SECRET
POLICY COMMITTEE
Banning of periodicals for export
Paper to be discussed on Tuesday, 1st October, 1940
1. The banning of the export of periodicals as subversive was discussed (independently of the Ministry as such) during the autumn of 1939 HP/336/A Flag A Conference batch at H.O. [illegible] 23rd. letter from H.L. [illegible] to Holderness and the responsibility was left to the Home Office and Foreign Office. In February 1940, both these Departments represented that the initiative should lie with the Ministry of Information, as responsible for Postal Censorship. a. HP/336/A. Flag B letter for [illegible] to Sir [illegible]. March [illegible] b. HP/336/A Flag C. letter from Sir. A[illegible] This was admitted in a letter from Sir Kenneth Lee to Sir Alexander Maxwell on 21st March, HP/336/A. Hag D. Letter from Sir K.[illegible] to Sir A. Maxwell and it was this Ministry which at the end of April proposed to the Home Policy Committee of the Cabinet, the banning of the export of the “Daily Worker”. Proposals to ban other similar papers followed (full list in Appendix I).
2. A major determining factor was the desire of the French Government, then trying to suppress communist activities within France, that Communist literature should not be exported from this country, either to France itself or to places like Syria and Lebanon. HP/336/A Flag A Letter from [illegible] CP/27/11. Flag E A consideration underlying the ban on the “Daily Worker” was the pro-German trend of Communist propaganda during the Spring, especially after the invasion of Norway, It was also considered on general grounds that the unrestricted export of Communist or defeatist publications was damaging to our cause abroad, and might well prejudice our relations with Foreign Powers. HP/336/A Flag Halifax to [illegible] April 16th It is clear from the minutes of the Home Policy Committee that the Foreign Office supported this attitude. HP/336/B Flag G. [illegible] Policy [illegible] Minutes. The Home Policy Committee decided that if the “Daily Worker” were banned, “Action” should be banned also. As “Action” could not be regarded as violently subversive, the ban was justified (in discussion) on the grounds that it was “harmful to the war effort”, HP/[illegible]/A Flag H. Letter from [illegible] of the operation of the [illegible] tended to endanger to bring into disrepute the war effort of H.M. and Allied Governments, HP/[illegible]/B Flag I Minute From Sir to [illegible] 28th May [illegible] and created misapprehension in the minds of neutrals about British Policy. HP/336/B Flag I Proposed reasons for [illegible]Action These grounds were never actually made public. Various Communist and Fascist papers also merited this description; and ban (following the recommendation of the Home Policy Committee) was duly extended to them by Control of Communications Order No. 3, 31st May. Mr Herbeat's file [illegible] control of Communications Orders Flag [illegible]
3. The ban extended not only to foreign countries but also to the Empire. No opposition was expressed at any stage by the Dominions and Colonial Offices. It should be mentioned that they were not represented on the Home Policy Committee. The ban did not originally apply to Northern Ireland, but in May, the Censorship found that it was desirable to include Eire and Northern Ireland in the number of censorable countries for general postal purposes, in view of the fact that the frontier control Northern Ireland and Eire is imperfect, and that information was leaking through this channel. A/103/7 Flag M. [illegible] Northern Ireland and Eire were therefore included in the list of censorable countries by Control of Communications Order No. 5, 1940. A/103/7 Flag N. Control of Communications Order No: 5 The Control of Communications Orders Nos. 2, 3, 4, 1940, banning the export of specific periodicals forbade export from the “United Kingdom”, which includes Northern Ireland, and these were not revoked by the new Order. In consequence the export of these periodicals is not banned so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, except in so far as they are intercepted and held in the course of the Postal Censorship under the Royal Prerogative. CN/69/79 Flag O [illegible] N. Ireland [illegible] There is however, reason to think that the Northern Ireland Government approve of the action of the Postal Censorship. Mr. [illegible]
4. Various papers affected have protested and asked why they have been banned, and it is the necessity of explaining this, which has led to the raising of the whole question. In fact there are now outstanding letters from the National Council for Civil Liberties, “Labour Monthly”, “Russia Today” and the “New Propeller”, HP/336/B. Flag [illegible] and an inquiry pending from the representatives of the “Daily Worker”, CN/69/29 Flags R. to all of which interim replies have been given.
On three the original ban has been lifted:
(i)
The New Times and Ethiopia News
, banned because it was regarded by the Foreign Office as having an adverse effect on our relations with Italy, restored after Italy's entry into the war (June 12th). CN/27/6 Flag S Letter withdrawing ban from “New Times and Ethiopia News”
(ii)
World News and Views
,banned in Control of Communications Order No. 3, permit restored because it was asserted that it had been submitted to censorship prior to publication (August 12th). Cn/256/146 Flag [illegible] Care of World News Views”
(iii)
Voice of Spain
export prohibited by withdrawal of permit on request of Spanish Government through the Foreign Office. Mr[illegible] Voice of Spain b) Statement on method adopted to prohibit export. Restored on representation from the paper, and on condition that no copies were exported to Spain.
5. The following alterations in existing circumstances tend to make a revision of policy desirable. The Fascist papers are no longer published. [illegible] The wishes of France are no longer a good reason for banning the Communist ones. Relations with Russia are better. The detailed scrutiny of the more important papers (Appendix 2) seems to suggest that no great harm can now be done by their export. In addition the following intrinsic reason may still be regarded as operative. Most of the papers are unimportant. As we are fighting for liberty, all unnecessary restrictions of it are undesirable.
6. While it would not be possible to make submission for censorship a condition of the relaxation of the ban, there might be a general understanding that if the ban were relaxed the various papers would submit their contents for censorship. There would be no obligation upon them to accept the censorship any more than would apply in the case of other papers, but the Censorship would be advised in advance if the papers were likely to resort to subversive activity and in that event the ban could be re-imposed. It would therefore have a certain deterrent effect, for it would be under stood that if the relaxation were abused the ban would in fact be re-imposed.
7. This being agreed, it would seem best at this particular time to remove the ban altogether and to take our chance upon the export of the various papers. If any foreign country did not wish to receive the papers it would be for them to place an import ban upon them. This would apply equally to Northern Ireland and to the Colonies. By taking this course, at any rate the conduct of the Ministry would be consistent for the time being, and only if circumstances were to change and to justify the re-imposition of the ban should there be any restriction upon the freedom of the press.
