583
as the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, has told us, it is a strange and depressing kind of story, and I do not believe that any purpose would be served in going into it. But I would stress that it does raise the whole question of the future. That company was taken over by the "Voice of Britain," operated directly from this country under the Foreign Office.
I suggest that Cyprus is the only possible site for such a station. Aden is remote, and it is impossible to put down a British station on foreign soil. It seems to me that there are three possible courses. First of all, we could have a British Government station, operating under the Foreign Office—what might be termed a Foreign Office station; secondly, we could have a British station operating under private enterprise, with Government encouragement in the background; or, thirdly, we could have the B.B.C., operating under an increased grant-in-aid for the purpose. Of those three courses, I come to the conclusion that the B.B.C. is the most practical.
My reasons are these. I doubt whether any Foreign Office station would ever be able to shake off the accusation that its one and only purpose was to project British policy, which would always be interpreted as directed to destroy either Arab unity or Israel—one or the other: it is an official programme that must always suffer the stigma of officialdom. It is true that the "Voice of Britain" tries to mix up music and entertainment into its programme, but I cannot help thinking that it has great difficulties in doing that. After all, one does not turn to the London Symphony Orchestra if one wants to engage a dance band. Paradoxically, I believe that a station operating under private enterprise would suffer from the same kind of disability, only this time it would not be a matter so much of British policy being under attack, but of the machinations of "wicked Western capitalist interests." There are far too many loopholes for accusation and too many political fences for such a company to avoid—even if we could find private enterprise, in the form of oil companies or something of that sort, to support it.
Therefore, I return to the B.B.C., and I would stress that the B.B.C. start off with one great advantage, which is that
584
they have a ready-made public already on the ground. In 1955, the B.B.C. Overseas Service in London received no fewer than 11,000 letters written in Arabic. So there is a ready-made reputation, a ready-made audience, for that technique in which we, the British, are surely experts—the development of a corporation, a semi-independent body. I think that, over the years, the B.B.C. have built up that reputation, and that it is recognised in the Middle East, and I can see no reason why, if a B.B.C. station were let in on the ground, with time to recruit its Arabic staff and to acclimatise itself, it should not be able to restore that stability and friendship which is so necessary to us in the Middle East.
The Drogheda Report has rightly said that no station is a substitute for a policy —or words to that effect. If the B.B.C. is to make its mark, then it most certainly must have something to sell. I do not know whether it is a matter of putting our faith in the Baghdad Pact, or the economic clauses of that Pact, suggesting how this country could build up its economic aid to the area covered by the Pact. All I would say is that there is a theme, something on which a broadcasting station can bite; and that I regard as essential to the success of trying to put across the British message in the Middle East. The B.B.C. tell me that they are satisfied with their relations with the Foreign Office. Some of your Lordships may have seen a leader in The Times some time ago in which exception was taken to the fact that a liaison officer, appointed at the time of the Suez crisis between the Foreign Office and the B.B.C., had not been removed. I do not know whether that represents fair criticism or not. All I can say is that the B.B.C. would say they find no difficulty, in undertaking that obligation, to inform themselves of Her Majesty's Government's policy, and it is only when that policy is in doubt, or when information about it is withheld, that a broadcasting system gets into danger.
To sum up, I would ask Her Majesty's Government three points. I ask them, first for a declaration of intention, if they can give it, as to the establishment of a medium-wave station in the Middle East. Secondly, I would ask them if they are satisfied that the relationship between the B.B.C. and the Foreign Office is such as

585
enables the B.B.C. to discharge their obligations. Thirdly, remembering always that the Government formulate policy, I would ask them if they are prepared to recognise a task of wider scope than mere information—a duty to wage the psychological war of co-existence; and, if so, can we see that that obligation is written into the B.B.C.'s terms of reference as an imperative function that should be undertaken.
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF WOOLTON: My Lords, I intervene for only one moment in the debate, and that is to urge that the Government and the B.B.C., in considering this problem, should not be inclined to confine themselves to the spoken word. As one looks to the future, surely it is true that it is the world of pictures that will be the most effective. I wonder whether they are taking any steps in what I agree is a most difficult task, the task of considering how they can deal with the subject of this debate in future years in the form of pictures that will be so much more widely noted in foreign countries than we could possibly hope for in the spoken word. I realise that there are, at the moment, technical difficulties, though I believe that they will be overcome; but there are no technical difficulties in the Government's sponsoring programmes on television in other countries and using that as a means of their propaganda. I intervene just to raise that issue, because vie must look to the future and not try to fight the battles of the future with the weapons of the past. In a few years' time I believe that television will be much more important, popular and widely used than the "Voice of Britain" could be.
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I venture to address your Lordships for only one moment as I spent part of the Christmas Recess in Austria in very close contact with Hungarian refugees immediately after they crossed the border, and with many people who dealt with them. The supreme fact is that, in the battle for the minds of the younger generation East of the Iron Curtain, we appear to have won; but when it comes to guiding action on that side, there is greater need than ever for the "Voice of Britain", for the American- sponsored "Voice of Free Europe" has been under certain criticism
586
—I do not say whether it is fair or unfair. Perhaps they have raised too high hopes of American intervention and action, and have sometimes led people, one must say, a "little up the garden path".
British credit is unimpaired, and it is essential for the 98 per cent. of the Hungarian people who remain behind the Iron Curtain that they should be kept in constant touch, not only with the facts of what happens in Western Europe but with the facts of what is happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain; that they should be in contact with the actions and words of leaders who have escaped, like the Mayor of Budapest, Dr. Kovago, and the Socialist leader, Dr. Anna Kethly; and that they should be given some way of assessing what the right action should be. We do not want to see either false hopes leading to a useless sacrifice of lives or, on the other hand, despair; but, by a constant stream of informed opinion which helps to model the action, we can have a great effect. Until I had seen the Iron Curtain countries very closely I had no idea how critical, how shaky, how insecure and, indeed, how fluid is the situation in those Communist countries—not only in the satellites but in Russia itself. This is a moment not for reducing the "Voice of Britain" to Eastern Europe, but for increasing it.
5.24 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am moved to intervene in this debate for a few minutes in order to express my profound disagreement with the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I could not disagree more with anything. I was shocked to find that he had the support of the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, with whom I so often find myself in agreement on questions of moral principle. It seems to me that this suggestion— that, when a nation is as profoundly divided as this nation was last autumn over the action of the Government in Egypt, we should try to go out to the world as being a united nation under the leadership of a Government with which half of us bitterly disagree—is morally and completely wrong. Why I am so shocked is that the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, should have supported that view, because that he should wish in effect to have two moral standards, a moral standard for our people at home and another moral standard when we are making the "Voice of Britain"

587
known to the world, seems to me a very shocking thing. What the noble Earl, Lord Swinton is, in effect, advocating is that we should speak with this sort of "Voice of Britain" which spoke from Cyprus and which personally, I felt, brought degradation on the people of this country.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is remaking my speech for me, which is very kind of him. The thesis I put to the House and which, I think, commanded a good deal of support was simply this: that when you are dealing with the outside world, the Government of the day, whether it is the noble Lord's Government or this Government, have not only a right but a duty to put across their policy.
LORD CHORLEY: By all means let the policy of the Government be put across. It was put across perfectly fairly by the British Broadcasting Corporation. But what is wrong is that it should be put across as the "Voice of Britain" when it is not the voice of Britain. I was very glad indeed to find that the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, denounced so effectively what had been done in respect of this Cyprus broadcast. It was a shameful thing. It seems to me that it is not only morally wrong but shameful that we should behave in that way. It does not pay either, because, as the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat made perfectly clear, it is ridiculous nonsense to suppose that people all over the world think that there is unity in this country over matters of this kind. After all, these things appear in the newspapers and the newspapers go abroad. Whether it happens in twenty-four hours or whether it happens in forty-eight hours, sooner or later what is happening in this country is known all over the world.
No doubt some of these people are stupid, silly people—the "lumpen proletariat," as they are called—but they are not the people who make opinions in the world. The people who make opinions and whose opinion is important are people such as students, the professional people, who attempted to secure freedom for Hungary during the last autumn. Surely the reason why we won the ideological battle there, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, was because they knew perfectly well that the British Broadcast-
588
ing Corporation came over straight on matters of that sort. It is very significant. After all, these Hungarians are intelligent people, and so are the Poles; so, indeed, are the Russians. The Russians know perfectly well that in no country is everybody 100 per cent. behind the Government, and they themselves feel the same sort of degradation as I felt when they hear their own broadcasts put across in Moscow in the stupid way in which they are put across—and I have heard them say so.
A friend of mine who was in Moscow at the time when the Hungarian crisis was at its height saw in the University of Moscow the official bulletin of what was happening there. There were students who had put alongside it: "This is what the B.B.C. says about what is going, on in Budapest." There was an enormous throng of students round the notice-board reading what the B.B.C. said. It is because the B.B.C. has a reputation which is so valuable that I suggest that this suggestion about putting a united "Voice" out all over the world which is not the voice of the nation, ought not to be accepted.
I have spent most of my life in the university world, where our great objective is the search for truth. Even the B.B.C. has not got the whole of the truth. What it puts out is only the truth as far as it knows it. You can get the truth only by finding out what the other man is saying too, and comparing his view about things with your own. That is why I like to know not only what is said by the B.B.C. here but also what is said in New York by the New York Herald Tribune which the American Government is good enough to send me every morning and which I study to the best of my ability. And not only in what is put out in New York, but also in what is put out in Moscow, there is a glimpse of truth; and by putting these things together, one is able to build up for oneself what seems to be the truth, and, so to speak, to get the picture into conspectus. This seems to me most important, and it is the job which the B.B.C. is doing. I entirely support Lord Strang and Lord Drogheda, and I hope that your Lordships will not accept this insidious proposal put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I consider that this has been a most interesting debate, and your Lordships have made criticisms and suggestions that will be of enormous value. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, for having given us the opportunity to discuss this subject, and to hear both his view and the views of other noble Lords who have spoken. As your Lordships have already been made aware by the Answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, in your Lordships' House on January 31, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Dr. Charles Hill, has been entrusted with the rôle of co-ordinating Government information services, both abroad and at home; and as part of his rôle he is conducting, in collaboration with the responsible Ministers, a review of overseas services with a view to recommending whether it is necessary to alter the balance of effort between different areas in the world or between different forms of information. I can answer the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not likely to become a Minister of Propaganda.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Earl (because I rather thought this was the case, though I may be wrong) whether the terms of reference of the Chancellor of the Duchy include the responsibility of snaking recommendations about improvements in these services? I do not think the noble Earl mentioned that in the statement he has just made.
THE EARL OE GOSFORD: I regret that I have not given the full quotation from the terms of reference.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That is a most important thing.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I apologise to the noble Earl. Perhaps I should not have mentioned it at all, merely referring the noble Earl to the Charter and to the answers given by the Prime Minister in another place. While on this subject, I should like to answer the two questions of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I have already answered one question, and have referred him to the Prime Minister's statement in another place. The other question dealt with the staff which the Chancellor of the Duchy will have. He has private, secretaries; the question of
590
the rest of his staff is still under consideration and has not yet been fixed.
A question has been asked by Lord Strang, and by other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, about the Government's attitude to the 1946 White Paper on Broadcasting Policy, stressing the importance of the Corporation's maintaining its reputation for telling the truth. I can assure the House that there has been no change here. We welcome the complete objectivity of news broadcasts given by the B.B.C. This has never been in question, and I hope it never will be. We in this country have always believed in telling the truth in our broadcasts. We believe in it now, and I hope that we always shall.
The other question is the independence of the B.B.C. in the preparation of programmes for overseas audiences. This is closely followed in the 1952 licence and agreement between the Postmaster General and the B.B.C.; but too, should like to quote clause 15 (5) which reads as follows:—
"The Corporation shall consult and collaborate with the departments so specified (i.e. the three overseas departments prescribing services) and shall obtain and accept from them such information regarding conditions in, and the policies of Her Majesty's Government towards, the countries so prescribed and other countries, as will enable the Corporation to plan and prepare its programmes in the external services in the national interest"
Several of your Lordships have made criticisms of the B.B.C.'s external services. May I offer some reflections? In countries where democracy is not fully developed, I agree that people do not always understand our tradition of airing our difficulties in public. They tend to regard the B.B.C. as the official mouthpiece, and they are bewildered when the B.B.C. broadcasts the cacophony of public argument. Secondly, it is not enough to transmit good programmes from here without being sure that they are listened to at the other end. There have been great strides in international technique. Locally transmitted programmes on medium wave, and more particularly on V.H.F., are received so much better that, in a crowded ether, short-wave programmes from abroad stand less and less chance of being listened to in any foreign country. Again, in many countries, as here, television is winning the battle against sound. These factors lead to the conclusion that, in

591
some circumstances, sound recordings or transcriptions and television films are better ways of spending money, except where short-wave transmissions are picked up and locally relayed. We must move with the technical changes and deploy our resources to the best advantage. By and large, this redeployment might mean less for the West and certainly more for the East.
Thirdly, it might well be that the B.B.C.'s Services to the Middle East should be augmented by broadcasting addressed to a wider and less intelligent audience, to those who would listen only to a programme of a type and level which the B.B.C. were constitutionally unable to produce. This does not necessarily mean a propaganda programme. Such a programme might do an important job by attracting to itself listeners who might otherwise listen to less entertaining programmes charged with abuse and misrepresentation.
Several noble Lords have asked questions about the "Voice of Britain" service. This programme was introduced in order to meet the special needs of the occasion. The B.B.C. Arabic Services amounted to no more than 4½ hours a day. Her Majesty's Government felt it essential to provide a much longer service in order to counter the hostile broadcasts coming from the high-powered Egyptian transmitters. The Near East Broadcasting station in Cyprus was requisitioned on October 31 last year. This was a private British company, the senior staff being, mostly British, but the station relied on Arabs for preparation and delivery of its programmes. The Government decided on requisition because a privately owned station, largely staffed by Arab personnel, could obviously not be left to broadcast uncontrolled during military operations. The result has been a composite service relayed from Cyprus for 15 hours a day in Arabic, of which the B.B.C. service forms about one-third and the "Voice of Britain" service the remainder.
The Government have now asked the B.B.C. to step up these Arabic services to at least 9 hours per day. The Government have also decided on the provision on a permanent basis of relay facilities for the Arabic service of the B.B.C. by using transmitters at Sharq al Adna, which the Government will purchase from
592
the Near East Arab Broadcasting Station. I should like to say, in passing, that the "Voice of Britain" has proved an effective method of putting out material as a counter to Cairo Radio and other hostile stations in the area. I do not agree with noble Lords who have said that it has harmed the high reputation built up by the B.B.C., since it has not indulged, and does not indulge, in the venomous and slanderous methods of Cairo Radio, but concentrates in fighting lies with facts.
I will now turn to the Drogheda Committee. Here, I should like once more to thank the noble Earl who has spoken to-day for the important and useful work which he has carried out. Although the period between 1947 and the publication of the Drogheda Committee's report in 1953 has been referred to, I will not go into this matter in detail, since, although economy was a determining factor in leading the Government of the day to reduce external broadcasting from some 240 hours a week, in 1947, to 223 hours a week, in 1952, in the European Services, and from 480 hours to 317 hours a week in the remaining overseas services, the period must, I think, be regarded as one of transition from the war-time to a reasonable peace-time level. I prefer, therefore, to take the year of the Drogheda Report as my starting point.
So far as weekly hours broadcast are concerned, there has not been much change in the period from 1953 to the present day. The European services have, in fact, risen from 223 hours to 242 hours. The rise is mainly due to increase in the services to countries behind the Iron Curtain, the other services remaining virtually unchanged. The overseas services were reduced in the corresponding period from 316¾ hours to 315½ hours, the pattern of these services remaining more or less the same throughout the period. The question at once arises whether the pattern of these services now corresponds adequately with changes in the world political situation since 1953.
The Drogheda Committee made a number of recommendations for improving the services, which noble Lords have mentioned. They were: that the General Overseas Service in English should be increased from 21 hours a day to 24; that the Arabic service should be expanded by half an hour to bridge a gap in the programme and to institute our

593
Arabic transcription service; certain improvements to the Far Eastern programmes; additional revenue expenditure resulting from expansion of the relay facilities at Tebrau; expansion of the services in Spanish and Portuguese to Latin America, including transcription services; improvement of transmitter coverage and leasing of relay facilities in Europe. There were other recommendations, including transcription in English. The total cost of this was estimated at £620,000 per annum.
On the other hand, the Committee recommended abolition of the services to Western Europe in French, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. A figure was quoted to the Committee by the B.B.C. of £135,000 per annum as the saving likely to result, but this assumed the retention in operation of certain transmitters now being used for these services. If the transmitters were put out of action, and resulting savings on overheads were taken into account, the total saving from these seven services would be much higher and would go a long way towards meeting the additional revenue expenditure involved in carrying out the recommendations for expansion of services already mentioned. However, in deference to representations made by Parliament and by the B.B.C., no decision has, up to now, been taken to terminate these seven Western European language services, though I can tell your Lordships that this is one of the points being urgently considered by Dr. Hill. Apart from the extra half-hour on the Arabic Service, it has not been possible so far, for reasons which I shall explain, to carry out these expansions.
On the capital side, the Committee recommended installation of two additional high-power short-wave transmitters in the existing relay station at Tebrau, thereby completing the original plan for four such transmitters. I can assure noble Lords that this is one of the points already being considered. The total estimated cost of all these projects amounted in 1953 to £4,650,000. The Committee suggested that if they were found to be necessary the cost should be spread over a period of, say, ten years, thus involving an investment of about £500,000 a year.
To sum up, therefore, the Drogheda Committee's recommendations would
594
have involved extra continuing revenue expenditure of over £500,000 a year and a capital sum of nearly £5 million over ten years, with some offsetting reduction from the abolition of the seven Western European services. The Committee did not, however, take into account the question of rising costs, and it is these, more than any other single factor, that have made it impossible, against the general financial and economic background, to make headway with these recommendations. The pattern of the external services has remained broadly unchanged since the Committee's Report was issued, but their cost has risen continuously, and the rate at which it has risen is increasing.
Excluding the Government's contribution to the B.B.C.'s monitoring services, which has remained fairly constant, the grant-in-aid has risen from £4,296,000, in 1952–53 to £5,193.000 in 1956–57. These figures are from original estimates, and do not include supplementaries taken out in the course of each year. Already the original provision for the current year has had to be increased by a supplementary. That is to say, these costs are now rising at a rate of between £250,000 and £300,000 a year. The need both to provide better relay facilities overseas and to renew much of the B.B.C.'s equipment at home is recognised by the Government. But until these revenue costs can be brought under control it is difficult to see how money can be provided for them, given the general need for economy in all forms of Government expenditure. As it is, although additional money was made available for the information services as a whole in 1955–56 and 1956–57, much of this has been swallowed up in rising costs. Last year, for example, although an additional £1·3 million was given to the information services, over £400,000 went to meet rising costs of the B.B.C. I agree that the winning over of men's minds is of paramount importance. But this costs money, and that is something we shall have to face when the results of the review are put before us. l repeat that the purpose of the review is to enable broadcasting to make its full contribution to our information services and for a full understanding abroad of the British point of view.
Now, with your Lordships' permission, I will turn to one or two questions which have been asked of me. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me whether a White

595
Paper would be issued due course embodying the recommendations of Dr. Hill's investigation. It may well be that the issue of such a White Paper will be advisable, but it is too soon for me to give any undertaking with regard to it However, Her Majesty's Government do not rule out such a possibility. The noble Lord, Lord Glyn, asked what new additions or subtractions had been made in respect of the transmitter resources of the external Services of the B.B.C. Two high-power, short-wave transmitters, each of 100 kilowatts, were brought into use for relay purposes at Tebrau, near Singapore, in August, 1950; and Her Majesty's Government now propose to acquire, from the Near East Association Limited, the Near East Arab broadcasting station in Cyprus, comprising a 100 kilowatt medium-wave transmitter and five short-wave transmitters of varying power.
The noble Lord also asked me whether sufficient money is available for making full use of such resources as we have. The answer to this will come out in the review, and I should prefer not to answer this question further to-day. The noble Lord then asked me about British overseas territories in Africa. Broadcasting to colonial audiences is primarily the responsibility of the Colonial Governments of these Colonies, but the B.B.C. include in their external services programmes in English and vernaculars transmitted from this country to the Colonies, some of which are then relayed by local stations. About the middle of 1956, at the request of the Colonial Office and with the support of Her Majesty's Government, the B.B.C. made arrangements to include East Africa in the coverage of their Arabic services.
The noble Lord, Lord Glyn, also asked about a closed circuit television system installed by United States interests in the Persian Gulf. We know of no such system in the Persian Gulf, although there is a programme broadcast from the American Air Force Station at Dhahran which can be viewed in Bahrein. We are investigating reports that material hostile to the United Kingdom has been broadcast over this station. The United Kingdom has taken the initiative in developing television in the Middle East and a station installed by a British firm
596
—Pye, Limited—is now operating in Baghdad. I understand that the further development of equipment and programmes in this area is under active consideration by British companies.
The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, asked whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that foreign stations in the Middle East are broadcasting according to the rules on frequency allocation laid down at the Atlantic City Convention. I can only say that Her Majesty's Government are not satisfied that all such stations are observing these rules; but the Middle East is not the only part of the world where such non-observance is continuing. The noble Lord, Lord Bird-wood, asked me, among other questions, about the relationships between the B.B.C. and the Foreign Office. I can tell him that these relationships are very satisfactory, and I should like to commend the fine work done by the B.B.C. in broadcasting at home and overseas.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, before the noble Earl finishes, may I ask him to reply to one more question? I am most grateful to him for the full and careful reply that he has given so far. The question to which I should like him to reply, if he can, is: can he give a rough idea of how long Dr. Hill's inquiry into the Overseas Information Services is likely to take? Will it be a matter of months, or a year, or longer?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I regret that I cannot answer the noble Earl's question except to say that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has started his inquiry and is carrying it on with the greatest speed he can. He will produce his review at the earliest possible moment.
I think we have had an excellent debate. Many interesting viewpoints have been expressed which will be of use to Dr. Hill in his deliberations on the Overseas Information Services. I think your Lordships will agree that any decision as to whether or not extra provision must be made for the external services of the B.B.C. must await the result of the review now being undertaken. The fact that Dr. Hill has been given this task is an earnest of the Government's intention to improve our information services. I can assure noble Lords that the important points which have been made this

597
afternoon by Lord Strang and other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate will be taken fully into account by Dr. Hill in arriving at his conclusions.
5.52 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, before begging leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name, I should like to offer my warmest thanks to those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—not only those who have spoken in support of my Motion, but those also who have taken a somewhat different line. I thank them all impartially. I would also take the opportunity, if I may, of tendering congratulations to the noble Earl who replied to this debate. It is, I think, the first time that he has answered in a debate on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, since his appointment. Therefore, our congratulations are due to him. I should, further, like to thank him for the great care with which he has answered many of the questions put to him by noble Lords during the debate. That is not to say, though, that I find his reply, as a whole, satisfactory. Far from it, But it is not my intention to reopen the debate now; no doubt there will be a later occasion.
Nor is it my intention, at the moment, to comment on the views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Halifax. Both noble Earls speak with great authority, and what they say deserves most careful study. I am sure they would not expect me to express agreement with them. One thing, I think, is clear: the Lime has come when there ought to be a new and comprehensive statement of Government policy about external information services as a whole—not simply broadcasting services, but Government Departmental information services and the British Council. The time is due for that. As regards broadcasting policy, I think there has been nothing authoritative since the
598
White Paper of 1946. I would strongly urge. therefore, that when the review now being made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is completed—and we hope that it will be completed soon—there should be a comprehensive statement of Government policy which will cover the important points raised by the noble Ear], Lord Swinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Halifax. That is why I wish to support the plea made by the noble Earl. Lord Listowel, for a White Paper, when the Government are in a position to state their views. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
WAKEFIELD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
LIVERPOOL HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [H.L.]
Referred to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (BARMSTON—COXGREEN FOOT-BRIDGE) BILL [H.L.]
NEWPORT CORPORATION (WATER) BILL [H.L.]
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
EAST HAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
B P TRADING BILL [H.L.]
Referred to a Select Committee: the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
House adjourned at six minutes before six o'clock.