HC Deb 25 January 1949 vol 460 cc750-2
68. Mr. Blackburn

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have been paid to the "Daily Worker" newspaper for Government advertising during the last six months of 1948.

Sir. S. Cripps

£1,942, including the commission to the agents.

Mr. Blackburn

While congratulating the Chancellor on reducing the amount of money the Government are paying to the "Daily Worker," may I suggest that this sum should cease forthwith, both on the moral ground that we should not pay money to a totalitarian newspaper, and, secondly, on the practical ground that it is silly to pay money to a newspaper which attacks the Government's policy and sponsors irresponsible doctrines? May I very respectfully ask the Chancellor if he will give a ruling on this, and whether he will reconsider this matter, because I believe that there are many people who feel strongly that it is morally wrong to support with Government money a newspaper that believes in the policy of the secret police?

Sir S. Cripps

I do not think we can take into account the morals of newspapers. It might be very difficult to find anywhere for advertisements at all.

Mr. Churchill

Is not a definite line to be drawn between allowing, in a free and tolerant community, all kinds of expression of opinion, and actually taking, in order to sustain totalitarian productions, the money which Parliament votes?

Sir S. Cripps

This is not in order to sustain anybody. It is in order to get publicity which is desired for particular purposes by the Government.

Mr. Churchill

Supposing the Fascist organisation of Sir Oswald Mosley were able to run a newspaper, would the Government advertise in that paper, paying them £1,000 a year?

Sir S. Cripps

That would depend on the purpose for which they were advertising; it might be desirable and it might not.

Mr. Churchill

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that nothing that is printed in a newspaper, or the character of a newspaper, would in any way prevent the Government subsidising it by using it as a vehicle of advertisement.

Sir S. Cripps

We do not regard it as subsidy. We regard it as paying for a certain value. I think that it would be highly undesirable if any Government of a particular political colour were to say that they refused to spend money in newspapers of another political colour.

Mr. Gallacher

In view of the reference made by the Leader of the Opposition to the character of the "Daily Worker," may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the "Daily Worker" is a clean, hard-hitting paper, and that all it advocates is that the whole resources of the country should belong to the workers and all the power should belong to the workers, and the other side should be abolished.

Mr. David Renton

Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the effect of such Government propaganda as is put forward in this way in the "Daily Worker" is entirely counteracted by the anti-Government and anti-British policy of that paper, and would it, therefore, not be better to withdraw altogether the financial support which they are giving to the paper?

Sir S. Cripps

That is a matter for people who are expert in dealing with publicity, and if they think that they get value out of a certain type of advertisement, I do not think that it should be stopped for political reasons.

Mr. Piratin

If there is one case that can be made out by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) is it not the case of the "Daily Graphic" to which the Minister of Health drew attention the other day?

Mr. Blackburn

In view of the grave Issues which are affected, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.