BRITISH WAR NEWS

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20043, 15 September 1939, Page 4

BRITISH WAR NEWS

CRITIC IN COMMONS “CONFUSION AND DISMAY’ REPLY ISY MINISTER

(Klee. Tel. Copyright—United Press Assn.) (Rccrl. Sept. 15. 9 a.rn.) LONDON, Sept, 13.

In the Mouse of Commons, Mr. A. Greenwood, acting leader of the Opposition, attached the policy ol the Ministry of Information, and declared that the treatment of the story of the arrival of British troops in France created among the publishing newspaper trade in Britain consternation, dismay, confusion and enormous expense,' which was unwarrantable. He explained Llir.it the Ministry at first allowed the publication of the news, then cancelled it, then again, allowed it.

Mr. Greenwood declared that newspapers were justified in calling it a muddle of the worst kind.

‘‘We are entitled to know who is responsible for treating thq people of Britain like children,” he exclaimed. ‘‘l have a document here showing that the absurdity was due to one person, Mr. Hore Belisha, who has no right to override the Minister of Information.”

He added there was no effective cooperation between the fighting services and the Ministry of Information. The neutral press was relying on German sources, because they got 'plenty of news in good time. Turning to supply, Mr. Greenwood said that the task was not faced with sufficient- vigour. Profiteering was going on on a large scale. Trade unions were in no mood to be regarded as the poor relation, and claimed equality in the direction of the policy. Value of Weekly Review

Both Mr. Greenwood and the Liberal leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair, stressed the value to the public of an authoritative weekly review of the war situation by the Prime Minister a t /a time when the news available through the press was reduced from its normal proportion. This led them to the subject upon which they spoke insistently—the necesitv of getting the first possible flow of information, both for the public at home and for sending across to the Continent, subject to the prevention of the publication of facts of value to the enemy. They strongly criticised the errors, both of omission and commission, which they alleged against the Ministry of Information, while making allowance for the ‘‘growing pains” of the new department and sought assurances that the Ministry would not only be a Ministry of suppression but primarily a Ministry of national and world enlightenment. Reply by Minister

Sir Samuel Hoare, replying, accepted what the Opposition leaders said about the proper functions of the Ministry of Information. Within the Ministry, he said, there had to be reconciled two requirements—the need for secrecy—for withholding from the enemy information which might be useful to it —and the need for invigorating the morale of the nation and giving the public at home and abroad as much information as possible. He announced a number of relaxations and concessions in favour of both the British and foreign press. Sir Samuel Hoare gave an assurance that a senior officer of each service would in future be at the disposal of the Ministry of Information to act ir. conjunction with the Ministry. He added that the General Staff protested strongly against the publication of news of the Expeditionary Force, but when pointed out that it was already in circulation the prohibition was withdrawn. The fact that public discussion was possible on the mistakes of the Ministry was a sign not of weakness but of strength, Sir Samuel proceeded. Naturally it would take time to get the complicated department running smoothly. The Minister of Information considered that the department should be a source of information and not an organ of censorship. He was determined to tell Britain’s story fully to England and abroad.