HC Deb 04 April 1951 vol 486 cc182-7
13. Mr. Profumo

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the factors which led him to agree to the reduction in his Department's grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation for its overseas broadcasts.

14. Mr. Profumo

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which are the countries which will be affected by the reduction in broadcasts which will have to be made as a result of the cut in his Department's grant to the British Broadcasting Corporation for its overseas broadcasts; what proportion of the reductions will be from transmissions in English; and what from those in the languages of the respective countries concerned.

Mr. H. Morrison

It was originally proposed that the B.B.C.'s grant-in-aid for the financial year 1951–52 should be £5,330,000. But the grant-in-aid for 1950–51 was £4,685,000 and in view of the pressing need for economy in public expenditure in the interest of the taxpayer, the Government have not thought fit to give an increased grant-in-aid and have fixed it at £4,650,000. It is, therefore, misleading to assume that, in fact, there is any major cut in the expenditure which the B.B.C. will be making as compared with last year. It is a fact, however, that owing to increased costs and certain additional obligations, some economies will have to be made elsewhere in the B.B.C.'s overseas services. Since I have taken up my present post I have had under consideration in consultation with the B.B.C. the question of how this can best be done, and I am not yet prepared to make a final announcement.

Mr. Profumo

Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that these broadcasts form an indispensable part of our overall plan to avert another war? Further, is he aware that in the last 18 months the Soviet Union has doubled its foreign output and the United States of America are asking for £35 million a year extra for such broadcasts? Is it not plumb crazy to suggest a false economy of this sort while, at the same time, the Government are asking us to spend double this amount on the Festival Gardens?

Mr. Morrison

That was a really first-class propaganda supplementary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, that is what it was. I certainly do not underestimate the importance of broadcasting in connection with matters of this sort. I would not like the House to think, however, that that is the only thing that requires to be done in the present situation. I have a responsibility to co-operate with the Chancellor in the matter of public expenditure and I am not going to be squeezed by the interests concerned to give them everything they want. The matter is being most carefully considered. We will solve this problem in the best way we can, with the best ends in view. I would ask the House to accept that assurance and not to press me to go wild on public expenditure in this matter because we must have a sense of relativity in these times.

Mr. Eden

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind two considerations which concern many people? First, can he assure us that the limitations which he is seeking to impose will not result in reduced broadcasting to the countries to which broadcasts already go out? Second, can he say when he will be able to give us a considered statement on where we stand, so that the House may consider the position?

Mr. Morrison

I should think fairly soon.

Mr. Eden

Would the right hon. Gentleman take this matter a little more seriously? Is he aware that some of us believe that this is more important in certain respects even than re-armament expenditure?—[Laughter]—I do not know why hon. Members opposite should giggle, but those of us who had to do with propaganda in the war feel very keenly about this. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is in the Foreign Office will he look at this through the Foreign Office spectacles as well as Treasury spectacles?

Mr. Morrison

The right hon. Gentleman may be assured that, in my present position, I am bound to look at it through Foreign Office spectacles, but I do say that there is responsibility on a spending Minister to co-operate with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as far as he can. I do not at all underestimate the considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. I shall not be unsympathetic about it, but there are means of effecting economies without necessarily damaging the fundamentals of this service.

Mr. John E. Haire

Is my right hon. Friend considering fully the international political implications of this cut in this service at the present time when, as the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Profumo) said, both America and Russia are increasing their services? Will he particularly take note that this service is the only propaganda weapon we have against Eastern Europe at present, and do everything he can to avoid a cut while maintaining economy?

Mr. Morrison

I cannot agree that our own standards of economy in public expenditure have to be determined by the Soviet Union or the United States. We must consider them on the merits of the case. I am anxious to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend to the fullest possible extent, but I am not going to be submissive to an agitation that comes from certain quarters, calculated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, I know perfectly well where it comes from. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] The decision as to public expenditure and the taxpayers' burden has to be the responsibility of the Government in the first place, and of the House of Commons.

Mr. Eden

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the "certain quarters" to which he referred? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Could I have a reply to my question? The right hon. Gentleman has told us that the agitation comes from certain quarters. Could we be informed where those certain quarters are to be found?

Commander Noble

On a point of order. Is it right, Sir, for the Foreign Secretary to make these insinuations without giving any explanation?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Wyatt

As the Opposition has spent the last five and a half years in this House fighting to get these services cut, is it not remarkable evidence of the success of these services that the Opposition should now be converted to their necessity? Will not my right hon. Friend very carefully consider representations from all quarters of the House, now that we have the Opposition added, to have this cut restored?

Mr. Morrison

Let us be clear about the cut. This was a demand for a materially increased expenditure, and the cut is negligible compared with the expenditure of the last financial year. It is perfectly true that time after time the Opposition have urged that the Government were spending too much money. It is true that they have stated, in particular, that the Government were spending too much money on information services at home and abroad. At home, we have cut by 20 per cent. I am bound to say that this gives added emphasis to what I said earlier.

Mr. Eden

Will the right hon. Gentleman produce one shred of evidence of the demand for a reduction in our broadcasting services abroad?

Mr. Morrison

There have been denunciations in Conservative publications of our total information expenditure and I must draw the attention of the taxpayer to the point that the Opposition are now vigorously demanding an increase in that expenditure.

Mr. Sandys

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he may say that the cut itself is negligible, the effect upon our influence in vital areas abroad may be quite disastrous?

Mr. Morrison

I do not agree in the least.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

While not under-estimating in any way the value of these broadcasts, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that in the last analysis more good is done to our standing and position in the world by the actual social, political and economic achievements of this country during the past five years, which have been continually depreciated by the Opposition throughout that period?

Mr. Morrison

I think there is point in what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, we have sought to make British achievements known all over the world, and that course has been denounced by the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker

We seem to have got into a regular party fight at the moment.

Mr. Profumo

May I ask another supplementary, Mr. Speaker? As the right hon. Gentleman is now more interested in our foreign policy than in our financial policy, may I ask whether he is aware that however small these cuts may appear to be, the effect will be a cut of 10 hours a day?

Mr. Morrison

That really is a gratuitous assumption on the part of the hon. Member, and is unjustified by fact.

Mr. Nally

On a point of order. I should be deeply grateful, Sir, if, for the benefit of back bench Members particularly, we could have some guidance on the subject of the practice of asking supplementary questions arising from a Question originally, and quite properly, asked by a back bench Member. Unless I miscounted, there have been four supplementaries, three of which I must say I agree with; from the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden). Each one of those, equally properly, has been made the occasion of a demonstration. I should like to ask whether it is now to be the practice that in asking supplementaries arising from a back bench Member's Question, a Member of the Opposition Front Bench has any rights that give him priority over those of a back bench Member on either side of the House?

Mr. Speaker

No one has any right to take any priority whatsoever. I choose who is to ask supplementaries.

15. Mr. Profumo

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of foreign listeners in each of the respective countries which will be affected by the reduction of broadcasts due to the cut in the Foreign Office grant for the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas services.

Mr. H. Morrison

It is impossible to estimate with any degree of accuracy how many of the listeners to the B.B.C. overseas programmes are accustomed to tune in to the transmissions which will be affected.

Mr. Profumo

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that indisputable figures show that over a million French people listen to our programmes each day? Does he think it is right that, owing to this proposed cut, we should surrender to the United States of America practically entirely the right to broadcast the democratic viewpoint to foreign countries?

Mr. Morrison

I very much doubt whether the research machinery is sufficient in the case of overseas countries to justify the hon. Gentleman's statement.

Mr. Harrison

With the experience of 12 months of these reduced expenses on broadcasting, could my right hon. Friend say whether any important omission which occurred during that 12 months because of the reduced expenditure has been brought to his notice?

Mr. Morrison

My hon. Friend is a little in advance. Modification has not yet been made.

Mr. Profumo

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.