§ 12. Mr. Henry Hopkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much money was spent on foreign service broadcasts during 1950: how much has been allocated for the current year: and whether, in view of the urgent need for propaganda to combat Communism, it is intended to increase the amount.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesThe grant-in-aid to the B.B.C. for overseas services in 1950–51 was £4,685,000. The exact figure for 1951–52 has not yet been finally settled, but is likely to be slightly less.
§ Mr. HopkinsonIs the Under-Secretary aware that it was announced in the Press yesterday that this sum was being reduced? Having regard to the fact that there are, for the first time, faint but 1269 hopeful signs of the rot setting in in some of the countries behind the Iron Curtain will he impress upon whoever may be concerned that this sum should be increased this year?
§ Mr. DaviesI find it very difficult to understand hon. Members opposite. We are being pressed frequently to reduce expenditure, and here is a case where we are being urged to increase it.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerIs the hon. Gentleman aware that this arm of broadcasting is one of the most vital that we can use in our general defence arrangements, and will he give a less flippant answer to the House to a serious question?
§ Mr. DaviesWe are very well aware of the value of broadcasting, and consider it part of the defence arm, but, in view of the very heavy expenditure on re-armament which will be encountered during the coming year, we have to cut down where it is possible to do so, and this is one of the matters on which expenditure is being reviewed at the present time.
§ Mr. ButlerHas not the hon. Gentleman condemned himself out of his own mouth? If he is to spend money on rearmament, he cannot spend it in any better way than in improving the foreign service of the B.B.C.
§ Mr. DaviesAs the right hon. Gentleman is aware, not all the expenditure on the B.B.C. can be interpreted as defence expenditure, and it is in those directions where it is not so considered that the reductions will be made.
§ Mr. DribergWill my hon. Friend consider inviting one of the right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are so concerned about the matter, to write a letter to the "Daily Express" about it, in view of that newspaper's remarks this morning?
§ Mr. ProfumoIn view of the Government's determined desire to settle our differences with Communist Russia by discussion, does the Under-Secretary not think that these broadcasts should be increased very considerably indeed, as part of the defence programme? Further, if the Government cannot afford to spend enough money, will they cut down on the money spent on the Central Office of Information in propagating their own 1270 ideas, which no Minister of the Crown in his right mind would support?
§ Mr. HopkinsonIn view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Under-Secretary's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the first opportunity.
§ 14. Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the objects of the British Broadcasting Corporation's broadcasts to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to Communist-dominated countries in Europe which are members of the Cominform and to China: when these objects were laid down: and in what way they have been modified since that time.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesThe objects of the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas broadcasts result from the licence and agreement of 29th November. 1946, between the Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation.
The Corporation shares the view of His Majesty's Government that the national interest requires overseas broadcasts to give a true account of world events, and, in particular, of British policy and practice in both national and international affairs. This criterion applies with especial force to the particular services about which the hon. and gallant Member inquires. There is no document defining the objects of these services. Consultation and collaboration with the appropriate Departments is a continuous and daily process, and account is taken of all developments affecting the national interest.
§ Major BeamishIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the best B.B.C. broadcasts to the Communist-dominated countries are those which clearly depart from the directive to which he has referred? In view of the great change in the international situation, does he not think that it is about time that a new directive was given?
§ Mr. DaviesIt is not a question of a directive, but of consultation between the Departments concerned. To talk in terms of a directive is not accurate.
§ Mr. Walter FletcherIn arriving at his decision on policy, do the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues take into account the monitoring scripts of all broadcasts that 1271 are coming from the Communist countries, particularly in the Far East, where very good guidance as to what is most effective can be obtained?
§ Mr. DaviesYes, Sir. The B.B.C. runs its own monitoring service, which is of inestimable value.
§ Sir W. SmithersIs the hon. Gentleman aware that many of the existing B.B.C. broadcasts, such as "Soviet View" and "Soviet Affairs" are, in fact, subtle Communist propaganda, and that there are far too many fellow-travellers in the B.B.C.?
§ Mr. DaviesIf there are, they seem to have very little effect.
§ 15. Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that no proper machinery exists to coordinate British Broadcasting Corporation's broadcasts to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to Communist-dominated countries in Europe which are members of the Cominform, to the Baltic States or to China, with United States Government broadcasts to these countries or with broadcasts of Free Europe Radio: and if he will take urgent steps to set up suitable machinery.
§ Mr. Ernest DaviesNo, Sir. His Majesty's Government collaborate closely with the United States Government in matters of broadcasting policy. In this way, there is adequate co-ordination, and no additional machinery is necessary. Radio Free Europe is a non-Governmental organisation with which no direct liaison has been found necessary.
§ Major BeamishIs not the hon. Gentleman aware that Radio Free Europe has the open and acknowledged blessing of the State Department? In those circumstances, since it is broadcasting to the Communist-dominated countries of Eastern Europe, how can he possibly say that no liaison is necessary?
§ Mr. DaviesAs I have said, we collaborate and consult with the United States Government in these matters, but Radio Free Europe is not operated or administered in any way by the United States Government.
§ Major BeamishIs the hon. Gentleman aware that he is wholly misinformed, that some liaison does already take place, and 1272 that what I am asking for is proper liaison?
§ Mr. DeedesIs the hon. Gentleman aware that "The Voice of America" broadcast non-stop for 48 hours and in 28 languages explaining very fully our reply to the Soviet Note? Did we know about that, and what they were saying?
§ Mr. DaviesYes, Sir. I have already explained that we have consultation and collaboration with the State Department, which operates "The Voice of America," and that we have a monitoring service which monitors all broadcasts sent out from all stations.
§ Lieut.-Colonel LiptonHas my hon. Friend any evidence to indicate that these broadcasts are making any difference at all?
§ Brigadier MedlicottIs the Minister satisfied, beyond any possible doubt, that there is allocated to the B.B.C. a wholly adequate number of wavelengths for this most vital purpose?
§ Mr. DaviesAllocation of wavelengths is made according to the Copenhagen Plan. Unfortunately, under that Plan, we are in difficulties with certain wavelengths which cover Germany, and Eastern Germany in particular, and discussions in that respect are now going on.
§ Major BeamishIn view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall compete with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Hopkinson) in the ballot for the Motion for the Adjournment, so that I can raise this subject again.