HC Deb 07 December 1951 vol 494 cc2789-97

3.31 p.m.

Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern)

I welcome the opportunity, which is all too short, but for which I am grateful, of raising a subject which is of very considerable public importance, and in which a large number of people are deeply interested.

It is generally understood that during the Recess upon which we are just entering Ministers will be considering deeply the whole question of the possibilities of economy. I hope that drastic economies will be made wherever they are possible without affecting the public interest in an undue degree. I want, in the few minutes which I have—and I am most grateful to the Financial Secretary for being here to listen to me and, no doubt, to reply to my observations—to put before him and the House a few considerations in connection with the information services and allied and satellite services, where, I believe, very considerable economies can be made.

The growth of all these various activities associated with the information services has been phenomenal in recent years. It has now got beyond a joke. During the war many of these activities were vital and served a useful purpose, and those engaged in them were doing useful work; but they kept on growing and the incubus on the National Exchequer has now reached a stage when it can no longer be tolerated. I contend that these costly activities must be pruned. It will require courage and determination to prune them. I do not doubt that in the present Government there is a spirit of resolution and determination to act courageously in this direction.

First, I contend that there is far too much duplication. In every Government Department there are innumerable activities, such as journalism, advertising, films, exhibitions of all kinds, artistic experts of all sorts, those who specialise in food recipes—how to make porridge nicer, how to fry herrings better, how to make whale meat more palatable, how to make snoek edible, and thousands of other things of that kind. These professional activities go on in every Government Department. Above all, there are far too many lectures. Good heavens, we get talked to quite enough without having to listen to lectures on every conceivable subject, paid for by Government Departments; in fact, paid for by the taxpayer.

There are far too many public relations officers—goodness knows how many, for I have never been able to find out—but there are far too many, and all of them have their assistants, and it seems to me that most of them spend their time trying to apologise for the Minister. I use the word "apologise" in the sense of "apologia" rather than of deprecating the existence of the Minister. I welcome the existence of our Ministers today; and they need no apology. But the P.R.Os. have somehow got into the habit of defending the Minister and his Department. I do not see why the public should pay for that. Let the Minister stand on his own feet and be judged upon his own merits and activities. I am sure my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will have no difficulty in defending himself.

Often the various experts in all the ramifications to which I have referred meet together, in what must be in effect a mass meeting of experts, to conduct some Government propaganda campaign which has been decided on behind the scenes. I have never had the privelege of attending such a meeting, but I am told that the numbers which attend are almost incredible. All these experts in every sort of activity assemble, and, under some form of chairmanship, they decide upon a great campaign. The taxpayer pays for the lot. This kind of thing has gone on long enough, and I want my hon. Friend seriously to consider doing something about this by winding up or, at any rate, drastically reducing some of these major activities.

The British Council is a very worthy organisation, and many of those who work in it are friends of mine, but it is a very costly organisation, and I really doubt whether, in our present parlous condition, we can afford what we are spending in support of its activities. At any rate, I should like to see the cost to the taxpayer of its activities considerably reduced.

There is even bigger scope in the Central Office of Information. I have far less sympathy with the activities of this organisation, and I hope that my hon. Friend will investigate its activities in a big way. There is also plenty of scope for investigation into the work of the Information Division of the Treasury in which he is particularly concerned, and I hope he will spend some of the Recess poking his nose into some of its activities. I am certain that he will find plenty of fun and games to which he can put an end in the interests of the public and the taxpayer.

The amount of money spent on the Crown Film Unit is scandalous, and it is quite unnecessary. If the Government or a Government Department really wants to represent its view-point through the medium of the film, which is quite legitimate, I am certain that it can find far less expensive means of doing it than by maintaining this expensive organisation. It is high time the unit was shut down or, at any rate, reduced, so that a minimum of cost has to be met by the taxpayer.

Goodness knows how many lecturers there are—nobody can find out—but all over the country there are lecturers on every conceivable subject who seem somehow or other to be paid by the Government or have their expenses met by the Government. There are feature articles in technical and other magazines all over the place. There are also expensive magazines beautifully printed on expensive paper, for which the taxpayer pays, and these are run by the Government, under the sole authority of the Government, and they exist under the orders of the Government to put over the Government's view-point or propaganda.

Goodness knows how many leaflets there are also. Yet there is a great shortage of paper. I do not know how much all the cooking recipes must have cost—I understand they have largely ceased—but I hope we shall not begin them all over again. There are innumerable glaring examples of waste, waste of paper and waste of money. The public does not want that extravagance. If hon. Members want more details, they will find innumerable examples in the Board of Trade Special Register of Information Services, where most of what I have been speaking about is to be found.

Mr. Percy Daines (East Ham, North)

Was a recipe published for cooking good red meat?

Major Lloyd

I believe not, because there is so little red meat available that it would not be worth while spending money on it, but a lot of money has been spent on recipes for herrings and porridge.

I believe I am right in saying that the nationalised industries, these powerful organisations which, I understand, we own, have much of their information services and publicity paid for by the taxpayer through a Government Department. For instance, the British Electricity Authority has a lot of its publicity for fuel saving, a very laudible thing, paid for by the taxpayer through a Government Department, presumably under the auspices of the Ministry of Fuel and Power. That is a piece of nonsense. Let it run its own show, and let it run its own publicity.

I also understand that the National Coal Board uses Government funds contributed by the taxpayer to implore Italian miners to come to this country and work in the mines. A lot of money must be spent upon those advertisements, and yet the National Coal Board is unable to influence the miners sufficiently to admit the Italian miners to the mines. So the money is largely wasted anyhow. If the Coal Board wants Italian miners—there seems a very good argument for that—let it pay for its own publicity.

These are only tiny examples. I understand that thousands of pounds are wasted by reason of Government agencies and information services being used at the taxpayers' expense to assist the nationalised industries in their objectives. Let them stand on their own feet and conduct their own publicity. It is very important that they should.

Why do the Government Departments need so many public relations officers, who are tumbling over each other? Why cannot the Ministers use, for instance, as they did not so very long ago in pre-war days, Lobby correspondents and others in the House whom we know intimately and trust so much, for passing on information to the public?

If they have not time to interview them directly, their subordinate Ministers or their Parliamentary Private Secretaries could do so. Interviews could be given in the Department by somebody deputed for the purpose. I am perfectly certain that by using methods which would cost nothing at all, we would get just as much satisfaction, instead of having to spend thousands of pounds on public relations officers at high salaries, with their assistant P.R.O.'S, deputy-assistant P.R.O.'S, and all the staffs that become attached to them.

The cost of the overseas information departments also is very considerable. There is ample scope for reducing the activities of many of them. I do not say that they should be shut down. I appreciate that there may be useful functions which they fulfil, but I am sure that too much money is being spent on them and that the Government could save a lot of money to the taxpayer in this direction.

The truth is that we get far too much propaganda, far too much propagandists, and far too many apologists. Most of these Departments, organisations, and individuals, costing in total many million pounds, are apologists in some shape or form for the Government who employ them. But they do not apologise to the taxpayer who pays for them. Here is a grand opportunity for my hon. Friend to spend some of his valuable Christmas holidays in investigating these possibilities.

We get quite enough propaganda from politicians and from political parties. We had a lot of it in recent weeks and months during the General Election. Let the Government do away with all this unnecessary propaganda and these propagandists. Let the Government be judged on their merits. One of the things by which the people and we in the House will judge them is in the measure in which they are able to achieve drastic economies in the public services and in public expenditure. I commend my suggestions which I have put forward in such a very short time, to my hon. Friend, and I will listen with eagerness to his observations in reply.

3.46 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)

I have listened, as I always do, with very great interest to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Major Lloyd) has said, and particularly on this subject, on which he has taken a great interest over a good many years. I must begin by saying that in the present state of our national economy, to urge economy in public expenditure upon the representative of the Treasury is a very easy task. It is not so much, perhaps, a case of preaching to the converted as of preaching to the missionary, and I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the broad considerations of public economy to which he has referred are very much in our minds, both in connection with the subject to which he has referred and generally.

Mr. Daines

Is it likely to be the case of the missionary finding himself in the cooking pot of the Treasury?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I think the hon. Member is recalling the case of the cannibal chief who rebuked one of his tribe for trying to boil a friar.

I ought to explain, lest I be diverted into what is, presumably, more the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, the somewhat complicated position administratively in which I find myself in replying, however briefly, to this debate. As the House is aware, most of the major Departments of State have their own information departments, and my right hon. Friends at the head of those Departments are, of course, responsible to the House for that aspect, as for all others, of their Departments' doings.

Directly and in the narrow sense, I am responsible to the House only for two aspects of information work: first, for the Central Office of Information, in accordance with the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, and second, for the Economic Information Division of the Treasury. Therefore, what I say when going, as did my hon. and gallant Friend, outside that narrow scope into the broader sphere of information services generally, must be always considered with that position in mind. I can only in the narrow sense speak for the two aspects of information services for which I have some direct responsibility to this House.

It is impossible, I am afraid, to say anything very specific to this House this afternoon for reasons which I think hon. Members will appreciate in general, as also for one specific reason.

I am authorised to say that as part of the Government's general review of expenditure an ad hoc Committee of Ministers is at present reviewing the whole range of Government information services. I do not know when that review will be complete, but I have no reason to expect it to take a very long time. I think it obvious that it would be impossible until that review has been completed for anything of a precise or constructive nature to be said from this bench on this subject. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the fact that I am unable this afternoon to deal precisely with the specific suggestions he has made does not mean that these suggestions will not be taken into account.

Major Lloyd

I take it that this review—about which we are all delighted to hear—will have completed its activities in time for the Estimates to be presented to this House?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I certainly hope so; I can see no reason why it should not be so. I cannot, of course, give an undertaking binding on my colleagues, but it is the desire of all of us that this review of expenditure should go through as expeditiously as possible.

This afternoon, therefore, I can only say one or two things of a somewhat general nature on this subject. Information expenditure falls roughly into two large categories, home and overseas, and of those from the financial point of view the overseas is very much the larger. The actual figures for last year, which were contained in Command Paper 8267, show that home information expenditure last year amounted in all to £3,411,200, as against £10,184,000 overseas expenditure. The House will appreciate that overseas expenditure to which somewhat different considerations relate than relate to home expenditure, is infinitely the larger of the two.

Another point of a general nature which must not be overlooked is the fact that a substantial volume of expenditure on the home side relates to matters to which my hon. and gallant Friend did not refer in his speech and to which, equally, I would imagine he would not take exception. For example, there is the recruiting publicity in connection with the Armed Forces, and those of us who believe in the desirability of building up the Regular Forces of the Crown will appreciate that some expenditure on publicity in this connection is desirable. Last year, for example, the figures were substantial. The Admiralty spent slightly in excess of £113,000, the War Office, £390,000, and the Air Ministry £303,000. That is quite a substantial element in the total of home information expenditure.

There is another category of expenditure which, although not perhaps quite the same in its significance is still important: expenditure on publicity in connection with National Savings. On last year's figures that amounted to £358,500 in England and the Scottish Savings Committee, with characteristic modesty, spent £21,900. Those are elements of expenditure to which the considerations which my hon. and gallant Friend urged in his speech do not, I think, generally apply; and they are elements of expenditure which, without prejudging the position, I should have thought it would be very difficult substantially to reduce. But, of course, they are only elements in the picture—a picture which runs to the substantial figure for home expenditure of £3,400,000 odd, and such a figure obviously, in the present state of national finances, has to be investigated.

Then there is overseas expenditure, whose total includes the expenditure of the British Council, to which my hon. and gallant Friend made specific reference.

We are, of course, including in the review to which I have referred this overseas expenditure. But, in dealing with these matters we have also to balance two competing considerations. We have to consider on the one hand the cost—and in the case of overseas expenditure there is also the element of foreign exchange expenditure which is sometimes not without importance—against the desirability of this country taking an effective part in certain aspects of what I believe is now generally described as the cold war. The need for economy in this as in all directions is very much in the mind of the Government. But we have also to bear in mind, before coming to a decision, the competing considerations to which I have referred.

I think I have made it clear, I hope I have done so—I have tried to do so—that we all regard the field of information expenditure as a proper field for careful examination from the point of view of national economy. It is certainly not the only field in which that examination will have to take place, and I would not wish to seem to suggest that any undue, unnecessary, or, shall I say, more hypercritical approach is being made to this expenditure qua expenditure than is being made to certain other aspects of public expenditure.

I fully appreciate the very difficult quasi-political considerations which, as my hon. and gallant Friend very fairly said, do arise in connection with certain aspects of information expenditure. I think I need only say in that connection that those aspects of the matter, delicate, intricate sometimes, not always susceptible to any very clear and obvious demarkation of principle, will be considered together with the more strictly financial aspects of the matter. There, I think, it is necessary to leave the matter.

I would say in conclusion that this matter is very much in our minds. We hope in this direction, as in others, to be able to achieve some degree of that economy in national expenditure which, in our present economic situation, is of such vital national importance.