SECRET
POLICY COMMITTEE
Thursday, Nov. 14th, 1940

BANNING OF PERIODICALS FOR EXPORT

Reference: HP.336

Following the decision of the Policy Committee on October 1st, letters were written to the interested departments giving this Ministry's reasons for proposing that the export ban now in operation against certain periodicals should be lifted, and asking for their observations. The replies are summarised in an appendix.

The strength of the opposition to the proposal is obvious. The Foreign Office is responsible for Lord Swinton's intervention, and it also obtained a lengthy memorandum from its Censorship Adviser here. The Home Office brought in M.I.5 to the discussion.

A good deal of it is general opposition to Communist propaganda, for example, M.I.5, the Swinton Committee, and Sir Charles Wingfield believe that Communist literature should be illegal in this country and failing that the next best thing is to stop its export. This ignores the real point of the Ministry's letter which is the difficulty of justifying a continuance of the export ban in itself, in other words the unpleasantness (for the Ministry) of a situation in which the Communist papers represent themselves as deservedly enjoying the benefits of freedom save for one organ of tyranny - the Ministry of Information!

Nevertheless it seems impossible to lift the ban generally in face of this opposition. The alternatives are to leave things as they are and continue to deal with a protesting correspondence as best we can, or to take advantage of the acquiescence of the Dominions and Colonial Offices and lift the ban for the Empire excepting India.

The latter course would not conflict with any of the specific objections made by any department except (i) the India Office objection that in some of the Dominions and Colonies there are groups of revolutionary Indians who would welcome the inflammatory material for anti-British propaganda (which is rather the business of the Dominions and Colonies), and (ii) the M.I.5 view that any relaxation would be represented as a triumph for Communism and evidence of its increasing strength in this country.

It would also have the tactical advantage to the Ministry of Information of making it obvious that the Foreign Office and the India Office were responsible for what remained of the export ban.

In these circumstances the India Office position would be defensible, but the Foreign Office one would be politically hopeless, and that together with the M.I.5 point may be good reason why the Ministry of Information individually must continue to bear the burden of the inconsistency of His Majesty's Government collectively.

If it is decided to continue the ban it will probably be better to take a rather firmer line for the future, laying down as an article of policy that the export of Communist literature from this country of any kind anywhere in any circumstances is considered inimical to the war effort, and refusing to be drawn into any narrower argument. In return we may find that the protesting correspondence has more dialectic in it than public opinion behind it.

N.G.S.

11.11.40.

In view of the strength of the opposition, it is recommended that the ban be enforced even more rigorously than now, so as to secure a measure of consistency and provide a principle upon which the Ministry can stand.

F.P.