:I understand that it is the intention that the Secretary of State should make a statement with regard to the projected Ministry of Information and foreign publicity, and that the Estimates on the Paper which are related to this work will include Supplementary Estimates for the Home Office, the Foreign Office and Diplomatic and Consular Services so far as they relate to plans for a Ministry of Information and for foreign publicity. I understand, of course, that foreign publicity includes the existing foreign news work of the Foreign Office. I should like to ask you. Sir Dennis, if you would be so good as to permit the relative Estimates to be before the Committee at the same moment, so that the Debate may not be unduly confined.

I think there is no doubt that the Committee in this case will assent to the course suggested, but I should, as I have done before, remind the Committee that it is only in special circumstances that the Chairman is justified in allowing several Votes relating to different Departments to be discussed together. In this case the three Departments are all concerned with the matters referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, foreign publicity and the proposed Ministry of Information, and I take it that the Committee will assent to the course proposed on the understanding that we do not go outside the Vote which has been read from the Chair except in regard to those matters of foreign publicity and a Ministry of Information.

I am much obliged to you, Sir Dennis, for your Ruling. I think every hon. Member will see its wisdom. When we come to have the Debate it will be found that the subjects are inextricably connected, and that they must be discussed together. These services being new services, the Committee will wish to have a general debate on them, and will wish also, to have answers to certain questions with which I am now going to deal. The first question, I imagine, that may occur to any curious Member is why the Home Secretary should be introducing this Vote at all—a Vote which affects, not only war-time publicity, but Foreign Office publicity in peace time. It may well be asked why the Home Secretary should be responsible for either the one or the other. Since I have been at the Home Office, I have found the truth of what was once said of the Home Secretary, namely, that he was the residuary legatee of the rest of the Government, and that any job that was not specifically undertaken by another Department was put upon his tottering shoulders. The result is that, so far as the Ministry of Information is concerned, which, as I shall show, is a shadow department only to function in war-time, there can be no one of the existing Departments whose responsibility is connected with work of that kind, and so it came about that a short time ago, as it was nobody else's business, the Prime Minister asked me to look into the questions connected with the organisation of this war-time department and to give my advice upon it. Accordingly, I made a series of very careful inquiries into the problems connected with a war-time Ministry of Information, and the result is the Vote today. It does not necessarily follow that, supposing there were a war and that the war-time Ministry were set up, the Home Secretary would be responsible. Indeed it is probable, as I shall show in the course of my speech, that there would be a special Minister of Information with direct responsibility to Parliament for the work of the Ministry.

Having made that general excuse to the Committee for my presence at the Box this morning, let me now come to the Ministry of Information, and the objective that the Foreign Office has in mind in its publicity department. What we are trying to do is to extend British culture abroad and to explain British policy abroad in peace-time. Secondly, we are attempting to organise in peace-time a shadow Ministry of Information that will have no operation or activity in peace-time but, if war came, would be the centre of information both for home and overseas. Hon. Members will see that these two objectives—the peace-time activities of the Foreign Office and the war-time activities of the Ministry of Information—are very closely connected. In any planning it is essential that the transition from the peace-time conditions to the war-time conditions should be made as easy and as efficient as possible. In the event of war the Ministry of Information, as I see it, would become the centre of information, and the Foreign Office activities would be taken over by it. In those circumstances, it is essential that in peace-time there should be the closest possible liaison between the two activities. That is the reason why we have designated the same official to be the secretary and chief official in the publicity department in peacetime and the Secretary-general of the Ministry of Information in war-time.

Carrying the matter a step further, I think hon. Members will see that, while there is this very close liaison between the two activities, there are, none the less, two very definite differences between the work of the Foreign Office in peace-time and the work of the shadow Ministry of Information in war-time. The first great difference is that the Foreign Office is actually working here and now, in peacetime, whereas there is no intention at all of the Ministry of Information operating in peace-time. I emphasise that, because I know there have been suspicions lest, under the shadow of a war-time Ministry of Information, we were creating, shall I say, a "dope machine" for peace-time, and lest behind this shadow war-time Ministry, we were setting up an organisation that might be used by an unscrupulous Government—not, of course, this one, but possibly a Government of hon. and right hon. Gentle- men opposite—for purposes other than we have in mind, aiming at such objectives as a Press censorship and control of information in the country. Let me say here and now that that is not the purpose of this Ministry. We have no intention whatever that the Ministry of Information should operate at all in peacetime. I, myself, am strongly opposed to the operation of any Ministry of Information in peace-time. I am strongly opposed to activities of that kind; they are much too like the kind of dope factories that one sees in other places. However carefully they are used, I am sure they would be a danger to the expression of public opinion in this country. Therefore, this Government is not going to have any Ministry of Information that will operate until an emergency comes.

The second difference between these peace-time and war-time activities is that the peace-time activities are essentially for the foreign front: they do not deal with the home front at all; whereas, to take the experience of the last War, the greater part of the activities of the then Ministry of Information were on the home front. As, in times of peace, the sole activities of a Publicity Department of the Foreign Office are on the foreign front, it is obvious that the Foreign Secretary must be the Minister exclusively responsible for those activities. On that account, my right hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State, who is himself taking a very close and personal interest in these activities at the Foreign Office, is here to-day to deal with the matters that are the responsibility of the Foreign Office. I will say a word about them generally, but I will leave it to my right hon. Friend to deal with them in detail. I think every hon. Member will agree that these peace-time activities must be the responsibility of the Foreign Office.

Let me pass from these general observations to the actual Votes. I will begin by repeating what is our objective. It is to diffuse British culture abroad and to explain the British outlook abroad. Both of these needs are very urgent, in view of the great mass of misrepresentation with which the world has been flooded. I wish that there had been no necessity for any Government publicity anywhere in the world. I still look forward to living long enough to see an end of this objectionable relic of the years of the War, but, as long as unscrupulous statements are diffused about our policy and our general outlook, it is regrettably inevitable that we should have an organisation capable of countering them, and countering them effectively. It is important also, it seems to me, to explain to the world what, in my view, is the greatest experiment in constitutional development which the world has ever seen, namely, the British Commonwealth of free nations.

Lastly, it is necessary to give the world an accurate picture of what we are actually achieving here at the present time. I claim that it is a very remarkable thing that here in recent times, as the result of a nation-wide effort, we have been going on step by step with our great rearmament programme and at the same time have not had to abandon our social progress, nor have we, except for this very rare instance of the terrorist emergency, had to relinquish any of our individual liberties. That is a very fine record. It is a record that it is our duty to tell definitely, dispassionately, and without exaggeration to the whole world. These being our objectives. I invite the Committee to look at the actual details of the work that is being done to achieve them.

I begin with the Foreign Office. The first sum for which we ask authority to-day is a sum of £10,000 for increased staff for the Foreign Office Publicity Department. That is a need that is very essential to be worked. The Foreign Office Publicity Department has been heavily overworked in recent months. It has been criticised, I know, from time to time, and I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the work that it has done in the past with an inadequate staff and under very great difficulties. This addition to the staff will help it to extend and to improve its activities. There is a sum of £100,000 for various publicity activities— the preparation of literature, films, the arrangement of foreign visits to this country and of British visits to foreign countries—both of them very important for extending knowledge of the British outlook—and the preparation of exhibitions. I should like to say, in passing, that from all accounts I hear, the news record film of British activities in the New York Exhibition was of great value and drew to it very large numbers of spectators. There are also preparations for speakers and increased activities for broadcasting.

Next there is an additional sum of £150,000 for the British Council. Every hon. Member realises the value of the work of the British Council, which has been presided over so actively and energetically by Lord Lloyd in the last 12 or 18 months. In fact, it has been so successful that its activities must be extended. The object of all these activities is, as I say, to give a picture of this country to the outside world that is intelligible, convincing and definite, so that the world may know that there is a distinctly British point of view, and that it must be explained to the world at large.

Lastly, I turn from the Foreign Office activities to the Vote for the Ministry of Information, and here in a sentence or two let me tell the Committee why it is that we require money now for an organisation which will operate only in war time. First of all, we need the staff for the planning of this Ministry. If hon. Members will turn their minds back to the history of the Ministry of Information in war time they will remember that it became a very big and comprehensive department covering a very wide field, and engaged in activities of many different kinds, and it is obvious to me that if there were a major war, an organisation upon much the same lines would be necessary —an organisation of great scope with a large and comprehensive personnel. If that is so, it is obvious that a war time Ministry needs a great deal of very careful planning, and accordingly we have had in recent months a number of Civil servants seconded for full time for the planning of this work. Indeed, we shall want more of them before our plans are complete. These officials are whole time officials, and they are Civil servants seconded from other Departments for this work.

Secondly, it is vitally important that we should make many contacts with the outside world, to make sure that, if the emergency came, we should be able to enlist to our aid men and women of many opinions, some of them experts in publicity of various kinds, with whose help we could create the kind of Ministry of Information that would be needed both for the foreign arid home fronts. We have during the last few months made many contacts with the outside world. We have also engaged a number of experts to make specific inquiries. For instance, there has been a number of experts making detailed preparations for contacts in foreign countries, and, as far as the home front is concerned, we have made contacts with the representatives of the principal organs of publicity. For instance, with the Press. I have been in constant contact with representatives of the Press, and at their suggestion they have set up a contact committee which has been dealing with me and other departments upon a number of technical questions, including the question of newsprint in war time, the question of distribution and the question of labour. And I think that I can tell hon. Members that we have made great progress with our discussions, and we have now, speaking generally, reached a basis of agreement that, if the emergency did come, the Press side of the organisation would be able to operate quickly and efficiently.

The use of the word "emergency" is used by the Minister in this Debate as meaning war. There might be a distinction raised between emergency in peace time and war.

I mean actual war. This is a war time organisation, and it will have to be set up as a formal body by war time legislation, presumably carried in the early days of the war.

To come back to the question of contacts. I have given the Press as an illustration. I have had a number of discussions with the representatives of the Press on the very important question of Press censorship in war time, and I have taken the view that in all this planning we ought to take very full account of the lessons that we learned from the Ministry of Information between1914 and 1918. As a matter of fact, I am receiving very valuable assistance from the gentleman who was Secretary of the Department at that time. It seems to me that one of the lessons that we ought to learn is the danger of having a Press censorship detached from the Ministry, operating in some isolated position outside, and that it is much better, if there is to be a Press censorship, as quite obviously there must be, that it should be worked as part of the Ministry of Information and should be worked upon the basis of co-operation between the Press and the Censorship Department in the Ministry of Information. Accordingly, we are working out with the Press—and we have gone a long way towards reaching an agreement in the matter—a plan of co-operation which, while it would maintain the ultimate control and security in the hands of the Minister of Information, would put definite responsibility upon the Press and, as far as possible, leave the Press with considerable latitude in dealing with Press affairs, whilst he would intervene only in questions of emergency, or stem an individual newspaper which was abusing these powers of latitude.

As with other organs of publicity, so also with the films. We have many contacts with the representatives of the film world. I do not want to be drawn into details to-day upon what the preparations are that we have made, but I can tell hon. Members that those preparations are very far advanced to ensure supply of the kind of film that would be needed in war time. A third organ of publicity is the wireless. The plan would be not that the Government would take over the B.B.C. in war time, but, on the whole, the wise course would be to treat broadcasting as we treat the other methods of publicity, the Press and the films, and to leave the B.B.C. to carry on, but, obviously, in war time, with a very close liaison between the Ministry of Information and the Broadcasting Corporation, with definite regulations as to how the work should be carried on. That is our general attitude towards broadcasting.

Lastly, we are very anxious that the greatest possible use should be made in war time of extra-governmental organisations. Let me give the Committee an example of what is in my mind. For the purposes of publicity on the home front there are few better organisations than the organisations of the great parties. We are making plans not only for having a central Ministry of Information, but to have attached to the regional commissioners in the various parts of the country an information official of the Central Ministry, who would be responsible under the Ministry for regional publicity. I think the Committee will see that it is very necessary to have a regional organisation of this kind. It might be in war time that some part of the country was cut off from the centre of government. It is, therefore, essential that the regions should be self-contained, and that there should be a machine that can carry on with the diffusion of news and the kind of publicity that would keep up the morale of the district.

I am not giving away any confidences when I say that I have approached the party leaders to ask whether they would allow their representatives to help me in planning this form of co-operation between the party organisations for these purposes of regional publicity. There is another way in which the party organisations could help me, and that is in the matter of speeches at meetings. We have not the least desire to do anything to suppress the expression of public opinion, or criticism of the Government of the day, or to prevent the gathering together of people in war time, with this sole reservation, that, in the early days of a war, for purposes of air-raid precautions and for any other purposes of Civil Defence it might be wise to prohibit gatherings of people. It would only be done on the ground of the safety of human life and would not be in any way for the suppression of free opinion. It might be necessary to close the cinemas if a series of big air raids was taking place, and so also prohibit public meetings. With that one reservation we should contemplate that there would be public meetings, as happened between 1914 and 1918, and for that purpose the party organisations would be invaluable to the Ministry. Here, again, I have asked the leaders of parties if they would delegate their representatives to discuss with the representatives of the Ministry a way of organising this side of the publicity of the Department.

I hope I have said enough to show that we are trying to build up a comprehensive and efficient machine that would be able to work as soon as war came upon us, and I hope the Committee will think that in planning this organisation I have been very careful not to do anything in the nature of partisan favour. I have made my contacts with people in every walk of life and every kind of opinion, and I should hope that the men and women who come into the Ministry to help the permanent officials in war time would really be a microcosm of the nation and of national life. I do not want to be drawn into greater detail as to the people with whom I have been discussing these things, but I am quite certain that we have consulted people drawn from all parties and from all shades of opinion. I think I have finished my description of the activities in which we are engaged.

Let my last words be that, however good our machine may be, the real thing that matters is the record that we have to tell. That was very much the experience in the War, and it was very much the experience of propaganda in the foreign countries. I have said something about the successful propaganda in the years of the War, but however good our machine was at that time it would have had little effect if we had not had a good record, if we were not achieving successor, at any rate, maintaining our position upon the battle front. So also in peace-time. It is essential, however good the Foreign Office machine may be, that we should have a good story to tell. It is deeds that matter much more than words, and I am glad to think, setting aside any partisan controversy or any criticisms which hon. Members opposite may make in this or that direction, that every day and every week the record we have to tell is becoming better. On that account I ask with greater confidence to-day for these sums to make it more possible for us to tell this record to the world, and to show that Great Britain and the British Commonwealth of Nations are not only the most interesting experiment the world has ever seen, are not only the centre of tolerance and humanity and fair dealing, but, what is scarcely less important at this critical moment, that they are very efficient organisations and that they have carried through their programme of Defence swiftly and effectively; that whilst they have this record of tolerance on the one hand, they also have the record of efficiency on the other.

The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of the survey he has made of the activities of the news department of the Foreign Office and the projected organisation of a possible wartime Ministry of Information, has given us an interesting survey of his proposal. He has referred to the letter which he has addressed to party leaders and which, I know, has been received by my right hon. Friend the acting-Leader of the Opposition, in which he suggests certain proposals for co-operation between political parties in time of war in this field. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it will be for the acting-Leader of the Opposition to make any communication to him and that it would be wrong and inappropriate for me to say anything about it to-day. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government have rejected the idea of a Ministry of Information or a Ministry of Propaganda in time of peace. That decision is a right one in the circumstances of this country.

There is in the British people an aversion to Government-inspired and Government-organised propaganda which has the purpose of regimenting and controlling the public mind. I hope that will long be a characteristic of our country and our people, and I hope that, as soon as possible, it may become a characteristic of other countries and other people. Anything more humiliating or more objectionable than the sight of Governments preventing information reaching their people, controlling their minds, regulating their means of thought and, indeed, imposing severe penalties upon any thoughts which are not convenient to the Government, is not only most objectionable on political grounds but is a humiliation of the human spirit and an affront to the human intellect; it is unworthy of mankind. Although some people may take to it more readily and more kindly than others, it cannot be far distant when this objectionable machinery of propaganda control of the mind must go.

There is a certain amount of Government publicity going on. Each State Department has its publicity organisation and the money that is being spent on it is enormously greater than ever before. A Labour Government never spent the money on publicity that this Government is spending. A reasonable amount of publicity to explain to the public what the Government are doing is right, but even in that field it can be overdone, and this Committee has always the responsibility of seeing that it is publicity of what the State is doing and that it does not become publicity for individual Ministers. I think one or two have got mighty near to that. However, objections were raised and I think they are conscious that if they go too far they will have trouble with the House sooner or later.

There is another form of Government publicity—looking after the film trade. I have a strong feeling that the news reels are very carefully looked after sometimes by State Departments and sometimes by the Central Office of a political organisation. There is a gentleman named Sir Albert Clavering of whose activities 1 should like to know something more, and I shall find out more about them before I have done, and we will have a discussion upon it. But it is important that these activities should be carefully watched, and that whether it is the Press or the film industry it should be free and independent of the Government of the day and should not become the creature of Ministers or political parties. The right hon. Gentleman has referred repeatedly to the experience of 1914–18 and it is right that that experience should be drawn upon. I am glad that public officers who were concerned with that organisation are giving the right hon. Gentleman advice. We shall be wise, however, to recognise that if hostilities come the problem of information and disseminating information and views abroad, the whole problem of international debate between Governments in time of war, which will be a vital matter, will be a totally different proposition from what it was in 1914–18, and it was bad enough then.

The atrocity stories on both sides were terrible. I hesitate to believe what they will be like next time—I hope there may not be a next time—with the Nazi machine at work and the British machine running in competition with it. The whole of that extraordinary war propaganda of lies and atrocities-mongering, some of it true and much of it untrue, was humiliating to mankind. They all did it, they all lied, and they all had Divine guidance and Providence on their side. I shall never forget a poem written in wartime which had an enormous amount of truth in it, although it was not perhaps quite so reverent as it should be:

" God heard the embattled nations sing and shout,

' Gott strafe England,' and ' God Save the King,'

God this, God that, and God the other thing,

' Good God! said God, I've got my work cut out."

There was a good deal of truth in that verse. I know it will be difficult in war to keep to the meticulous truth, but I hope that we shall try to remember that if war comes people are human beings, and that the interest of our country will be best served by the truth rather than by unscrupulous stories which are not true.

I gather from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that in time of war the British Broadcasting Corporation would be in a somewhat half-and-half situation. It is obvious that in certain essential matters the Government of the day must be in a position in war time, to give the B.B.C. certain instructions or guiding principles on which it is to act, but I was very glad to hear from the Home Secretary—I hope I am not overestimating what he said—that the B.B.C. in time of war would not become a meticulously controlled automatic machine of the Government of the day. I fully agree that, within a certain sphere, it must respond to the needs of the State, in the best sense of the term, and must not conflict with those needs, but it is also important, if the mental life of our people is to be maintained, that the B.B.C. should have a measure of freedom, and that it should be expected to exercise that measure of freedom and to report, with some degree of tolerance, different opinions that might exist in the world at the time. Therefore, I gather that the Ministry of Information would be in touch with the Corporation, that there would be consultation as to the general conduct of broadcasting, but that the Corporation would not become the exclusive instrument of the Government, directly administered and organised by the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the purpose of the work of the News Department of the Foreign Office now, and the purpose of the Ministry of Information" in time of war, is to diffuse British culture and explain the British outlook. I have never been clear as to what British culture or any other culture means; the word "culture" is one that I do not altogether follow in this connection and do not altogether like. The real thing that we want to do is to get other nations to know what is happening in this country, what sort of people we are, what we are doing, and the success of our public institutions and the achievements of democracy in our country. I am sure that every hon. Member in the Committee will agree that, if that is done honestly and in an upright way, it should be done. It is desirable that aggressive countries, peaceful countries, all countries, should know as much as possible about our country and our people, their friendly disposition, their desire to live in a peaceful world, and their desire to co-operate with other nations in building a world of peace and prosperity; but it is profoundly important that we should be properly boastful—perhaps that is the wrong word—that we should be properly-appreciative ourselves, and let the world know that we are so appreciative, of the constructive work of British constitutional Government; representative institutions, and British democracy. That is not being done in a lively enough spirit. It is true that the story is given out in the newspapers, that there are reports of what democratically-governed States can do; but when Signor Mussolini reclaims a marsh, there is a great story about it which goes over the whole world, when Herr Hitler opened a new motor road there is a great story that goes over the whole world, and even Herr Hitler's intention to rebuild Berlin some day has had great publicity, although the job has not properly begun.

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman —and believe me, I am not talking politics —that when the Government in this country, or a public corporation, does some really big, imaginative and comprehensive job of work, it is our business not merely to push the story as an ordinary happening and an ordinary news story, but to make the thing heroic, as indeed it is quite often, and to present it to our own people and the world as a great constructive achievement of British constitutional Government and democracy. If our local authorities, as repeatedly happens all over the country, are doing big jobs of constructive achievement, in schools, hospitals, open spaces and housing estates, let us shout about it to the world, and show the world that this work is going on consistently with democratic institutions and representative government. The dictators are giving the impression that the dictatorship system is one under which great beneficial changes can be made with speed, efficiency and alacrity. I very much doubt whether, over a period of time, those dictatorships are indeed as efficient as British democracy in constructive achievements. I doubt whether they get as much done for the social benefit of their people. Indeed, probably it is still the case that the standard of life of the German people is about the standard of life of the British unemployed on full standard benefit, and if that be the case—although I do not intend to boast excessively about the standard of life of the British unemployed or the standard of benefit—is it not well that the German people should know that the general standard of life in this country of workpeople in work, under democratic and representative government, is definitely higher than theirs, that certain improvements have been made, and that they are going on? They are nowhere near as great as we on this side would like them to be, but the right hon. Gentle man had better make the best of them, as his party does in elections. Why should they not do the same thing abroad? —although I would sooner that they were a little optimistic in their foreign propaganda and a little more accurate at home. That ought to be done. When the Government, a public corporation or a local authority does something and does it with speed and efficiency —

As the pulling down of Waterloo Bridge.

The hon. Member is pulling me into trouble. Leaving out the first part of the business, that is an example of what I mean. There was an election and a representative authority took office, and almost within a matter of days, it decided to settle something which it had taken somebody else 10 years to think about. The important thing is to tell the world that the British can do things with speed, efficiency and uprightness—aslong as the right people are running it. The important thing is that there should be a good, effective, proud, creditable dissemination of information as to the achievements of representative institutions in this country. If Herr Hitler opens a motor road, he makes a great noise about it. Let us make an equal noise when we do something big in the way of social improvement in our country. I am exceedingly glad that broadcasts in German have been undertaken by the British Broadcasting Corporation. The Committee may remember that I urged the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Postmaster-General to do this quite 12 months before the event took place. I think the Government were a bit apprehensive that Herr Hitler would be annoyed if such broadcasts took place. It is quite likely that he is annoyed, but on the whole, I think it is a good thing, on balance, that he should be annoyed, rather than that good work should not be done.

According to the reports which have come to all of us, the British Broadcasting Corporation's German service has been a great success. What is important about it is that, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Postmaster-General, it is not handled as propaganda, but as news, as information about events. It is true that opinions go over. Ministers make speeches which are, in appropriate cases—I hope they are appropriate cases —disseminated in the German language and some of our own speeches on this side are now being disseminated. Those are the opinions of certain British people but that is still news, and the British Broadcasting Corporation is handling it as such. I am told, and I am proud that it should be so, that of all the foreign broadcasts now going to Germany the British is the most respected of the lot, because the Germans have found by experience that it is, generally speaking, reliable and that it lacks those twistings of the facts and those propaganda motives which are characteristic of the news services of certain other countries. Some of us who have listened to German broadcasts in English know what an utter failure exaggerated propaganda is in another country. I have listened to them but not very often. I suppose no Members of Parliament get much chance of listening to broadcasts of any sort. But having listened to some of the German broadcasts in English, I can honestly say that I found them utterly unconvincing, and I am sure they are also unconvincing to our people. That indicates the greater wisdom of making these broadcasts objective and truthful.

The right hon. Gentleman has said— and this is important—that the Departments concerned with information will recruit the services of Civil Servants who are, of course, to be impartial, and that they will also recruit the services of a certain number of outside people. I hope it is quite clear that in that recruitment, the people selected from outside, either as writers or as collaborators, or as advisers, shall, first of all, be people who, whether they are Conservatives, Liberals or Socialists, start upon the basis of British constitutional government and British democracy. I gather it is to be so, and it is profoundly important that it should be so. If any of them had the slightest connection with the Fascist view of government or dictatorship, that would be a betrayal of the purpose of this institution and would likely play into the hands of other countries in that respect. Therefore, it is, as I say, profoundly important that all of them, irrespective of their politics, shall accept the broad basis of British freedom and constitutional government and individual liberty.

Having said that, I think it is also important that there should be no one-sided-ness in this semi-detached staff, if I may so describe it—that its members should be representative of the various political opinions in this country, and various things that have not any part political significance at all and that they should collaborate. If the thing became one-sided it would open itself to criticism here. If it were one-sided in its outlook, it would not give the comprehensive picture of British life and British outlook which would otherwise be possible, and that is most important, whether in time of peace or in time of war. It is part of the work of the Department to give information about growing British military strength, in order that other countries may not under-estimate the factors with which they will have to deal if they engage in an aggressive war. It is equally, if not more important, that the work of the news department of the Foreign Office m peace, and the work of the Ministry of Information in war, should include the confident and bold expression of British ideals in international affairs and British ideals in relation to liberty and peace and constitutional government. We must not be afraid to enter into this debate as to forms of government. We ought to do it in the right spirit and with the right confidence, with vigour and with pride.

May I refer to certain other matters which are intimately related to the work of this Department and the work generally, to which the Estimate relates? The success of the new department of the Foreign Office and of the potential Ministry of Information, will be dependent upon the activities of Ministers individually—certainly of the Foreign Secretary, who will be responsible for the Department and to some extent of the Home Secretary. But there is a responsibility upon Ministers generally to ensure that what they do and what they say in public declarations, will not hamstring the actual work which the Department is seeking to do. I give an example in the field of propaganda and counter-propaganda. I refer to the action of the German Propaganda Minister in representing to the German people that we and France were seeking to encircle the Reich. History tells us that that is a situation of which the Germans are apprehensive—and naturally so. A great propaganda on these lines began. The allegation was made that the British were deliberately encircling Germany. That propaganda had its effect, as it was bound to have, but I suggest that Ministers should not get into a state of nerves when some Goebbels propaganda has effect. It is bound to have effect, up to a point, and indeed for a few years it may have a grave effect on the minds of the German people.

I am doing some guess work about this, I admit, but I feel sure that I am right when I say that our Ministers got nervous in the case I have mentioned about this propaganda. They were afraid that the propaganda machine in Germany was really in a wholesale sense stimulating German public opinion against us. What did they do? Lord Halifax made a speech. Here is an instance to show that the speeches of Ministers cannot be separated from the work of this Department in relation to which we are now voting this money. Lord Halifax made a speech—not the later one—in which, it seemed to me, he was seeking to deny the physical fact of a foreign policy which was encircling an aggressive nation. The right hon. Gentleman has said that propaganda is no good unless it is substantially related to the truth, or, at any rate, unless you are going to get it believed.

indicated dissent.

I am not trying to be witty. I am trying to put the right hon. Gentleman's point.

I said the first, but not the second.

All right. We will wipe that off the record. The noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, it seemed to me, sought to deny that fact of the encirclement of an, aggressor. What is the good of doing it? The German people know the geography of Central Europe, as well as the British, and perhaps a bit better. They have reason to. If a foreign policy is being pursued which would permit of agreement between Britain, France, Poland, Rumania, Turkey, Greece and it is hoped—we are still hoping—the Soviet Union—well, that is not far short of a circle. If you deny it, you play into the hands of those who are working the very propaganda machine against which you are fighting. That is exactly what we did. What was the German reaction? Goebbels did what any intelligent man here would have done in those circumstances. He said "This is typical British hyprocrisy. There are the facts. You all know them and the British humbugs are denying the very thing which they are doing." So it was ineffective. Not only was it ineffective, but it played the tactical game of the German Propaganda Minister against whom we were operating.

In all this work of news and information we are always much too nervous when the Nazis get cross. The fact that the Nazis get cross is, as a rule, a sign of success. If you get them cross once, there is often much to be said for saying something that will make them still more cross. In this House any of us would sooner have a Debate with a man who has really lost his temper than with a man who has not. We must not get nervous because Herr Hitler or Dr. Goebbels get cross. It is part of their business to get cross sometimes, and if we succeed they are bound to get cross. What is the right thing to say about this encirclement propaganda? It is not to deny it. It is to say "Yes, we are deliberately making agreements for the maintenance of peace with all the countries around Germany. You may call it an iron ring or what you like, but we will go on with it and make it even stronger; we will make it a ring of steel, an unbreakable ring. We are doing it, however, not because we want to, but because repeated aggressive actions and threats by your Government are compelling us to do it, and we are willing to leave off doing it as soon as a reasonable policy is pursued by your Government."

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead any other country, and recognises that there is a tremendous difference between defensive encirclement and aggressive encirclement. What the Foreign Secretary is making clear is that we are not pursuing a policy of aggressive encirclement, which is what the Germans particularly fear.

I cannot allow that subject to be pursued. It is really outside the matter before the Committee.

I do not want to go unduly far, and I shall not go into the realm of foreign affairs. I have kept strictly to the issue as to how a given piece of German propaganda could be handled, and it is material to this discussion that the actions and speeches of Ministers in relation to this information work should be within the field of discussion in Committee as long as we do not turn it into a sheer foreign affairs Debate.

That is why I rose. I thought the right hon. Gentleman had gone far enough and I feared that the question would extend the subject further still.

I am much obliged. I only say this, that in the work of this new Department it is of importance that Ministers in their activities should act in harmony with it, and I suggest that in the particular sphere of propaganda by Dr. Goebbels and his organisation instead of merely running away from the issue we should, if anything, run into it, and make it clear that what is being done is not anything in the nature of a British invention of aggressive encirclement, but British defensive action following the actions of another Government, and that in fact that other Government is encircling itself and bringing these events about.

I was exceedingly glad that the British Broadcasting Corporation disseminated to the German people the message of the National Council of Labour. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, though they do not necessarily accept our view, will agree that that was an exceedingly useful message to have sent to the German people. It was additionally useful as it was adequately transmitted in German by the Corporation, and it provided evidence that messages or news of things happening in this country can effectively be disseminated. In my view the work which Commander Stephen King-Hall is doing is also work of the greatest value to Germany, to peace and to our country. The German Propaganda Minister is very, very cross about it and it is understood that the German Government is cross about the message of the Council of Labour. I do make the appeal that in the work of the Departments Ministers will realise that when the German Government gets cross it is not an occasion for us to retire and get nervous, but is rather an occasion to realise that on the whole these are successful things well worth doing. I hope that Ministers in their declarations and speeches will keep in mind constantly the interconnection between those things and the actual work of this Department. There is an intimate relationship between ministerial declarations, their spirit and their tempo, and the success of the work of this Department, which is of vital importance.

We have to remember that the whole conduct of diplomacy has changed under modern conditions. In the old days there was a peaceful exchange of diplomatic notes until the occurrence of hostilities. Now the speeches of Herr Hitler, Dr. Goebbels, and Field-Marshal Goering and of our own Ministers, and even the speeches of Opposition leaders are just as much the conduct of diplomacy as was the exchange of Foreign Office notes before the War. Therefore, it is vitally important that our Ministers should take pains to understand the technique of Nazi methods, the psychology of the Nazi leaders, and that they should bring things up to a high level. I have given the instance of the recent speech of Lord Halifax to the Royal Institute of International Relations. In our view it was of very great importance. It commanded wide support in the country; it did a lot of good in this country, and I am sure in Germany also. Within three days the Prime Minister had to broadcast a short message on the occasion of the National Service Rally. The job of the Prime Minister, following Lord Halifax, was to bring down the hammer and drive the nail further in. I listened to the Prime Minister's speech. I was really-appalled by the tone and spirit of that declaration and the utter waste of an opportunity to follow up the good work of a Foreign Secretary. Unless Ministers coordinate their own work and the work of this Department, one Prime Minister can undo in five minutes the good work done by a Foreign Secretary in a speech of great national importance made only a few days before. I think that that was done on this occasion.

It is of the most profound importance that the right spirit should be maintained throughout. We ought not to forget that in addition to work in Germany and Italy, it is equally important that the British case should be known and upheld in other countries; and finally, as the right hon. Gentleman himself indicated, if goods are to be advertised they must be the right goods. I therefore trust that the Government will remember that if this new activity is to be successfully conducted it is profoundly important that British policy and British acts shall be of a high order and above suspicion, in order that they may commend our country and its work to the nations of the world, for acts of high moral purpose and good work are the best propaganda of all.

I understand that a Message has now come from another place and that our proceedings will be interrupted.

I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."

On a point of Order. I voted for the Second Reading of this Bill, so I am not trying to create any difficulties, but some of us have had a certain amount of correspondence this morning, pointing out the dangers connected with this matter, and some of us also have been in another place listening to the debate. I want it to be made quite clear that I am not speaking critically, but in view of the importance of this question and of the danger of creating precedents which may have an effect upon the future of this country, I think Members should have been presented with a copy of the Lords Amendments prior to their being considered in this House, so that they could have given consideration to them.

I am sorry that every Member who wishes for a copy of the Amendments has not got one. Copies have been printed, I understand.

Are they available in the Vote Office?

The point is that the Amendments should not have been handed out while we were sitting here.

:On the point of Order. Might I suggest to my hon. Friends that we are in a difficulty? The House has decided that the Bill shall have its Third Reading, and, that being so, we considered that these powers, whatever precedents we might be making, should be in the hands of the Government as soon as possible. Therefore, I would suggest to my hon. Friends very respectfully, that we should not make objections to a procedure that is certainly very unusual.

:Further to my point of Order. I want to make it quite clear that I am not trying to create any difficulties, and I proved that by voting for the Second Reading, but what I am pointing out is that I have followed the dangers of this kind of thing in other countries, and we want to be on our guard, especially Members on all sides of the House who are concerned about the maintenance of our democratic rights, on occasions such us these. A small minority has been capitalised and used as an excuse in many parts of the world gradually to filch away the people's freedom. While I am prepared to agree to this procedure, and am not making any protest, I think it should go on record in order to avoid this sort of thing being carried through in the future.

I take it for granted that the Home Secretary has firmly considered these Amendments and will be able to explain to us what they really mean. If that is so, I think some of us may be satisfied.

I am taking it that these Amendments are practically what the Home Secretary undertook to get inserted in reply to criticisms that were made?

All these Amendments except one are the results of our discussions and of the undertakings that I gave that I would reconsider certain points. In every case I will explain the Amendment to the House when it is called, and where a new question is raised I will draw the attention of hon. Members to it.

I quite appreciate the conciliatory attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, not only on the Third Reading, but on the Committee stage. In the meantime some of us have had opportunities of personal contact with him. I think it wants to be made very clear that it is a most undesirable procedure to consider Amendments that only a few of us have had an opportunity to see and which we cannot correlate to the Bill, because we have not had it reprinted in its altered form as it passed this House on the Report stage. The danger of this kind of procedure is that it is likely to become a precedent, because this House of Commons is so much governed by precedents that in the years to come this incident, that has arisen only in very special circumstances, might be used for other purposes not so desirable. If you, Sir, could make a Ruling to that effect and have it recorded, it would be, I think, a great strength for our procedure.

The hon. Members are quite right to raise these questions. Of course, we are in rather peculiar circumstances. It must be regarded as a case of emergency in which hasty legislation has to be passed. There is also one thing in favour of this procedure, and that is that it shows that this ancient House of Commons can proceed with speed in a case of necessity, and that is a very valuable asset. But I can quite see that there is difficulty in not having these Amendments before us before we consider them. The paper that I have had handed to me is one containing, not the actual Amendments passed by the other place, but the Amendments that it was proposed to move there and which as a matter of fact were passed.

Textually they are the Amendments that have been made?

Yes, they have been made.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment".

This Amendment should be taken with new Sub-section (6) in Clause 1, page 2, line 38. The object of these Amendments is to carry out an undertaking that I gave to the House that I would accept a proposal to make periodical reports to the House on the orders that have been made. They are drafting Amendments. The form of words in which I accepted the Amendment moved by one of the hon. Members opposite was not exactly suitable for the purpose, and this is a better draft to carry out the object which we have in mind.

This Amendment is the implementing of a promise made by the Home Secretary for an Amendment of an Amendment moved by us. I do not know whether it would be in order to ask, in reference to these reports, for some information as to their character. Really a Schedule showing that orders had been made, say, in five cases on such and such dates is not a report at all. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give particulars, but he must remember in this regard that he based his case on the fact that although he is acting individually —and this is indeed legislation on the word of honour of the Home Secretary—he said that he is subject to control by the House of Commons. Control depends on information, and this is the Clause which gives us the information. I think, therefore, we should welcome some statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to what type of thing he proposes to put into these reports. We rejected an Amendment which moved giving us a certain chance of bringing the matter up for review, on the plea that he would make these reports. Therefore, we should be glad to know what the substance of the report is likely to be.

I should like to ask that, when these reports are brought up, they will not be rushed in at a late hour. Do I understand that there is to be no chance to question Ministers? We are, apparently, passing legislation without even agreeing as to what it means, which is very difficult when we are dealing with the life of the subject and may be dealing with perfectly innocent people. I have had a good deal of experience in this country and in Ireland, and in different parts of the world, of how people can be caught up in a net of this kind and sometimes it is the interest of all sorts of people to prove them guilty. I should like to know whether we are to be allowed to Debate the reports, whether we are to have sufficient information to Debate them adequately, and whether we are to be given time to Debate them. We have been told so often, in the matter of Import Orders, that the control is in the hands of the House of Commons and that we shall be able to Debate them. In fact, it has become the invariable practice of the Government to bring on those Orders at a very late hour when it is almost impossible to get a House together to Debate them. If the Home Secretary could give us information on these three points it would be of value.

The hon. Lady is really raising a number of big issues which were discussed at great length the other day, and I could not possibly follow her into them. This Amendment carries out an undertaking that I gave that there should be periodical reports. The difficulty that I have in being precise about this is the great danger of giving an undertaking which may divulge sources of information. I think each case will have to be judged on its individual merits. I will look into the question and see what information can be circulated and I will try to give it to the House. As to the opportunities for Debate, there will be, first of all, the liberty that any Member has of questioning the Minister at Question time about a particular case. There is also the opportunity of raising questions after 11 o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman has very often made use of those opportunities himself with great effect. There is, further, the opportunity that the Opposition have of asking for a Supply day.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

If we are to work on the basis of Amendments pushed into our hands like this, we ought at least to be allowed to read the words. If the Home Secretary is going to move them automatically and we can only hastily read the words, it is not quite fair.

This Amendment is preliminary to the following Amendment and is designed to meet a point raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt).

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I gave a promise to reconsider this. I have reconsidered it, and the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the Secretary of State will not make an expulsion order if he is satisfied that a person under 20 years of age has been ordinarily resident in Great Britain throughout his life.

That is so. These are words to which we drew attention and you, Sir, pointed out that the passage of this Bill proves to dictators abroad, and would-be dictators at home, that Parliamentary institutions can be as swift and as efficient as dictatorial machines. The Home Secretary's attention was directed to a case which showed that a person under the age of 20 can be charged by the police with an offence and acquitted after evidence has been heard. The right hon. Gentleman undertook to insert an Amendment and here it is. It covers people under 20 years of age who were born in this country. We are grateful to him. It shows that we were not wasting our time in considering the details of this very important matter, which is really legislation on the word of honour of one man.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The question was raised whether we should not take some further steps before we inform the suspect of the cause of suspicion. Here we were faced with the difficulty, which faced us throughout all these proceedings, of giving the suspect information which might endanger the sources of our information. I have looked further into the question, and as a result I am now proposing this Amendment, which will do two things. First, it will give the suspect information as to the part of the Clause under which he is regarded as a suspect, as to the type of case of which he is suspected. Secondly, as the Bill was originally drafted suspects who were to be registered—not those against whom it was proposed to apply an order of deportation or prohibition—would have been left out of any procedure of this kind. That was a point which was raised in Committee, and on further consideration we think we ought to bring them within the scope of this new sub-section. Therefore, both in the case of the man against whom it is proposed to make a deportation order and in the case of a man against whom it is proposed to make a registration order the same procedure will be applied. A person served with a notice of a prohibition order on his arrival in this country would also be informed of his right to object and make representations.

This, again, is an Amendment introduced by the Home Secretary in response to the criticism which took place under some difficulty in Committee the day before yesterday. Previously the Bill provided that he could serve an order on a man and that was the end of it. The man would have no opportunity of knowing what was the charge that was alleged against him. On that point we divided the Committee, and rightly divided it. Furthermore, the man had no opportunity of any appeal or of going before any independent person. That seemed to us to be utterly repugnant to any notion of British justice, and the Home Secretary in response to pressure and in spite of the great burden of responsibility he carries did agree that the case should be investigated by an independent person. Previously a man would have received an order saying "You are to go away" or "You are not to go" or telling him that he was to be treated as on ticket-of-leave, because that is what registration must mean, but would not have been told why and have been given no opportunity of going before any one to whom he could present his case. The position now is that a man will receive a notice giving him the grounds on which the order is made and giving him an opportunity of representing his case to an independent person. I hope that he will be an independent person and I have great confidence in the Home Secretary arranging that that will be so.

There are one or two criticisms of this Amendment. In the one type of case the suspect is to be told that an order has been made upon him because he was knowingly harbouring one of these persons. That is specific in a way; he must know what that means. In the other type of case he will be told that he was "concerned in the preparation or instigation of such acts of violence as aforesaid." I do not propose to divide the House upon this or to propose an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, but I should say that is not sufficiently specific. To tell a man that he was concerned in instigating acts of violence may not give him the information to enable him to clear himself. In dealing with this matter I have tried to base myself on actual cases which have come before the courts, of which there have been nearly 100. In one case a man was charged with being concerned in the Tottenham Court Road explosion. That man, being brought up in court and hearing the evidence, was able to get a friend who could prove an incontrovertible alibi, and thereupon the man was acquitted. He turned out to be an Orangeman and not a citizen of Eire at all.

The fundamental point about the whole of this legislation is that no one ought to be able to say that we have punished the wrong man, whether an Orangeman, an Englishman or whoever he may be. It would be fatal if the public believed that we were not doing justice, and we are anxious to protect the Home Secretary against any belief of that kind growing up. We want to give him whatever moral basis there is for this extraordinary system of lettre de cachet. Let me remind him of the experience of a previous Home Secretary, Mr. Bridgeman. He deported Mr. Arthur O'Brien and it landed him in infinite difficulty. Mr. O'Brien pursued the matter in the courts and received damages, and this House had to pass an Act of Indemnity for the then Home Secretary. On those grounds, therefore, it will be seen that our criticism is not based on any desire to protect terrorists but on a desire to protect the Home Secretary, when dealing with actual terrorists, from involving innocent persons.

We are now giving a suspect a measure of information as to why an order is being issued against him, but there is nothing in the Amendment to clear up the question of how long the order is going to last. Is the Home Secretary not going to do anything under this Amendment, which is associated with the deportation orders, to clear up that point? He knows that such a brilliant legal luminary as the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) says that once this machinery starts operating it has perpetual motion, that it will never stop, whereas the Attorney-General says that it stops at the end of two years. Does that mean that if the terror is still going on in 18 months' time and some man is then deported under this Bill as a suspect that he can be deported for six months only? I think that is a point which the Home Secretary ought to clear up.

I am not sure what conclusion the hon. Member wishes us to draw from his observations. It appeared to me that he was arguing in favour of these orders lasting longer than the two years, but I can tell him again, what the Attorney-General has already said in the course of these Debates, that these prohibition and expulsion orders can only be in force during the period of the Bill, namely, two years. There is no doubt about that.

Where does it say that?

There are no sanctions after two years.

Does that mean that in the event of this trouble going on and a suspect being deported 21 months from now that the deportation will last for only three months, that as soon as the measure ceases to operate the order fails?

That is so. If the terrorism was still going on the Parliament of the day would have to meet the situation; but this Bill is a temporary measure for a limited period.

I desire to thank the Home Secretary for having gone rather further in one respect than was asked of him at an earlier stage in the proceedings. He has brought the registration order within the scope of this procedure, and I think that shows that he is very desirous of safeguarding the liberty of the subject as far as he can do so. As regards the important point raised by the right hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn), although it may not be possible to put into the Bill a more definite form of words, might it not be possible for the Home Secretary to give an assurance that when it is not against the public interest he will endeavour to give some further indication to a suspected person of the violence with which he is suspected of being associated? For instance, he might be told that he was concerned in the preparation or instigation of acts of violence "to wit, the Tottenham Court Road explosion." In that way, where it was not contrary to the public interest, he would get some information of what was the suspicion against him.

The general undertaking that I gave was given because I am really anxious that the examiners should be given a free hand. They will have to use their discretion in obtaining information about these cases which differ very much one from the other. It is not possible therefore to generalise. The examiners will not be able to conduct their inquiries properly if they do not take the greatest possible trouble in finding out the details about the cases before submitting their advice to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary wants the best advice that he can get.

May I ask whether when an expulsion order lapses the man can come back or whether he has to remain exiled in Eire. Can he then start proceedings? At the end of the two years can he come back without further hindrance?

These matters do not arise at all on this Amendment but I may say that at the end of two years he is free to come back unless the Bill has been renewed or some other Measure has been passed.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a drafting Amendment to secure that where a person makes a representation against an expulsion or prohibition order he shall not be removed until the Secretary of State has come to a decision.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is the point to which the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) referred just now. This Amendment together with the following Amendment give a suspect who has been ordered to register the same power of objection as, in the original Bill, was given to the man who was to be deported or to be prohibited from coming to these shores. The question was raised during the Committee stage and I undertook to consider the matter. I am glad to be able to move this Amendment.

This is an improvement in the Bill, because the notice of registration applies not only to people in our midst on whom an expulsion order is made but to everybody concerned and there is no two years' limit to a registration order. In his original proposal, the Home Secretary took powers to serve a notice on a British subject who may have been here all his life that thereafter he was to register with the police and have his fingerprints and measurements taken. That was a swingeing power, which has now been whittled down by this Amendment to give a man the right to know for what reason an order is to be made and the right, secondly, to appeal to the examiner who is to be appointed. For that reason we welcome the Amendment as far as it goes.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is the one Amendment that is not proposed as a result of our discussion in the Committee stage the other day. It raises not so much a new point but a point that is additional to certain points already covered by the Bill. The reason we ask for it is the experience that we have gained in the last 48 hours from those very regrettable terrorist outrages, and which has revealed that there is a gap in the Bill. Under the Bill you can arrest a man against whom a deportation order or a prohibition order has been made, but you cannot arrest and detain him pending the inquiry as to whether he should be deported. What we have been finding in the last two days is that a number of young Irishmen come over here and that the conditions in which they move are very suspicious. They come here in the morning and maybe by the evening are gone. We feel that, in the interests of security, it is necessary that we should be able to detain them pending further inquiries, to give the Secretary of State an opportunity of knowing whether or not a deportation order should be made.

I will be very frank with the House. I will go further and say that I have been told that if we had had these powers two days ago it is very likely that we might have forestalled one or other of the—[Interruption]—this information was given to me, and hon. Members must judge its value—of those outrages. I say that, in our view, it is essential that this gap should be filled, and that in cases of this kind we should be able to detain an individual pending inquiries. I know that the House will look with great care upon a proposition of this kind and will see that there are safeguards against the Executive in every possible way. We do safeguard the position in every possible way. The time of detention can be only 48 hours, which is a very short time, except in cases where the special direction of the Secretary of State is given. Then the maximum time is a further five days.

Can the Secretary of State prolong that five days?

That is impossible. This limit must be a very effective safeguard, and I say, with all the authority that I possess, that this power is urgently needed.

I deplore that the Home Secretary should come to this House and, by repeating a whisper of recent information, ask us to agree to this Amendment. That is wrong. The statement that he has given us we cannot cross-examine or know anything about. It is like a rumour about the German money. It may be true, and I am not saying that it is not, but it is a most deplorable ground, and shows the frame of mind in which this House of Commons now is. We are anxious, as we said before, to put no obstacles in the way of the Home Secretary getting these powers, but to suggest to us that if we criticise this power, or if it were not in the Bill, he would be unable to stop something, is introducing an atmosphere which is not worthy of the dignity or the judicial quality of this House. Under the Bill we have already given the Secretary of State power, without any judicial inquiry, to make an Order exiling a man, or prohibiting him from coming here, or forcing him to register; but that had to be done by the Secretary of State, and we have been told, and indeed we know, that he will exercise his powers responsibly. Although I agree that in this case the period is limited to 48 hours, or in special circumstances to five days, we are admitting the principle that a constable may arrest without warrant, not only a person against whom such an Order has been made, but a person whom he suspects to be one against whom an Order has been made. Suppose that a constable heard someone say, "We must give Carson a dose of his own medicine," that undoubtedly would be an incitement to violence intended to influence public opinion with respect to Irish affairs, and he would then be able to arrest the man without warrant and detain him for 48 hours, or, if he received word from the Home Secretary, for five days.

I am not proposing to object to the Amendment, but this is a Bill to give personal powers to the Home Secretary, and I should be failing in my duty as a Member of this House if I did not point out plainly that here, for the first time, we are giving a police constable the right to arrest a man without warrant and to detain him for two days, or, in special cases, for five days, because he thinks that that man may be a person who is instigating or preparing to commit an act of violence designed to influence public opinion with respect to Irish affairs. If the House does this, it should do it with its eyes open. I do not propose to oppose the Amendment, or to advise my friends to oppose it, but it is desirable that we should know exactly what sort of legislation it is that we are passing.

All constables and officials in the present situation must be having a very bad time and working very long hours, and, unless very special instructions are issued to them, the result of this Amendment will be, if the Home Secretary is not very careful, that it will be a criminal offence in this country to have an Irish accent. The Clause is so worded that almost any Irishman uttering, in a Southern Irish accent, words that may be completely harmless and have no intention whatever of creating violence, may find himself arrested and detained for five days. And that is not the end of the penalty, because a man who has been detained in that way will almost certainly lose his job, and therefore it may happen that a perfectly innocent person may find himself arrested and detained, losing his job as the result, and his wife and family may be condemned to penury, for no other reason than that he made a remark which, if made with an English accent, would have attracted no notice whatever. After all, the present Home Secretary will not always be there, and we do not know what future Minister may take a less strict view of these powers. It is extremely unfortunate that we are placed in a position in which liberties for which this country has fought for so long will be in jeopardy, not only because of certain things that may have been done by people from Southern Ireland, but because of some of the things done by Ulster Irishmen which have not been questioned in this House at all. I agree with my right hon. Friend that that is a tragic position.

Would the hon. Lady say what she is complaining of against us?

That you have not a Southern Ireland accent.

This Amendment brings out clearly the necessity for the protest which was made by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith). We have been discussing under very hurried conditions a Bill giving to the Home Secretary extraordinary powers which strike at the very root of our liberties in this country, and now, right at the conclusion of the discussions, an Amendment is presented which extends those extraordinary powers to an alarming degree. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) says that any man with a Southern Irish accent will be in danger, but what about the man with a Scottish accent and an Irish name? If I make an impassioned speech somewhere, as I am very likely to do, against partition, condemning the Government, condemning the stooges in Northern Ireland who represent the Government and who are maintained by the Government, what are the possibilities? Under this Amendment there would be power to take me up, to the great joy of the Patronage Secretary It is a very dangerous Amendment, and one that should not be rushed through in this hurried manner. I do not know what we can do about it. The right hon. Gentleman the Memberfor Gorton (Mr. Benn) is against dividing on it, and is not advising his friends to do so, and I do not know that we can do any more than make a protest and draw attention to the correctness of the protest which was made at the beginning by the hon. Member for Stoke. This Amendment is more dangerous than any other part of this dangerous Bill, and yet we have no chance of considering or discussing it, or deciding what should be done about it.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is consequential on the one with which we have just agreed.

May I ask what is the meaning of leaving out the words "has been made" and inserting the words "is in force"? It is a small point, but I cannot understand it.

It is a drafting point to meet the effect of the Amendment we were discussing just now in regard to the period of the Order. An Order that has been confirmed after investigation will stand for all time, but, there may be cases where an Order is rescinded after investigation and these words are necessary to cover that situation.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment deals with the same point. It safeguards the man from being detained for more than 48 hours, and then for more than five days afterwards.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is consequential on the preceding Amendment.

We ought, in fairness, to say how great an improvement this limitation is. As the Bill left this House, there was no limit to the time during which the Home Secretary might detain a prisoner.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment makes it clear that a person can be detained only in a prison or police station or similar place. Hon. Members will remember that it was suggested that the original draft of the Bill might have meant that they could be detained in some quite unauthorised place. The draftsman did not take that view: he took the view that it must be a police station or prison or something of that kind; but we have made it clear by this Amendment that it is the intention of the Government that detention shall be possible only in a prison or police station or place of that kind.

The Home Secretary will remember that when we were discussing the Criminal Justice Bill it was made clear that in the case of a certain policeman who lived in a policeman's cottage that cottage was for all practical purposes, a police station. That does not appear to be a very suitable place in which to keep such people, but if they happened to be arrested it might be the first place to which they would be taken. I take it that the Government do not intend this Amendment to apply to any such a place, except for a strictly limited period which might be necessitated by the circumstances—for instance, while a policeman had to telephone for a conveyance.

I give that assurance at once. It is intended that the place shall be either a prison or a police station. It is not possible, however, to confine the provision to these precise words, because it might, for example, be necessary to detain a person on board a ship.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was responsible for the Amendment, I would like to thank the hon. Secretary for trying to make the matter clear.

I should like to join the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) in thanking the Home Secretary for his very clear statement on the publicity machinery, both for peace-time and in time of war. I should like to add my support for this grant to the foreign publicity department and the British Council. The only question in my mind is whether in view of the expenditure of foreign countries on their propaganda, this amount is adequate. But the important feature of these new departments, is that they stand in peace-time for publicity rather than for propaganda, and that they send out not blatant, strident propaganda, but news, simply and soberly presented. They are infinitely more likely in this form to impress listeners with the truth of their statements and to get past the ban of foreign censors. The function of propaganda is to state a case, whether it is true or false. It is, therefore, suspect. Publicity states the truth, and we in this country are to-day in a position to standon our merits and our own achievements. We have, indeed, hidden these achievements far too long, and there is genuine relief, both in this House and in the country, that our self-denying ordinance is coming to an end, and that we are at least breaking through our barriers of aloofness and modesty. I must confess that there was a time when I had hoped for a full-blown Ministry of Propaganda and that I was at first disappointed with the setting up of this foreign publicity department, which seemed to be half-measure. But I have changed my mind, and I realise that there are many advantages in having this new department responsible, in peacetime, to the Foreign Office and to the Foreign Secretary.

Some of us on these Benches have had very real differences with the Government on foreign policy during the past 18 months, but, having heard the Foreign Secretary's broadcast speech a few weeks ago, we can be certain now that any publicity for which he accepts responsibility will be a logical, dignified and accurate presentation of the British point of view. I was fortunate enough to work for a time at the Foreign Office and to watch especially the Press Department. It is a relief to feel that this new publicity department has from its beginning been in a position to benefit from the skill and experience of that Press Department. All Government offices have now, I believe, their own Press services, but the Press department of the Foreign Office is the pioneer, and is second to none in its experience and knowledge of handling both news and news correspondents. Its staff when I was at the Foreign Office was small and cruelly overworked, but one had only to go to Geneva or to conferences abroad and meet the Pressmen of the world to realise how great its influence was and inwhat respect it was held. This was because it stuck to straightforward news, and never sank to propaganda. For this reason, I am glad this new publicity department is to work under the wing of the Foreign Office, for one can be sure that the same high standards will be maintained. If there was a weakness in the Press Department of the Foreign Office it was that, through no fault of its own, there was a certain lack of contact between that Office and other Whitehall Departments. The new Department should have an opportunity of eliminating this fault, because we have this central body for co-ordination, to which I think all the other Departments will more readily come with news of their achievements to be passed on to the world. Above all, there will bethe reports for the Service Departments of their achievements in increasing armaments and man-power. These can now go out marshalled and co-ordinated not only to foreign countries, but to our own diplomats abroad.

I think that sometimes we look upon diplomacy in too narrow a sense. It should be as wide as possible. Our Embassies and Legations abroad should not be in a position only to negotiate treaties, but they should be armed with the latest facts and achievements of all Government Departments, in their own country so that they may speak for us with the conviction of knowledge. The British Council has already done a great deal of invaluable work in that direction, and it is now to be reinforced by this foreign publicity department. Both these bodies are vital links in our defence chain. Just as in the past we have allowed our rearmament to dwindle on sea and land and in the air, so we have neglected this vital armament of publishing effectively to the world our intentions and our achievements. I for one feel—and I believe that hon. Members on all sides of the Committee feel the same—that we shall support this Supplementary Estimate more gladly to-day because we believe that both these new departments are indispensable weapons in our fight for peace.

On behalf of my hon. Friends who normally sit on this bench, I would like to offer the Government our good wishes in the task which they are now undertaking in attempting, in a businesslike way, to combat the foreign propaganda which has battered against the reputation of this country for some time past. I should like to make a few observations on my behalf and that of my hon. and right hon. Friends. Let us be certain that the information and propaganda to be sent out is truly national, and is in no sense purely Government as distinct from national, and also, that the information is set out by competent persons. These things can be grouped together in what I have to say. Everybody wants to be certain that this information comes from a team of people who are represenatives of all shades of opinion in this country, and not from a team of people all of whom take the Government view. That objective can be achieved very largely in the staffing of the Department. Frankly, it is a little disappointing to us to see, on page 15 of the Estimates, as far as we are able to see it, that all the people who have been appointed up till now are civil servants.

This takes me on to the other point I wish to make, namely, that the work should be done competently. This is a job of disseminating news, and I submit that not all, but, at any rate, some of the people who are engaged in this work should be those who have made it their trade and business and their occupation to disseminate news, namely, influential journalists. As this Department, when it is developed, will have the function of dealing with journalists all over the world, it will be a very good thing if the Civil Servants involved begin at once, right in this skeleton stage, to become accustomed to the way in which journalists set about their task and to the nature of the journalist's mind by being set to work with one or more well known journalists as equals.

Can anyone equal journalists?

Probably not. This is the particular sphere of work which appears to be largely the sphere of work that this Department will have to pursue. I see that there are to be three administrative officers at the top, one of whom at the moment is on loan from the Post Office, and the other two are on loan from the Customs and Excise Department. Would it be possible, perhaps to repay the loan which has been made from the Customs and Excise Department at a very early date without offending anybody, and to fill one of these three places by "the appointment of a journalist? Also, I think that to use a certain number of journalists inside the organisation which has already been set up would help to give assurance to the whole country and to the world that this is not exclusively a Government Department. We want it to be a Department in which everybody has real trust, and I am thinking of an organisation in which, on the whole, the country does have real trust, namely, the Board of Directors of the B.B.C. People have trust in that organisation because it represents all political points of view, and many others. Would not it be possible to take into this organisation several journalists of whom at least one should be representative of a point of view which is not strictly the Government point of view? If that could be done, the country would have more confidence in it, and it would go a long way to defeat any foreigner who might say that the information given out by this Department was not the real information of the state of opinion abroad as a whole, but was simply dope which the Government Departments wanted to put out.

That leads me to the question of what is to be the relation between this new Department and the Press in this country not in time of war, because we understand what would be the relation in time of war. We understand it and we regret it, but we admit that it must be so. No country has ever conducted a war without exercising a great deal of Government control over the Press. There were two answers given by the Prime Minister on 15th June which I would like the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to consider, and, if he can, to explain because at first glance they seem to be contradictory. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to them. The Prime Minister said:

" With regard to the peace-time publicity which I have described … there will be no interference with the Press in this country by the Department."

Later on the Prime Minister was asked by the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition:

"Is it the intention, in establishing this nucleus of a Department, that whoever may be the titular head of it shall be effectively supported by competent and experienced journalists who understand sound publicity? "

This is more or less the point which I have been putting. The Prime Minister replied:

"I do not think it is necessary to associate journalists directly with a Department of the Foreign Office. Of course, there must be"—

I understand that this did not refer merely to war —

"intimate touch between the Department and the journalistic profession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT: 15th June, 1939; cols. 1507–8; Vol. 348.]

I would point out that there is a slight contradiction between these two answers. In one the Prime Minister says that there will be no interference with the Press by the Department—

The question that the hon. Baronet is raising is a very important one, and there are very few members in the House.

When the count was called I was pointing out that in one answer the Prime Minister said that there would be no interference with the Press by the Department, and in the other he said that there must be an intimate touch between the Department and the journalistic profession. That leads me to ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs what exactly is the relationship between the Department and the Press in peace time, and particularly may I ask whether in time of peace there will be any alteration whatever in the way the press obtains its information from Government Departments? May we take it that there will be no suggestion that when a Pressman goes to the Foreign Office, or the Colonial Office or any other Department in future, he will be told "You must not come to us for information; you must go to the Ministry of Information. You will get the information there."?

The next point that I wish to raise is one that I should have liked to put when the Home Secretary was here. That may seem disrespectful to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who is now present, but I assume that when we are dealing with the way this Department works in the foreign field, the Foreign Office will deal with our questions—the Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords and the Under-Secretary here, or, if it is a question of tremendous importance, the Prime Minister. When we raise questions as to the development of this department in home affairs, I wonder whether we can receive an answer from the Home Secretary, who is the Cabinet Minister responsible for piloting these Estimates through the Committee to-day. The Under-Secretary will appreciate that immensely important questions may arise, and if there are any suspicions in the minds of hon. Members it would be an advantage if we could address Questions to the Home Secretary.

The last question that I should like to raise is that everything should be done to impress upon our Ambassadors and staffs abroad the importance of keeping very vigilant and close contact with people in those countries. There was a letter in the "Times" on 8th July about the Royal visit to Canada and the United States. I do not know whether that letter represents anything that is substantially true, but it is there stated by someone who was in America that the whole of the preliminary information about the Royal tour was making no effect whatever upon American opinion, until, with a complete disregard for precedent, the British Ambassador called a Press conference and offered himself to be shot at by the Press, which must be a very formidable thing in America. As a result, the immediate effect was almost miraculous, and the information became immensely popular from one side of America to the other. If that be so, it would be useful if we could circulate a minute or a note to the Ambassadors drawing attention to this initiative of the Ambassador in Washington and advising the Ambassadors that, as times are changing and new methods are being used by different countries, it would be useful to copy the example of our Ambassador at Washington when they thought fit.

There is an item in the Estimates which was not sufficiently explained in the opening speech, namely, £10,000 for the preparation of posters. I realise that when you start introducing posters £10,000 goes a very small way; but £10,000 for preparing posters seems to me to be a very large sum of money, and I would ask the Under-Secretary whether he can give us a little further information as to what these regulations really amount to. I gather that the posters have not been made yet and that the Estimate was put down so that the preparations can be made in the next few months. Would the Under-Secretary consider inviting such Members of Parliament of all parties as might be interested in the matter, to see the posters. We have been shown private things at aerodromes and the Army showed us some of their preparations. Could there not be an expedition so that we might have a look at some of the posters when they have gone so far forward as to be inspected?

Another matter to which I should like to refer has been fully and bravely dealt with by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). I support him in saying that our propaganda should be put over bravely. Let us have no more of this sort of propaganda to the German people—" You dear German people, do believe that we are not trying to encircle you. "Let us say" Yes we are encircling you because your leader has said that the objects for him are either world domination or nothing, and because 4,000,000,000 inhabitants of the world flatly refuse to be dominated by 80,000,000 Germans." There is one further point on which the Home Secretary did his best to satisfy us but he has not quite done so, and I would ask the Under-Secretary whether he can satisfy us. I refer to the question whether this Ministry of Information is to be used in this country in time of war, and at no other time except the time of war. There was a sentence in the Prime Minister's statement which makes me a little bit anxious. He spoke about the Ministry of Information operating in war time, and went on to say that in peace conditions there would only exist a skeleton organisation, without which certain action would be impossible if emergency arose. You can take that as meaning that swift action will be possible if an emergency arises. But "emergency" is rather an indefinite word. It has been used over and over again by Ministers as being synonymous with war, but it is also capable of meaning something like what happened last September.

I noticed that the Home Secretary said that there is no intention of operating this Ministry of Information at all in peace time. The first comment I make is on the use of the words "there is no intention," and I wonder whether the Under-Secretary will go a little further and frame his assurance along other lines and give us a pledge that they will not. The other comment I have to make is on the use of the words "in peace time." It is difficult to define an indirect aggressor, and it is becoming equally difficult to define "peace time." Indeed, we have had a definite assurance from the Prime Minister, as a part of his justification for changing not his intention but his pledge, that even now it is not peace time. Therefore, if the Under-Secretary wants to satisfy our doubt he will have to go a little further and say that there is no intention of operating the Ministry of Information at all in peace time; he should give us a pledge and make it a pledge to the Opposition.

I always thought that pledges were made to the Opposition, but the Prime Minister has treated it as a pledge to the whole House, from which a majority of the whole House who are his sup porters can absolve him. I submit that in this case he should make it a pledge to the Opposition that the Ministry of In formation shall not be used at all except in time of war. And that is difficult to define. War is not declared in these days: it just happens, and I sub mit that the definition of war must be a time when our citizens are actually en gaged in killing and are being killed. If that is not the definition of war one could imagine it to be a time when troops are moving, or the mobilisation of the British Fleet, in which case there would have been a state of war last September and all these powers could have been brought in. That seems to me to be a terrible thing, and unless the Government can give a pledge to the Opposition that these powers and this Ministry of Information are not to be put into operation except when you come to the point of war, in the sense that the guns are going off —

There is nothing about these powers in the Bill.

The Bill is to set up an organisation without which swift action would be impossible. You can read that as if swift action will be possible in an emergency. It would mean the calling of this House and the passing by a majority of this House of a short Act giving the Ministry powers because the Navy had been mobilised. That is a definition of an emergency which we fear and we ask to be assured that there is no question of anything like that happening in order that we may be able to give wholehearted support to the Government in their declared purpose of combating foreign propaganda so far as it may be possible.

The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) in the latter part of his speech entered into the labyrinth of a rather difficult attempt to define when a war is a war and when it is not. I listened to him with great interest, but it gave rise to a reflection in my own mind in regard to the new technique of war, the great advantage of having no declaration of war so that the American Neutrality Act does not come into force and you can buy all the munitions you require. I only intervene in this interesting Debate really to stress one point. We are discussing various methods of diffusing information, of propaganda, in peace and war. There is one comment I should like to make on the actual machinery of diffusion. I have had recent' information from one big city in the German Reich where a friend of mine has been living for some months. He told me that the well-to-do people, the rich people, listened to the B.B.C. propaganda every day but their employés, their clerks, who try to listen to the new service of the B.B.C., cannot do so because the lack of power of the transmission requires an expensive reception instrument which they cannot afford. I suggest that that is a point worth consideration and investigation.

In the Debate stress has been laid by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) on the necessity in our propaganda services for dealing with British culture and explaining the British outlook. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman said that he hated the word "culture"; many of us do so, but I do think we want to diffuse the British attitude towards life and the views we hold as a nation and a people, regardless of party differences. We want to impress upon foreign nations that we are above all a tolerant people and have an immense respect for the individual. We must emphasise that in all our propaganda, and point our that this respect for the individual is the basis of our tolerance and love of compromise, which incidentally makes for the working of the British constitutional machine. There is one thing we should point out on a matter on which we are often criticised by foreigners, namely, that the regard we show for conscientious objectors is typical of our attitude to life, an extreme and most valuable regard for the individual, which is the centre of our culture, if we must use that word.

The second observation I want to make as regards a service of information abroad is that it is right, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney said, that we should give a confident and bold expression to British war preparations. I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) that we should put over that propaganda bravely. We should stress the enormous daily increase in our strength and power to defend ourselves and to defend others. But while doing that, there are one or two other aspects which the dissemination of information should contain. First, it is essential that, not once but constantly, we should emphasise that the peace front which we are successfully attempting to build up is not a mere instrument—and will not be used merely as an instrument—for the permanent maintenance of the status quo. If we could convey that impression, it would have an excellent effect in certain countries, and to name one country in particular, I would mention Bulgaria.

May I express my opinion that it would have a most damnable effect everywhere?

On a point of Order, Sir Lambert. Is the word "damnable" a Parliamentary word? Perhaps we may have a Ruling on that, in order to brighten our Debates if we can.

Further to the point of Order. Is it not a word which appears quite frequently in the Bible?

The word "damned" would not be in Order, but in these circumstances, I think the word "damnable" is.

It means condemnable.

My hon. Friend thinks that my remarks are condemnable. I disagree with him. I ask him to discuss with any responsible Bulgarian whether those remarks are condemnable. A further point that I want to make is this. We are preparing for the possibility of war, and in that preparation, we are using an immense concentration of energy and effort. We are making an intellectual effort in peace time to adapt ourselves to war conditions. It is right that that should be done, and it is right that all foreign nations should realise how successfully we are doing it; but I feel that while we continue to take up that attitude, quite rightly and while we stress our preparedness, strength and determination, we should also continue in our propaganda to express our readiness to make every effort to plan for the possibility of peace, and our readiness to examine new ideas, and to utilise them if possible, for planning for peace, in the same spirit as we are prepared to accept new ideas in planning for war. I recognise, of course, that any such propaganda would be on dangerous ground, but I think the danger should be risked. I know that it is impossible to go into details, but I suggest that in our propaganda we should define our general attitude and also the general principles upon which we are prepared to work for the establishment of peace on a secure foundation. I suggest that we should lay down that any settlement for peace will not be a continuance of the white war in the region of economics, finance and trade. We should lay down that we realise the economic strains from which countries such as Japan and Italy are suffering, and that while we wholeheartedly condemn the methods they are using to-day, we recognise that in any settlement for peace we should have to make full allowance for those economic strains.

Finally, I think our propaganda should stress that while preparing for war, while working for peace, we recognise that it is futile to talk of any settlement for peace or to have any discussions for peace unless we are prepared to recognise that any peace combined with disarmament— for any peace worth the name must be combined with disarmament—must not involve, in this country or in any other country, a colossal problem of unemployment, and that it is the duty of Great Britain to make clear throughout the world that we recognise that it is our duty to give a lead, in co-operation with other nations, to ensure that the transition from war employment to peace employment will be made without straining the social fabric.

:When the proceedings were interrupted I had said about all I intended to say. While I think our propaganda should emphasise our strength and determination in every way, simultaneously it should lay down the general principles of which we are prepared to co-operate for the establishment of peace, if peace can be achieved.

:The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) in the course of his speech said he hoped the staff of the new department would spend their time banging their tables. I hope they will do nothing of the sort, because if they do they will certainly not advance our cause, they will not impress Herr Hitler, and, what is even worse, they will disturb the sabbatical calm of the Foreign Office, which would be just too bad. The fact that there is a small attendance here to-day, is not, I think, due to any lack of interest in the subject we are discussing—it may be due to lack of interest in the speeches which are being made about the subject—it indicates rather, that there is thorough approval and endorsement of the step which the Government have taken in establishing this new Department. Any doubts and fears which may have been expressed in the course of the Debate arise, I think, from a sincere anxiety that the new Department shall act objectively and truthfully and from, perhaps, a certain amount of nervousness that such a Department may accumulate undesirable powers into its own hands. There is certainly some doubt whether the new Department does represent the most effective way of filling the gap.

It has been created in response to a general feeling that in these days of competitive propaganda the British case has not been as well put forward as it should have been. But if this Department is not the best way of filling the gap, what else could be done? The newspapers are always willing to co-operate but a system of the Government of the day giving hints or even instructions to the Press would lead to Government control of the Press and much Government control of the Press would certainly be a very bad thing. Above all, in thinking of how to fill this gap we must not be hypnotised by Dr. Goebbels and the gigantic propaganda machine which he has created and try to set up a duplicate of it for ourselves.

Proposals have been put forward for a full-blooded Ministry of Propaganda. If such a Ministry were established in time of peace it would inevitably become an adjunct of the party machine of the day, and I also think that the Minister himself would inevitably tend to assemble far too much power in his own hands. The Prime Minister, for instance, would be far too dependent on his Minister of Propaganda because of the powers which would inevitably lie in that Minister's hands. In passing let me say in that connection that I think it is most essential that all information and all intelligence coming to the Government of the day should as a matter of administrative machinery, go direct to the Prime Minister himself. The existing system, under which a great deal of this information and intelligence goes direct to various Departments and is put out by them in what form happens to suit them, is not a good thing. There should be no delegation of authority in that matter and intelligence and information should go direct to the Prime Minister. I think the demand for a full-blooded Ministry of Propaganda shows a certain misconception of what is needed.

There is no need in this country, as there is in totalitarian countries, for stupefying the minds of our people or trying to impress foreign countries by bluster and swagger. Dr. Goebbels to whom I have already referred and whom I would call a malignant Quilp of the microphone relies for his effects upon keeping the German public in ignorance of the facts, but one day, probably very much to the distress and harm of the German people, reality will break through the cloud and fog of ignorance in which he is keeping them.

When considering the subject of how the work of this Department should be done, a few words come into my mind which fell from the lips of Admiral Sir Reginald Hall, who was Director of Naval Intelligence during a very critical part of the war, and who played so large a part in the successful prosecution of the war by his efforts in that Department. I remember his saying that "propaganda which is recognisable as such has no value," and that is the kernel of the whole matter. The only publicity which is worth having is not publicity which is conducted, as the hon. Baronet wishes to conduct it, by a process of banging the table, but which is conducted so quietly that the world really knows very little of what is being done. Highly flavoured material inevitably, in the long run, jades the palate and destroys its own effects.

It seems to me that one word of caution is necessary. I feel that I must point out—and I know that many hon. Members agree with me about this—that the creation of this new Department, necessary though it may be, will publicise our work of disseminating information abroad and by giving it to a certain extent a Government imprimatur make it suspect. It seems to me that there was no alternative between establishing this Department and intensifying the work of the existing machinery, and I think the creation of the new Department was necessary. The new Department has the great advantage that it gives us the skeleton of that full-blooded Ministry of Information which will be an indispensible necessity in time of war. First, as regards existing machinery, there-are the Press attaches abroad. There are not enough of them. Everyone of our Missions abroad should have a Press attache, and their work should be stimulated and encouraged.

I also wish to refer to the existing Information Officers in Whitehall who, I think, work under rather adverse circumstances. There are a great many of them. There is the Press Section of the Foreign Office, which has already been referred to and a tribute paid to it in which many of us would wish to join. There are information officers at the Treasury, the India Office, the Dominions Office, the Colonial Office, the Home Office, the Post Office, the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Ministry and there is also a Cinema Adviser. These Officers do very able and devoted work about which the public know rather little, and, above all, they present facts. Foreign correspondents with whom I have talked in London have always called my attention to that point and told me that the devotion to facts which these Officers display makes British information the most acceptable in the world. I hope the establishment of the new Department will not be allowed to militate against the work which these Information Officers are doing. Side by side with the work of the new Department the work of these Information Officers should be strengthened. There should be an improvement of their status and responsibilities, and perhaps more, or the necessary, money, at any rate, should be made available for them.

The post of head of this new Department should be filled by a man with intimate knowledge of the mentalities of foreign nations; he should be a man with a very great knowledge of newspaper and publicity technique, which, of course, requires a lifetime of training. I think too that he should be a man in the prime of life. Lord Perth may or may not possess all these qualifications. I would be the first to say that I think his experience at Geneva, where he must have come into close contact with the foreign Press of all countries and with their correspondents will certainly be valuable to him, but whether he has the other qualifications is a matter of doubt. The Cabinet decide policy, but the dissemination of that policy abroad in the form of information is highly expert work, work for experts who know the countries concerned intimately. The owners decide the ports of call of a ship but it is the Captain with his expert knowledge of navigation who knows how to take the ship to those ports. It seems to me that perhaps Lord Perth falls into neither of those categories.

The task confronting the new Department is one of extreme difficulty. The peace-time mental frontiers of Germany and Italy have become extremely difficult. I am told that the B.B.C. now possess 6,000,000 listeners in Germany, and I hope that may be true, but if it is, Herr Hitler can no doubt find ways quite easily to put an end to that state of affairs. Reference has been made already to the King-Hall news letters. I should not like to express a final opinion about the value of that work, but I must confess that I have felt a little nervousness whether the reactions of moderate-minded Germans might not possible be unfortunate.

Hear, hear.

I do not wish to express a final opinion at all. I am perhaps a little alarmed by some applause which I am receiving from a quarter which makes me think I am possibly on the wrong track in what I have said. But I feel that perhaps the sensation of receiving a letter which has been smuggled into the country and contains comments, however true, on its policy might cause a reaction among even moderately-minded Germans which may defeat the object of the sender.

I have dealt with three channels of information, the Press, the B.B.C, and the British Council. The work that these three channels are doing in putting forward the British case is essential work, because good information sent abroad about our state of preparedness in this country and about our intentions and our policy may play a quite decisive part in preventing war. By keeping foreign Governments and foreign nations accurately informed, we may be doing something which will prevent war. The misinterpretation of our intentions in the totalitarian countries has made the establishment of this Department inevitable, and the irritation that is being displayed in Germany about the step that we have taken is the clearest proof of the necessity for what we have done.

May I say one word about the British Council which, under Lord Lloyd has quite naturally shown commendable and considerable energy, has won respect. It has done much good, no doubt, by its hospitality to foreign editors, and has earned in that respect a great deal of good will for this country. I have often wondered if it would not be possible for the British Council to add to its activities the publication of illustrated papers in certain foreign countries in the language of those countries and sold at a nominal price. I do not know whether that has ever been suggested or considered, but illustrated papers of that nature might do invaluable work in putting our case forward.

I think the widest possible distribution of British films is desirable, and I do not think that so far the Government has been very helpful about this. It is true that they withdrew the extra taxation which was at first imposed in the Finance Bill but, although Ministers have shown themselves sympathetic, I cannot find that they have taken any very positive steps to help in this respect. It is now apparent that the news reel companies confine the supply of their films to their regular cinema customers. In fact this combine of exhibitors have compelled the news reel companies to refuse to supply hotels, restaurants, political meetings and public gatherings, so that the facilities for making these all important news reel films are confined to a very limited number of people. Facilities for taking news reel films are inevitably confined to a limited number of people. Cards are only issued to the representatives of the main companies, who restrict supply at the dictates of a monopoly. This limitation should be abolished and the Government shuld see to it that cards are issued only to companies which will make their films generally available.

There is one final question that I would like to ask. Will the new Department have any working arrangement with Lord Tyrrell, who acts in the capacity of Film Adviser, and his Department? I have heard only this week of a case in which the synopsis of a proposed film dealing with events that took place in Vienna after the Nazi occupation and based on a book on that subject, was submitted to Lord Tyrrell, who said that in view of the political situation in this country he thought it inadvisable that any such film should be made. I am not at all sure if he was right. That film would probably have put forward valuable views about the state of political opinion in this country. I would ask if the new Department is to have any working arrangement with Lord Tyrrell so that there may be interchange of opinion as to whether the manufacture of a film on a certain political subject is advisable or not. At present Lord Tyrrell decides. Can the Undersecretary tell us if anyone advises him, and, if so, who? Or is he a final arbiter in such matters?

I agree with almost everything that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, except his reference to Lord Perth. As far as I can understand, Lord Perth is a Civil Servant, he has accepted the post of Director-General of the Ministry of Information in case of war and is carrying out very useful work for the Foreign Office in his present capacity. I imagine that he did not seek either of these positions and it would be a mistake to say that he has no qualifications for being Director-General of information. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech would have delighted the heart of the Home Secretary, because he approved of everything that my right hon. Friend says. In fact, it seems to me that, if we ever set up a Ministry of Information, the talents of the hon. and gallant Gentleman should certainly not be overlooked. I thought the Home Secretary's speech was wise and well informed, but I also thought that his use of the awful word "culture" is much to be deplored.

We must examine rather carefully some of the suggestions that my right hon. Friend made. He said we should diffuse British culture abroad. I should have thought that was pretty well done at present. I should think both Shakespeare and Milton are as well read abroad as at home, though that perhaps would not be saying very much. The Home Secretary talked about some of the lectures that have been delivered under the auspices of the British Council. I should have thought that the Home Secretary, busy as he is, probably could not have looked very carefully into the quality of the lecturers. Everyone realises the terrible harm that is being done to English interests by lecturers in all part of the world. I often wonder why we have not lost the friendship of the United States, considering some of the lecturers that we send there. In most cases they are nothing better than subsidised bores, and I object to the British taxpayers' money being applied to giving these bores an opportunity of going to America, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey or elsewhere.

The worst instance that I know of diffusing British culture is one which the Home Secretary is not aware of, but which is striking evidence of the methods of the British Council in intepreting the needs of the country. I am referring to a play that they recently brought to London. They decided that the best possible thing that could be done for diffusing British culture abroad was to bring a band of Greeks to London. They were imported at great cost. They put on a play at the Haymarket Theatre. They were playing Shakespeare in modern Greek. I cannot regard that as a wise expenditure of the taxpayers' money. Few attended save polite and long-suffering members of the British Council. So many bouquets have been distributed, and there is such a great measure of agreement about the merits of the British Council and various other bodies, that I shall probably be regarded as completely unorthodox if I say that in my opinion foreign publicity is a great waste of money and energy. I agree with the Home Secretary that it is a very good thing to make foreigners understand England's policy, but we sometimes find it very difficult to understand our own policy. If we had a clear and consistent foreign policy it would need no explanation abroad.

But, I would ask, do we really need any foreign publicity? At the present time there is in London a corps of foreign correspondents which has no equal in the world. They are men of the greatest ability, men of the greatest integrity, most anxious to get any information they can get about affairs in England, and these gentlemen are complaining of the starvation they suffer in regard to British news.

To suggest that it is necessary to complement the services rendered by those gentlemen in their newspapers all over the world by some sort of propagandist organisation here is, to my mind, absolutely wrong. I think they give us plenty of publicity abroad. Any hon. Member who takes the trouble, as I do, to read foreign newspapers, and more particularly the American newspapers, would get some surprises. I should say that the American papers publish far more news about us that the whole of the English papers put together publish about America. And we should consider that fact when it is suggested that there is not sufficient foreign publicity about England or that we ought to bank up the supply of information going abroad. Let some hon. Member pick up a paper like the "New York Times" the "New York Herald Tribune," or the "New York World-Telegram." Their supply of news about England and about Europe is really quite surprising, and far greater than that offered by any English papers about America or South America, and it is very disheartening to them to be fold that it is necessary to extend what is called our foreign publicity.

I shall have something to say about the latest technique in developing what is called foreign publicity. We are at the present moment refreshing a number of peripatetic journalists many of whom can hardly speak English, with champagne and turtle soup at the expense of our taxpayers. The hard-boiled foreign pressmen in London are roaring with laughter at these feasts of ours. They say that a lot of these imported and expensively-fed journalists are men with very slight press connections. I looked into that complaint, and I found that one of the most recent of our honoured guests who was entertained at a sumptuous luncheon and has received the greatest possible hospitality is, in fact, the editor of a railway guide in an obscure Balkan country. Another gentleman who is brought here to hop in our walks and gambol in our smiles is the editor of a hairdressers' paper. There is nothing wrong in being the editor of a railway guide or the editor of a hairdressers' paper, but it seems to me that festivities of this type are a very poor compliment to the serious press, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) will, I think, agree, it is right to say that the press is very jealous of its independence and it also very much dislikes organised free meals.

I want to suggest to the Home Secretary that the best foreign publicity agent for Great Britain is undoubtedly Dr. Goebbels. He is worth three times or even ten times his weight in gold to England. He makes friends for us everywhere, and I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to make absolutely sure that Dr. Goebbels is reported extensively everywhere. No speech made by Dr. Goebbels should be overlooked by the foreign publicity department of the Foreign Office. They should circulate his speeches to those newspapers who have not the opportunity of maintaining correspondents in Germany. Furthermore, every word from Dr. Goebbels should be broadcast. We should give to every foreign country that would like it the opportunity of listening to Dr. Goebbels, because no Minister we can find anywhere in the world can give us publicity which is equal to that of Dr. Goebbels. I would say that the whole of this estimate for foreign publicity should be used to disseminate Dr. Goebbels' utterances throughout the British Empire. I am not suggesting that we should send the money to Dr. Goebbels, because we all know that he is wallowing in luxury and would treat it as no more than a pourboire. But if there is a little bit over we should give it to his bell hop, Herr Streicher, or his Italian bell hop, Signor Gayda. Let us concentrate upon Dr. Goebbels and these other gentlemen because—I wish the Home Secretary would convey this to the British Council —they are the gentlemen to receive the turtle soup. They are the gentlemen to liquor up with champagne. They are the people who ought to have the Corona-Coronas, because they are doing the best service to England.

A word about the more serious problem of the creation of a Ministry of Information. I hope that the controllers of this Ministry will realise that the world is dazed and bored by propaganda. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton that the ordinary person's credulity has been strained for so long that he will not react any more to what is called old-fashioned propaganda. I agree, too, with the Home Secretary that the only effective work the Ministry of Information can do is to establish good relations between the Government and the British and the foreign Press. I must say, also, that I was greatly impressed by what the Home Secretary said about the whole business of censorship. If the Ministry of Information is to function properly it should work in close association with the censorship, otherwise we shall have a repetition of the situation which arose in the last war, when there was a great deal of difficulty between the British and the foreign Press and the censors. Good will and common sense will solve many of these problems.

The Home Secretary put his finger on the real point to-day when he said the Ministry of Information should be linked with the censors. There should be such consultation as would avoid the glaring errors which occurred in the last war. I consider that in that suggestion alone my right hon. Friend showed that he thoroughly understands the real functions of this Ministry.

I think, too, it is pretty clear that the new Ministry must be a co-ordinating rather than an executive Ministry, and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton when he said that its direction requires much judgment, much experience and, perhaps, some personal knowledge of the policies and idiosyncrasies of the key newspapers of the world. I hope this is recognised by those who are now acting as the architects of the new Ministry of Information. In my judgment, if the Ministry is conducted on sensible and unambitious lines—because that is very important—it will perform a useful service. I beg the architects of the Ministry not to accept the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) or the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) that the Ministry should go in for "hot" propaganda. I believe the Ministry will do best to abjure all propaganda, which is the most discredited thing in the world, and, as I said, we are not so good at it as Dr. Goebbels, Signor Gayda, and those other gentlemen I mentioned. And at the risk of boring the Committee I would reiterate that the best work the Ministry of Information can do is faithfully to report and to broadcast the efforts of that most wonderful servant of England, Dr. Joseph Goebbels.

I am afraid that I do not altogether agree with what the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) has just been saying, because he has been dealing too much with the political side of things. I believe that a great deal of the work that goes on and the information which is put out by the B.B.C. fails in its effect because it deals too exclusively with political matters, with which the ordinary person abroad and in this country is often thoroughly bored. It ought to be our object to put over an account of what is happening ordinarily in this country at the present time. I think it is supremely important in the case of Germany. I do not think it is realised by many people that the isolation which is set up in places like Germany or the Soviet Union by their system of a controlled press prevents them knowing of the ordinary things that are happening in this country.

I was talking the other day with an exiled German lawyer, not a Jew, who left Germany some years ago but is in close touch with Germany, and he said that in Germany at the present time the ordinary German does not know at all the kind of things that are going on in England and the ordinary kind of life that we are leading. He said, for instance, that the ordinary German did not know the amount of money which was allocated in the Budget, not only to Defence but to other objects, had no idea of our financial resources, unless he read, the foreign Press which the ordinary German would not read, and in any case is not very easy to get at, except in a few places in Berlin and other large cities, and did not know about such very elementary things as the ordinary cost of living and hours of work, what things cost in the shops, and how people amuse themselves. He said that the ordinary German did not know about our football pools, football matches and so on. If only we could get somebody to describe the scene in which we recently took part when we went from this House to another place to hear the Royal Assent given to various Acts, and the unemotional way in which the list of Acts of such contrasting importance and value was read out, including one for the Prevention of Violence, and another for the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits, I think it would be a striking commentary on the kind of people we are.

What we really should do is to put over, describe and make real, in the living language of Germany and other countries, the ordinary Englishman, who is a most remarkable person, and is extremely un-ordinary from the foreigners' point of view. The German, the Italian and many other foreign people do not understand what the ordinary Englishman is like. They do not understand the sense of humour we have—odd, I admit, sometimes. They do not understand our general attitude towards life. I hope that in any information we put over we shall not be too damnably solemn—I believe you will rule, Sir, that the word is allowable in Parlamentary discussion—and not too Pygmalionly heroic. The margin between information and propaganda is a very difficult one to define. The putting over of information about our political attitude is of subordinate importance to putting over a picture of the kind of life that we are leading and the kind of person that the ordinary Englishman and Englishwoman are.

I remember what happened some years ago when I was editing one of those popular publications that come out in monthly parts—I have been a bit of a journalist myself—and that was called "Outlines of the World To-day," under the superintendence of the general editor of Messrs. Newnes. I was proposing to insert in that publication photographs dealing with things in France because they appeared to be of very great interest and value. They were rather extraordinary and unusual photographs, but he said to me: "Look here, Dr. Guest, these things are no good. What people want to see about France is the ordinary things that they always see and which every tourist sees. They want to see a picture of the Pont Neuf or of Notre Dame because when they look at them they want to be able to say: ' I saw that.' "In putting over our account of what is happening in England, and of our point of view we should choose the most familiar and most ordinary things and not stress too much the political thing.

I urge that we should have, much more than has been suggested up to the present, active, practising journalists to do this work. And we should certainly have men associated with the organisation who have not been either to a public school or to a university. I understand it is a fact that to have been to a public school or a university is a very serious disqualification on the ordinary daily paper, and for ordinary newspaper work.

The hon. Gentleman must not make a statement like that. Can he point to any editor of any newspaper in the country who has those qualifications, and who insists upon them?

The hon. Gentleman is protesting about just what I am insisting upon, which is that to have been to a public school or to have had a university education is a disqualification, and he knows that that is the case. I ask whether he himself would take somebody who had been to a public school or a university instead of taking a man who had been through an ordinary journalistic training. I hope that in the organisation which is being set up, note will be taken of that fact. The university and public school type of man is divorced from the ordinary mind of the people of this country. That fact is well known to every journalist who is putting stuff over. I am sure that applies to the kind of man who is to put information over to foreign countries.

With regard to countries with which we are in friendly relations, such as the United States, Rumania, and so on, it is not necessary for us to spend very much time in putting our case. I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that the foreign correspondents here representing American and other papers want only to be given opportunities of getting information. When you turn to countries in Central and Eastern Europe with which we have not the same kind of relations we need definite information to be given of the kind that I have suggested. We shall have to devise means of getting to the people concerned. The information put over by the British Broadcasting Corporation is very good. I believe it is largely under the control of men who were trained as journalists on an extremely well-known British newspaper, but if we could put forward more printed propaganda which could get into Germany and nearby countries in the language of those countries, such as a description of the actual provisions in the Budget, the actual conditions of living, and the ordinary kind of life that people enjoy here, and without any particular political comment, I believe it would do a tremendous amount of good.

These conditions are quite unknown abroad, as one realises by reading the kind of thing which I was looking at this morning. It was a record of what had actually been said in Germany about us. It related that it is believed in Germany that the troops in Palestine put out the eyes of captives before shooting them. I wish we could get over a plain and simple statement written by an experienced journalist of the actual facts in Palestine as well as of conditions in this country. We must try to build up a picture in the mind of the ordinary German which would give a true idea. It should not be called propaganda because it would have nothing to do with politics at all. It would be something to give him a feeling of reassurance. I think he would at once recognise that it was the real thing, but it must be done very carefully in the German language and in the German idiom by people whose knowledge of German is as extensive as is the knowledge of English of the most competent journalists in this country. We ought to guard ourselves against being too high-falutin' in this business and too political, as well as against being too solemn and heroic. The more humour, the more ordinariness that there is in our information which we put over to foreign countries, the better it will be put over. The hon. Member for North Paddington spoke about lecturers. I agree that many lecturers are subsidised bores, and I can only say it is very remarkable to me, but he knows it is true, that people will actually pay to go and hear these subsidised bores, so some people obviously like it. It is amazing to us, when we hear each other speak in this House, but it does happen. I believe there are certain lecturers who could put over what you may call the genial—

If I may interrupt the hon. Member, I would like to know what he means by "put over." It sounds to me as if you might be putting over the truth or something that was not the truth. Surely what we want to put over is the truth.

What I mean by "putting over"—I am sorry I was using a rather vulgar, what you might call journalistic colloquialism—is conveying information to the intelligences of those who read.

I suggest that what we want to put over, if I might use that easy phrase, is a genial view of the ordinary Englishman in his ordinary environment, letting people, in Germany especially, see that we are not solely and entirely concentrated on political matters, that in the background we are quite ready to resist, and, as my German friend said to me the other day, that we are spending these enormous sums of money—a fact which, I am told on very good authority, is actually unknown to many people in Germany. I have underlined it in this way, and, if I could have done so, I would have liked to have dropped all my aitches, in order to make myself as vulgar and common as possible. I am quite sure you want to get this thing out of the high-falutin' realm and down on to the ground of the ordinary man, to convey the picture of the Englishman and the Englishwoman, the English life in this country, in a very simple and elementary way to the German people. If we do that, it will have a more tremendous effect than I believe, with all due deference to the hon. Member for North Paddington, would broadcasting Dr. Goebbels' propaganda which, I am afraid, if it were broadcast, would be found to be as great a bore here in this country, as I suspect it is in Germany itself.

The Home Secretary, in his opening speech, stressed the fact that this £17,000 was to be allocatel to advocating British culture and British policy abroad, but he was very careful not to explain what he meant by "abroad." I hope it does not mean that any part of this money is going to be spent in an attempt to propagandise, if there is such a word, the United States, and still more I hope that no part of this money will be devoted to propaganda as such within the British Dominions or the British Colonies. It is perfectly true that there is every need for information—the truth, that is—to be dispersed in those countries, but I think that anything at all in the nature of propaganda would be a first-class mistake, and I hope that before the Debate ends to-day we shall have some statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs indicating that no part of this sum will be spent in trying to put over, to use the colloquial expression which was so ably defended just now, the British point of view either to any of the Dominions or the United States of America.

On the other hand, it is very evident indeed that we need more accurate sources of information to which Canadians, Americans and so on can go, and in this respect I want to mention the British Library of Information in New York. This is supposed to be the mouthpiece, if you like, of the Foreign Office, the unofficial mouthpiece to which American journalists and others can go and put their questions and come away with the right answers. Quite recently I had an indirect experience of the sort of information that is disseminated—information which is so divorced from the truth that really we can have no greater enemies than our own people in our own Library of Information. In this particular case an inquiry had been authorised by the Carnegie Corporation of New York into art and culture, and a lady, wishing to ascertain how much was spent on culture by the various peoples of the world, went to the British Library of Information, under the impression that it might have some information about British culture. She was told that a person whom Members of the House may remember, Lord Eustace Percy—he was described as "Sir Eustace Percy"—was still head of the Board of Education. I believe his last connection with that office was nearly a decade ago. She was also told that a Royal Commission which reported in 1930 was still sitting, and that at its head was a gentleman who has been dead for some time. This, mark you, was the sort of information she got from the semi-official Library of Information in New York. I am sorry to say that she did not go further, but accepted what she was told, believing that the British Council organisation would not be untruthful or so horribly out-of-date on a matter concerning culture. The result is that this information is in the official reference book, and this and other mistakes of equal magnitude will stand for presumably another decade, until another book is published on art and culture.

If there is a need for giving this information abroad, how much more need is there to ensure that when visitors from the United States and other parts of the world come to this country they are not misled by our apparent disregard of any- thing cultural. I suppose very few Members of this House ever go to the British Museum, but the average visitor from overseas goes there. He sees one of the gloomiest facades that any public building has had, and congested and almost overwhelming collections. It is on these and similar collections that people tend to base their ideas of the British attitude to such matters. One of the ways in which the Foreign Office might assist in the dissemination of the British point of view and of information in regard to culture in this country is by seeing that our established institutions give suitable guides to foreign visitors going to those institutions. It would not be a costly matter to provide pamphlets describing institutions of this kind in the language of the visitors. There are sufficient German, Italian and other Continental visitors to warrant short guides, showing what will be seen, and published in their own languages.

I hope that as the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) suggested this money we are voting to-day will not be spent on half-Coronas, or even full Coronas, for gentlemen representing hairdressers journals in Germany or anything of that kind. I have criticised the British Council and the Foreign Office for some of the things they have done. Let me praise them for what they have done in connection with the International Congress of Historical Art in this country. That and previous exhibitions which we have held have done more to increase foreign appreciation of our cultural standards than anything else that we have attempted. If we can only follow that up by improved exhibitions of this kind, and by making certain that information on British art and science is available in the recognised quarters all over the world, we shall go a long way towards improving appreciation of British culture abroad.

May I just make a reference to a statement of the Home Secretary, with which I am in the most violent disagreement? He said that if a Ministry of Information were to be set up, owing to a war, it might be necessary to prohibit public meetings in this country. I hope nothing of that sort will ever be done. It would be one of the gravest mistakes if we, in our fight to maintain liberty, abolished liberty of that kind in these islands. Most of all in war-time, when we know that the Press may be censored and restricted, there should be no restriction on the freedom with which people may meet and discuss the problems of the day. I, for one—and I pledge the Home Secretary my unqualified pledge here—will resist to the utmost any attempt to muzzle the British public in any way in their old-established rights of having meetings on any subjects that are dear to their hearts. At the same time, I think that the censorship of the Press which may be necessary in war time might be extended a little here and now.

We are not dealing with the question of Press censorship on this Vote, and the hon. Member is going rather outside the Vote.

With great respect, Sir, it was mentioned in the speech of the Home Secretary, and it has been mentioned on the opposite side since, and I need only mention the speech of the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). I am, however, very anxious not to go over the line here, and ail I would say is that I think there is need here and now to prevent a certain section of the British Press coming out with scare headlines which are obviously untrue, and then making no correction the following day. Only a few days ago in one of the leading London journals there was a monstrous, false banner headline, and in its cricket page was the following: "Score at the fall of three wickets, 56; score at the fall of four wickets, 52? "That is a little thing, but of the major things, like the reported illness of Hitler, they never give a correction. One of the gravest injuries that can bed one to this country is the assumption which is growing very fast throughout the world that the popular British Press is absolutely unreliable and that its editors know no sense of truth or decency, and I hope that the Press will take account of these remarks which I have made today.

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) has said, and I agree with him, in particular, that it would be most undesirable if action were taken, as suggested by the Home Secretary if war should come, to prohibit any public meetings. I am certain that any such prohibition would be very seriously resented by the mass of the people of this country, and it might have effects contrary to those which may be in the mind of the Government. I also agree entirely with what the hon. Member said about the undesirability of trying to get any British publicity across to the United States of America. I am convinced that English affairs are reported extraordinarily well in the American papers. I find that if I make a chance remark in this House about America, it is almost certain to be quoted in some of the American papers from which my friends over there send me extracts. The happenings in this country are extremely well reported in America, and if there is any lack of sympathy between the American people and the British people— and I am afraid there is at the moment—it is not for lack of knowledge, but because of a lack of sympathy with the policy of His Majesty's Government. If we want to create sympathy, or increase the sympathy that is there, one of two things should be done: either there should be a change of Government policy, or less news of that policy should be published in the American papers, and not more.

Reference was made by the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) to the great service done to the British cause and the cause of peace by Herr Goebbels. I quite agree, and I think that the more his propaganda can be published in England, America, the Dominions and many foreign countries, the better the cause of peace will be served.

We, however, tend to under-estimate the seriousness and effectiveness of Dr. Goebbels' propaganda in Germany. For a long time the Government here adopted the attitude that they would do nothing about it. They have altered their policy in that respect now. They feel that, although they are late in the day they must at least do something by way of broadcasting in German to counter the untrue stories that are constanly being put forward in Germany. But I am afraid they do not fully appreciate the success of Herr Goebbels' propaganda machine. It is not appreciated that the mass of the German people, through no fault of their own, not through stupidity or ignorance, have no choice but to believe most of the stories put forward, the reason simply being that they have very little opportunity of checking up on these propaganda stories.

It is not only the ordinary German newspaper that publishes the anti-democratic, anti-British stories, but every paper that appears—trade papers, fashion papers and so on. The same sort of stuff is put over constantly on the wireless, and as there is no other source of information, no means of checking up on these stories —incredible as they appear to us—it is because they appear to us incredible that we have tended to ignore them—the propaganda has been extremely effective and very serious from our point of view. That is why I welcome whole-heartedly the efforts of people like Commander Stephen King-Hall in sending out not merely propaganda but extremely able letters to people in Germany. It was suggested by a previous speaker that that process might be dangerous. He said that we in this country would resent anything that smelt of propaganda being sent individually to British people.

The situation in Germany is, however, different. There is a huge body of people in Germany that is distrustful of the German Government and distrustful of the propaganda stories that they are putting out. They are greedy for the true facts. They cannot get the true facts at home, and they whole-heartedly welcome any means by which they can get reliable news from abroad. I understand that Commander King-Hall has received from Germany hundreds of letters of appreciation. Sometimes people have gone over the border into another country in order to post their letters to him. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the work which he and others are doing is having a very valuable effect. It so happens that to-day there has been published an extraordinarily interesting book giving a large number of typical examples of the German propaganda which is being put forward day in and day out by the German Press and the German wireless. I should very much like to read to the Committee one or two of those extracts, which are typical. Here is one quotation recently from a German newspaper:

" During an attack on the Arab village of Attil five people were deliberately chosen and tortured. They were beaten over the head. Then their eyes were put out. After they had been mutilated in this ghastly way, they were finally given the coup de grace."

In February of this year the following statement appeared in the "Volkischer Beobachter":

"We should like to draw the attention of those gentlemen who are critics of German anti-Semitism to the conditions in the English textile industry, in which opium is periodically distributed by the management to female hands for the purpose of keeping their children quiet, so that they may work' undisturbed for the profit of John Bull."

Here is an example which is typical of the attack made on British Ministers and ex-Ministers. It is an attack on the right hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper):

" We do not hesitate to denounce Duff Cooper as the most degenerate of all the agitators of recent years. He is an unpaid un-fathomably mean, bloodthirsty war monger, more Jewish than the Jews, more Satanic than Satan himself; the incarnate curse of this age."

That is strong language and, of course, standing by itself it may not appear very important, but when attacks on Britain, on British habits, on our decadence, our morals, our unpreparedness for war, our inefficiency and weaknesses, on our brutality, is made every day by every newspaper in Germany and by wireless, it has a very serious cumulative effect, and it is done for the simple reason that Hitler and Goebbels appreciate that in Europe, as it is to-day, with the possibility of war, the psychological factor, the attitude of mind of the peoples in the different countries, is all-important. I am told on good authority that Hitler and the German Minister of Propaganda think that we are in the first stages of a war; the psychological prelude for inculcating into the people of Germany and the surrounding countries of an attitude of hatred and distrust of the democracies, and particularly of Britain, and a feeling of justice in the cause of the German people so that they will be willing to enter into war and support the Government in the next step of aggression. It is unfortunate that this attempt should have had some considerable success.

I suggest that every effort should be made by the Government—I agree it is not an easy matter—to counter that sort of propaganda. I believe that if we were to spend more money on propaganda— propaganda may not be the right word, I mean puting over the facts and answering these stories; I do not wish to imitate the methods of Goebbels—it would pay us hands down. We should be pre- pared to spend five per cent, of the amount we are spending on armaments in this direction. I think it would be good economy not only in saving millions of lives in a war but in preventing war itself. The German Government take a keen interest in the attitude of mind of their own people. They have got to keep their people excited by propaganda to such an extent that the German government are confident that they will follow the German government into war, but if they feel that they have not been successful in their propaganda, then, I think, the chances are 100 to one against war. I consider it the first duty of the British Government to counter that form of propaganda. I will also add that it must not be destructive or critical publicity; it must be constructive, and should show the fair steps that we are prepared to take in certain circumstances. In the present struggle to prevent war the most valuable potential allies of this country are the peace-loving German people.

The Committee, I am sure, has been glad to have the opportunity of this Debate to hear the interesting and, if I may say so, the understanding statement made by the Home Secretary about the shadow Ministry of Information. The Ministry of Information, possessing as it will great powers of censorship, is bound to raise natural suspicions particularly in those who have to do with the collection and distribution of news, but I think we should place it on record that the anxiety to understand the difficulties of newspapers and news agencies displayed by the officials of the shadow Ministry of Information and the helpful attitude which they have adopted has gone a great way to dispel those suspicions. The statement made to-day by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that the Ministry would not function in time of emergency, but only in time of war, has gone a great way to satisfy the newspapers and the news agencies, if not the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland).

The Home Secretary, in the course of his speech, stressed the need for careful planning, and that is particularly so on the technical side, for the provision of such facilities as telephones and telegraphs will play a most important part if the newspapers and the news agencies are to do their work properly and keep the country properly supplied with news. While the Post Office has been most helpful in seeking to provide these facilities, a tendency has been noticeable to raise technical doubts and difficulties. I do not expect the Post Office engineers to do the impossible, but I would impress upon the Home Secretary that he should insist that all these difficulties must be overcome, and particularly that all the telephone and telegraphic facilities that will be necessary should be provided, and that newspapers and news agencies should not only be allowed to keep in time of war the private wires which they have at present, but that they should be provided with the emergency facilities which will probably be necessary. Now that the shadow Ministry of Information is in existence, I hope it will bring home to Government Departments, particularly to the Defence Departments, that in war the circulation of accurate news and information, in minimising the effect of unfounded rumours is an important part in the defence of the country, and that it will impress upon these Departments the need to give full co-operation and to give journalists all the information and assistance which they require for the proper performance of their work.

This matter might well be given attention even in times of peace. Some Ministries and some Ministers know full well the value of adequate publicity. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, because I want to say a few words to him about the Press Department of the Foreign Office. That Department, with its Press conferences, is good, as far as it goes: but I do believe that a great deal more could be done if the Foreign Office would give more of what I may call background material to enable journalists to interpret foreign news and give it its proper effect. The Foreign Office does give such material, but it gives it only to certain favoured papers. I submit that it should give it to all papers and all news agencies. The Foreign Office is inclined to look upon news agencies merely as a channel for the issue of official statements. I would like to remind my right hon. Friend that the Press Association actually represents practically all the morning and evening newspapers of this country, and I suggest that it should be given full facilities and receive all this background material, and be treated just as some favoured newspapers are, so that it may keep the newspapers up and down the country fully informed and give them the right interpretation of foreign news.

I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the Committee, or to enter into discussions which have taken place on the dissemination of news abroad. I will say only this in conclusion. While the work of the British Council and broadcasting is all to the good, I hope we shall not forget the older method by which the British viewpoint has been presented to the world for many years past, and will give that support which is necessary to the news agencies and the correspondents who are in London, so that they can in the normal course of their work represent abroad the view point of Britain in world affairs.

I am sure the Committee will agree that the atmosphere of this Debate has been particularly favourable to the creation and future work of the new Departments—the shadow Ministry of Information and the foreign publicity department of the Foreign Office. We on these benches are grateful for the references that have been made to the work which is being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and which is to be under the control of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) was right in saying that we now need new methods of diplomacy and that, in fact, a new system of diplomacy is coming into being. Nation talks to nation and the views of Great Britain are to be found, in my view, not in dispatches only but in many different forms. A picture of our country and the views which we hold, are conveyed to other countries by many different methods to-day, and I shall make it my business, in the short time during which I shall occupy the Committee, to give some information on some of the methods which we are employing. This is a peculiarly happy occasion for me, because, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has once remarked and as I think the Committee will have noticed, I am apt to be rather reticent sometimes when I speak at this Box. Therefore, to have the opportunity of giving a little information is quite a holiday for me, but I promise not to kick over the traces, because I have a certain responsible regard for the damage which is likely to result from doing so, even in matters of propaganda.

The right hon. Gentleman made certain observations about a speech of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that in what he was saying about that, he was indulging in guesswork, and I think I had better leave his observations there, as far as that point is concerned. But the right hon. Gentleman was also kind enough to say that he supported, as I believe the whole country has supported, the speech of my noble Friend of 29th June. I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman into his observations on the subject of what may properly be regarded as foreign policy, and our views on encirclement, and so forth, because I think our views are set forth clearly in the speech of my noble Friend of the date which I have mentioned. I think I can, however, do the right hon. Gentleman the justice of saying that I realise the force of his remarks about the importance of the content of speeches, and also that the more the foreign policy of the Government can have the backing of the country, the more confidence there will be in the work which we are trying to do in the foreign publicity department. I would not presume to make any suggestions about the speeches of members of the Opposition, including the party below the Gangway. I will only say that we would not, for a moment wish to deprive the Opposition or their leaders of the opportunity of criticism, and the more their speeches contain the quality which makes them suitable for export, the more they will travel over the world. There are usually, I understand, in commodities intended for export, certain materials which help in the preservation of the produce, whatever it may be. For instance, I understand, that beer intended for export has certain qualities which are not present in beer destined for immediate home consumption. I feel convinced that when Members of the Opposition are making speeches they will bear in mind that we should like to feel that those speeches could be exported.

The exported article is stronger.

Stronger, and I think more palatable. Several hon. Members have told us that we must, in this work, aim at something which is between the "high falutin'" and the political. That we shall certainly try to do. One hon. Member suggested that we must not be too gentlemanly in our propaganda and that certain academic qualifications were sometimes a demerit in those who have to handle propaganda matters. I sympathise with that point of view, but let us decide on one attribute which is necessary, and that is that we should be human. Whatever our credentials may be, whether we are fortunate enough to have had certain types of education or whether we have been in the, perhaps, still more fortunate position of having had great experience of the world and of working conditions, it is necessary that we should have the common denominator of humanity if we are to do work of this kind well.

It is in that spirit, to use the words of the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut. Commander Fletcher) "that we should do our work objectively and truthfully," that I approach the task which lies before me to-day. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said he hoped we would give some account of British achievements. I assure him that we will do so, that it is our intention to do so. Already in the broadcasts by the B.B.C. reference has been made to many of these achievements which rank so highly in our own estimation. I would not at all exclude achievements in the domestic sphere of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I remember a peculiarly happy picture in which the right hon. Gentleman was sitting drinking a cup of tea, no doubt from one of our overseas possessions, in one of the new flats erected by the London County Council, during a visit by the Minister of Health—a fit combination of Government and local authority—and the right hon. Gentleman was presenting a cigarette to one of the tenants of the flats, while the other right hon. Gentleman was interestedly watching. It was a happy picture which, with its vast surroundings of a great building estate, might well be shown as a proof not only of our domestic contentment but of our achievement in social reform.

The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) made some reference to the Press Department of the Foreign Office and said he hoped that contact would be maintained with other Government Departments. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) also made reference to the Press Department of the Foreign Office. I would like to thank Members of the Committee who have congratulated the Foreign Office Press Department on the difficult work which it does, I think with so much success. There are no trade union hours in the Press Department of the Foreign Office, as the hon. Member for Hereford will remember from his own experience of the office. The hours are long and the work perhaps at times exhausting, but efforts are already made to maintain that type of friendly contact with the Press of this country, including the agencies to which the hon. Member referred. This has been of value in the past and will be of value in the future. I think it is true to say that a link has been built up between the Press Department and the Press of this country. Any other points which have been drawn to my attention this afternoon I shall certainly bring to the attention of the Department so that we can progress from strength to strength and consider any points of criticism that have been raised.

The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) raised a question which he said had aroused some doubt in his mind. He wanted to know what was the difference between a certain statement of the Prime Minister on 15th June, that there would be no interference with the Press of this country by the Department, and a later statement that there must be intimate touch between the Department and the journalistic profession. I do not think that those two statements conflict. There will be intimate contact and certainly not interference, and I believe it is intimate contact and not interference which both sides want—the representatives of the Press and of the Department concerned. The hon. Baronet also asked me to define more clearly when the Ministry of Information would be set up, and he became somewhat legal in wondering when a war is a war and when a war is not a war. It is a tangle which we try to avoid in answering some of the many questions put to us. I refer the hon. Member to a statement made by the Prime Minister on the same date, namely 15th June, which I think is quite explicit. The Prime Minister used these words:

" In the event of this country ever becoming engaged in a major war, it would be the intention of the Government to set up at once a Ministry of Information with a Cabinet Minister at its head and a Director-General whose status would be equivalent to that of a permanent head of a public Department of the first rank.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1939; col. 1506, Vol. 348.]

Is this the only occasion when this Department is to function?

I think that the pledge is quite clear, and that those are the only circumstances in which the Department is to function. The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton asked me a question about Press attaches. There are now Press attaches attached to some 18 posts, some of which cover other countries. I will not read out all the posts, but they cover most of Europe and South America, and we have, of course, in mind the possibility of extending these. Already I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that this large number of Press attaches perform most useful work with our Missions overseas.

In this connection it may be valuable if I describe in a few words the work of the Foreign Publicity Department. Its object is to co-ordinate all the news that there is in England from, for instance, the news departments of other Government Departments. These will be coordinated for the purpose of export, and it is not only with Government Departments that we shall keep in touch, but with scientific and learned societies and medical and agricultural organisations, so that every aspect of our national life may be depicted in the material we send abroad. We shall use abroad our Embassies and Legations and our various Missions for the purpose of spreading the information that we send them, and that is where the work of Press attaches, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, will be of particular value.

There is another body, the British Council, whose work has been referred to in the course of this debate. I could not help thinking that the hon. Member for North Paddington (Mr. Bracken) gave perhaps a rather too luxurious idea of the hospitality given by this body. There fore I asked for the programme of one of these tours of journalists who have come to this country, and I have been sent an account of the Rumanian journalists' visit to us. First of all, the journalists seem to me to have represented most or nearly all of the leading journals in Rumania. My first impression of the kind of life that these journalists must have led while they were here was that it was extremely exhausting. On the first day they flew to Portland, saw the Fleet, and visited a submarine. On the next day they had a rather more private time at receptions, and the following day it is true they had a Government hospitality luncheon, but they also visited the General Post Office and saw an international telephone exchange, and at dinner, where, I presume, they received this lavish fare, they were entertained by the "Daily Herald" and saw the production of that newspaper For the rest of their tour they not only visited Oxford —I notice omitting Cambridge—but also in the course of their tour they visited Scotland on a 24-hour visit, when they saw Edinburgh, Glasgow, and the Highlands. They also visited Halton and saw the R.A.F. Training School, and they visited Aldershot Camp and saw a mock battle. On their only rest-day they visited the B.B.C. in the evening, so that I think hon. Members will see that for journalists visiting this country, life is not all beer and skittles.

I said "champagne and oysters."

That was perhaps at the "Daily Herald." That is only one feature of the work that is undertaken by the British Council. I have noticed in this debate the fact, to which we shall pay attention, that there is some distaste for the word "culture." We shall certainly pay attention to that, because one of the values of these debates is that one can obtain the reactions of hon. Members, and no doubt those who run in such an excellent manner the work of the British Council will pay attention to this criticism. I think it is important, for instance, to remember the work of the British Council in setting up British institutes abroad. The institutes, for instance, at Paris and Florence have already shown great results and further institutes are being set up at Athens, Salonica, Cairo, Alexandria and Malta, and also at Lisbon and Bucharest, and the British Council is considering enlarging the foundations at Rome, Milan, Belgrade and other foreign cities, and also in Cyprus. One simple result of the extension of the work of British institutes is that the English language is better known.

My hon. Friend mentioned British institutes established in many capitals. Is any institute of any kind to be established in the capital of Turkey?

I think that is certainly in mind. I will certainly give attention to the point my hon. Friend has raised. The work of the British Council has world wide ramifications and I have taken out from a vast amount of material one or two details to indicate some of those ramifications. For instance, the British Council arranged for15 Rover Scouts from Iraq to attend a scout moot in Scotland. It has arranged for a telephonic conversation, for the first time in history I believe, between children of L.C.C. schools and certain children from Argentine schools. The British Council has extended its work even to the Belgian Congo and we find that books, periodicals and gramophone records are being sent there. Beyond this, if you look into the world of music, you will note that in Denmark, Sofia, Lithuania and Tokyo British music has been sent by the British Council.

How has all this been financed? I should imagine that no one but the Minister of Overseas Trade has the money for these vast activities.

In order not to give a one-sided account of the work of the British Council I was attempting to pick out different points in its activities, and not to give so luxurious a view of them as the hon. Member has given himself.

So much for the work of the Council. The hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham) raised a point about America. The position in America is different from that elsewhere and the work of the Foreign Publicity Department does not apply to America. There are so many personal contacts between our two countries, and so close are our relationships, due to a common sharing of the same language and the same ideals, that methods of publicity suitable to other parts of the world are in our view unsuitable to the North American Continent. What the Americans appear to have is a thirst for information. All our news from there goes to show that they are ready and anxious to receive as much information about this country as possible. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member's criticism of the British Library of Information. This is the first occasion that I have received a criticism of the work that it has done. Needless to say, we shall investigate the point raised by the hon. Member and see, if such a thing has happened, that it never happens again, because, according to our information, requests are coming from all over America for more information from the British Library and its work is increasing and being more and more appreciated. It works only on request and it issues information only when asked for. We have found that to be the most satisfactory method of providing the American nation with the information that they desire. I made inquiries before the Debate and I am glad to be able to tell the Committee that the general position in America is pronounced by expert opinion to be satisfactory, and I can only hope that this desirable state of affairs will continue.

It only remains for me to say one word about broadcasting. As I have told the House on previous occasions, the B.B.C. has now eight distinct foreign language services—Arabic, French, German, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish for Portugal and Spain, and Portuguese and Spanish for Latin America. This last service alone, which ranges from Mexico to the Straits of Magellan, can be listened to, I am told, quite clearly by some 110,000,000 people. This indicates the sort of range of activities that the B.B.C. are undertaking. I should like to assure hon. Members who have shown an interest in the subject that the possibility of extending even this considerable range of broadcasting is under consideration, particularly with reference to some central European countries. The extent, therefore, of the work for which my right hon. Friend and I have to answer is very great indeed and, if we approach it in the spirit which appears to animate the whole Committee, I hope we shall have more and more success. The right hon. Gentleman said we must bear in mind elevating moral principles and great truths, and the greatest truth of all is that we are all working for peace. There may be some misapprehension. Because we have had to consider in the course of our discussions the possibility of an emergency, do not let us imagine that we are in that emergency, and let us remember that the more work of preparation we do, the less likely it is to occur. The Ministry of Information will be set up only in the case of war. The Foreign Publicity Department will continue to give the world a better picture, if that is possible, of Great Britain as she really is, a human country with human people with a great belief in liberty.

We have heard a great deal of the activities of the Department in relation to Europe and European countries, but we have had no mention of its relations to the Dominions. I do not suggest that the Department should consider sending propaganda to the Dominions, but there is in London a corps of representatives of all the Dominion and Colonial papers. They are literally hungry for information. It is of vital importance to them in guiding opinion in the countries that they represent. I would ask my hon. Friend not to exclude from the activities of this great Department the Dominion representatives in London, who are so avid for news.

The foreign publicity department does not apply to the Empire or the Colonies, but the Government has of course in mind the necessity of considering that great Empire which already has so much knowledge of us, and we of them.