DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE. (Hansard, 23 February 1922)

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department)
This Vote is one to authorise His Majesty's Government to take part in the Brazilian Centenary Exhibition to be held in the summer and autumn of next year at Rio de Janeiro. In view of the very long association which this country has had with Brazil, and the very large amount of British capital which has been used in the development of Brazilian undertakings, I feel that the House will certainly desire that this country should be represented at the Brazilian Centenary, which is unique in Brazilian history. An invitation has been given to the British Empire, the United States, and to the principal countries in Europe. They have accepted the invitation of Brazil to take part in the centenary and all are going to erect buildings in the Exposition.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that while I am wishful to secure authority—to be in order—to spend up to £35,000 this year on this centenary, that the country will not be called upon to find more money than has already been given to my Department, because I have been able to effect savings in administration in the present financial year sufficient to cover the £35,000. I also have to acknowledge the action which has been taken by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Rothschild), who has organised a committee in the City of London representing large Brazilian interests. That Committee has raised a sum of money which will be used, together with the Government grant, for the promotion of the British part of the Centenary Exhibition. One other point. The House, I feel sure, will wish to be assured that if we do take part in this exhibition that the money to be spent will be spent in the most businesslike way possible to secure the best results—

§ Mr. KILEY
Hear, hear!

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
I felt sure my hon. Friend would want an assurance on that point. We are working in conjunction with the committee, to which I have referred, representing the principal Brazilian interests in this country, and His Majesty's Ambassador in Rio de Janeiro has a similar commitee to assist 2215 him. In that way we shall get out of the exhibition the best possible value for our expenditure. It is the intention of the Government, and those associated with it, to present the British building at the end of the exhibition to the Brazilian Government as a permanent memorial, which, I think, is very right and proper action to be taken.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
In the speech to which we have just listened, it seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary has missed the main point of this Supplementary Estimate. He says the Vote is but a little one, only £10, because of anticipated savings of £4,990. No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman that the savings in his Department should have been far more considerable than £4,990—

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
They are.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Anyone who has followed the Brazilian exchange during the last year must realise that the enormous fall in that exchange has increased the value of English money in that country, has increased the value of the subvention that we are making to this Brazilian Exposition; therefore, there ought to have been no Supplementary Estimate whatsoever, but big savings on this Vote, due to that increased purchasing power. But the point to which I want to draw the attention of the Committee is of much greater importance than that. The real question is: Why are we paying the money of the British taxpayer for this Exposition in Rio de Janeiro? The hon. Gentleman opposite has given away the key of the position. He has pointed out that there is a committee representing Brazilian interests, presided over by a member of the Rothschild family. Everyone knows that the Rothschild family and Brazilian interests are one. They have been responsible for floating most of the loans to that country. They are par excellence the British house most interested in Brazilian development.
Under these circumstances, why should the British taxpayer go to their assistance in order to advertise, at our expense, in Brazil? We all know these big exhibitions are really gigantic advertisements. It is perfectly obvious that firms send exhibits to these exhibitions in order to increase the sale of their goods, and not 2216 merely to amuse the people who go through the turnstiles. The firms are quite ready to spend money, and so long as individual initiative and enterprise endures, every private firm that wants to extend its business will make full use of every exhibition, and good trade is likely to be done with a reasonable expenditure.

§ Mr. A. M. SAMUEL
Why not?

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I agree with the hon. Member, why not? But we ought not to ask the taxpayer to pay what the firms ought to pay themselves. If this is good business, let the business people pay. If it is not good business, do not come down upon the British taxpayer and ask him to pay. With the Brazilian exchange as it is at the present time it is almost impossible to sell our goods in Brazil at the present rate of exchange. But the main principle is this: We do dislike the British taxpayer being made to pay for what ought to be the overhead charges of the business people who are advertising in that exhibition.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
I do not take any exception to this Vote in which money is to be spent to erect a pavilion at the Brazilian Centenary Exhibition. We are likely to spend a good deal of money at that Exhibition, and in respect to this Vote the general body of taxpayers will benefit, for it will give a lift to our export trade. There is, however, another side to this question which I should like to mention.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
What about the British taxpayer?

§ Mr. SAMUEL
By the expenditure of the money, the general body of the nation will undoubtedly benefit in the extra trade brought into the country which will filter through from the factory to the railways, through various subsidiary British manufacturers, shipowners, insurance brokers and the like.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Then if that be so, why did the hon. Gentleman oppose the grant in aid of the Russian Famine, which will do precisely the same thing?

§ Mr. SAMUEL
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has no right to say that I oppose the grant. I am not responsible for what others do. I am only too glad to seize this opportunity of giving the 2217 manufacturer and the workman something which they need. I am very glad to see the chance of extending our own overseas trade, but, as I said, there is another side of this Vote, and I have a word to say about it, more especially as I see my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs present, sitting alongside the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Department. What is the good of increasing our trade to the South American neighbouring countries—and our trade can only be increased there by exporting our capital in the form of manufactured goods—and the more capital we put into South America the better it is for this country, because it goes out in the form of manufactured goods—and this exhibition may help us—what is the good, I say, when, after we have sent out our money, these countries maltreat our capital? I put that point, to the two hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, representing the Government. I do not blame either of them particularly; I am partly referring to exhibitions in the past, which increased our trade to South America. I want to draw attention to the fact that much of the Argentine railway capital is held in this country. It went out of this country—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have some doubt whether I should allow the hon. Gentleman to talk about Brazil, but I have no doubt about it that he cannot talk about the Argentine.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
I will take the general principle. If we are to let money go out of this country in the form of manufactured goods overseas as the result of an exhibition assisted as this is through a Department of the Board of Trade, surely the Department ought to see to it that the results of our enterprise are not jeopardised, and that if anything unfair happens, say, to goods going into South America through Rio de Janeiro, our grievance should receive immediate attention so that our efforts shall not be brought to nought and our capital wasted by maltreatment of our investment of capital in South American trade. I should not be in order in giving an example of what I mean, but I think on this Vote I should be in order, at all events I trust you will allow me to put my view of the matter on this Vote, and that is, that the Depart- 2218 ment which asks for this money should make up its mind whether it or the Foreign Office is going to look after our interests in these South American matters. I think in the past the Foreign Office has signally failed, if I may say so, in looking after our interests in South America, and now is the opportunity for the Department which is applying for this Vote.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Gentleman may argue that we will not vote for this sum of money unless he receives an assurance from the Foreign Office for which he asks, but unfortunately it would not be in order for the Foreign Office to give such assurance at present.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
Then what about the control of the Overseas Department?

§ Lord R. CECIL
On a point of Order. Is it not right to say that the Department of Overseas Trade is under the Foreign Office?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes, and it is open to the hon. Member to put his point. But I am afraid it would be an undue extension of this Supplementary Vote for the representative of the Foreign Office to make a statement.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Would it be in order for the hon. Member to point out that it is not desirable to vote this further sum of money for Brazil while the Brazilian Government treats our railways in the way they do?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Yes, I think so. I think that it would be in order. But I do not think it would be in order to allow the Debate to extend to what possible action the Foreign Office might take in the matter. The limitations of the Supplementary Estimate are very strict.

§ Mr. A. M. SAMUEL
I will, of course, follow your ruling, Mr. Hope, and I will not deal with the Foreign Office. I did not want to commence with the Overseas Department right off, because it seemed to me this was the business of the Foreign Office, but as the Foreign Office cannot officially reply to my observations, I will attach the blame to the Overseas Department, and challenge them to give me an answer, and I trust that before I vote for this Resolution I shall be given an assurance by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Department of Overseas Trade will 2219 look after the interests of British capital in South America in the future better than that task has been performed in the past.

§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTH
If in matters such as these the Government are willing to spend money; if they enter into various schemes, whether it be putting up a pavilion at an exhibition in Brazil or something else, then I think they ought to receive a certain amount of warning in the matter. I will admit that I look with some suspicion at any Vote that comes up in the name of the Department of Overseas Trade. The Geddes Committee told us that this Department should be entirely wiped out, and what remains of it should be transferred to the Board of Trade itself. That being so, and in view of the scathing comments contained in the Report, we must consider the Votes that come before us from the Department with perhaps more earnestness than we would in the ordinary course. We have been told to-night that there is a committee in the City which has organised a fund to provide, not the whole of the money, but a certain proportion for the pavilion at the exhibition in Brazil. I really do not see if that committee was possible, and if they found it was possible to do so much, why the whole of the money could not have been provided for the purpose. It would have been spent, I have no doubt, more economically. There would not have been so much starch involved. I am perfectly certain that we should not have wanted this enormous sum of money in order to put a pavilion up and to carry out the purpose of the Vote, which is to help our trade in Brazil. The fact that that Committee exists, is so well known, and has such wealthy backing leads me to think that it would have found it worth while to put up this pavilion whether the Government gave help or no. But knowing no doubt that the Government did not make much difficulty about providing money for such exhibitions they no doubt pressed the Government to provide money, and the Government gave way. I do not know whether it would be advisable to move a reduction, but I do think a, protest is needed on this occasion that these moneys are too easily given by the Government. Where possible, private firms should pro- 2220 vide money to advertise their own goods and the Government should not interfere in the matter.

§ Lord ROBERT CECIL
I agree with much that has fallen from the hon. Member who preceded me. It seems to me very doubtful whether at a moment like this we should be spending money in this way. Let us understand exactly what the public case for this expenditure is. We are to give money which will directly inure to the benefit of those who have got trade interests in Brazil. That is the object, the advertisement of British trade in Brazil. Indirectly it will inure to the benefit of British trade generally. As the case is made out it will benefit the financial interests in Brazil directly, and inasmuch as all trade is one the advantage will come back to the traders and the work-people in this country. That is the case for this expenditure. In other words, this is to be a grant-in-aid of trade interests in Brazil which will inure for the benefit primarily of very rich people and secondarily for the benefit of the workpeople in this country. No objection is raised by any supporters of the Government to this proposal. If we are going to carry that through and accept it as a doctrine, which we ought to act upon in all cases, I should be very much tempted to support the Government, and I will tell him why. If it is right to make this, kind of grant, it is clear it must be more right to make it if the primary beneficiaries are not to be rich people, but poor people. Yet when I have suggested in this House on one or two occasions that in the case of a greatly distressed country such as Russia, we ought to make grants which would ultimately inure for the benefit of the poor people of this country, my proposal was greeted with shouts and howls of derision from the benches opposite. I think that is a very lamentable state of things, and I should indeed deeply regret if the British Parliament were to say they saw no objection to making this grant, which is going to be a benefit to rich people, when they have treated so far with such hostility a grant which is primarily intended to save starving people from starvation. If we are to be told that this is part of a general policy by which money is to be spent in foreign countries in assisting British trade, I would be disposed to support it, but if it is to be said we are to spend £35,000 2221 in assisting well-known financial and trading interests in this country and at the same time refuse to do anything for the Russian peasant then I should be strongly inclined to vote against it.

§ Mr. RHYS DAVIES
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £5.
Any Member representing a Lancashire Division will naturally be interested in a Vote of this kind. The wording of the final paragraph at the foot of page 8 is very subtle— The total expenditure by His Majesty's Government in connection with the Rio Janeiro Exhibition will not exceed £35,000, of which it is anticipated that £5,000 will be required during the current financial year, As an amateur in this House, I would like to know whether, in passing this Vote, we are simply passing £5,000 or the whole £35,000.

§ Lord R. CECIL
The whole £35,000.

§ Mr. DAVIES
Then I would like to know what proportion does this £35,000 bear to any sum given by any other country. I think that is a fair question. The representative of the Government this evening seemed to minimise the amount of this sum, but it is rather a large sum to spend on a venture of this kind. I want to combat, if I may, what has been stated by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) on my left that it follows of necessity if we increase our trade with Brazil through this exhibition that benefit will accrue to the workpeople of this country. That does not follow. Our people will probably find more work by means of extending our trade through an exhibition of this kind. But that does not of necessity increase their income.

§ Mr A. M. SAMUEL
It will increase their opportunity of work.

§ Mr. DAVIES
But it does not follow their income will be increased as a consequence. The Committee ought to have a little more information on another point. It is stated at the foot of the page that Additional sums are being raised by private subscription. We ought to know something as to the amount subscribed by private individuals in this connection. The Lancashire 2222 people do an immense amount of trade with South American States, but I think Lancashire people in the main do their trade on their own account. They advertise their business and have agents in Brazil to do business for them, and I am somewhat surprised that the Government, the Government of economy, the Government of the Geddes Report, is coming forward and asking this Committee for £35,000 to spend on what appears to me to be a very foolish venture indeed. I would like to ask before I sit down if the representative of the Government will tell us in connection with heading G, "Exhibitions and Fairs (including purchase of samples)," whether, in making purchases of this kind, the Government will distinguish between goods produced in one county like Lancashire and those produced in another, say in the South of England. That may appear a paltry point to bring before the Committee but I am anxious that if this Vote is given Lancashire trade shall have fair play. I would also like to know whether any sums are being granted by the Colonies towards this exhibition I hope we shall go to a division against this sum.

§ Mr. HASLAM
I certainly find myself unable to follow or understand the arguments of the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord it Cecil) and the hon. Member who has just sat down, that if you hold this exhibition it will he for the emolument and enrichment of already rich people. I thought the main object of an exhibition was to encourage industry and find employment. Employment is badly wanted just now, and I think the Government are fully justified in doing everything they can to stimulate trade. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he has any information as to what sums have been voted for this exhibition by foreign countries. If he has such information it would be interesting to know why if they think it is wise to vote sums of money for such an exhibition we should take a different view. I do not know whether such sums have been voted, but I gather that is the case. I believe these exhibitions in foreign countries showing our goods are of very great value and do a great deal towards stimulating our trade and finding employment for the great masses of the people who are at the present time so sorely in need of work.

§ Mr. KILEY
This happens to be one of the very few occasions on which I find myself able to support the Overseas Trade Department. The Overseas Trade Department have entered into the exhibition business and run exhibitions of their own, and owing to the special facilities which they enjoy they are able to run other exhibition holders out of the market, and usually succeed in transferring trade from one set of traders to another. But a case of this kind, when the object is to advertise British industry and trade in Brazil, is one that is worthy of the support of this Committee. I would like to clear up one matter on which considerable doubt has arisen, and that is that the British trader who desires to exhibit at this exhibition does so at his own cost. He engages a space and pays his own expenses. Therefore, as far as individual traders are concerned, there is no question of the Government doing anything for them individually. But the Government themselves are taking a part. They have what is known as a pavilion, and they are taking a very active interest. This has been done not only at this exhibition but at all great International Exhibitions, and not alone is Great Britain taking part, but all the principal countries in the world are doing likewise. Therefore, it would be as well for the Committee to have that information before them. There is one point on which the Parliamentary Secretary might give information, and that is on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate. The figure specified in the Vote is £35,000. I understand that outside of this there is a sum of £45,000 collected in the City, which makes a total of £80,000 to be spent on this pavilion and general work. If that is so, £80,000 is a very large sum of money. One realises that in Brazil expenses are very much higher than in this country, and therefore more money requires to be provided. But on the other hand there is a depreciation of their exchange, and that might enable some reduction of this very large sum of £80,000 to be effected. If so, that would do something perhaps to modify the objections of some of the hon. Members who have spoken. If, however, that be not possible, I think this is one of the few occasions on which the Com- 2224 mittee would be well advised in supporting the Government in the action which they have taken.

§ Mr. J. WALLACE
There is an item, "Purchase of Samples." I want to know what it means. I should have thought there would have been no purchasing of samples, but that anyone exhibiting would be only too glad to supply samples.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
Several questions have been asked of the Minister on this Vote and we hope a reply will be forth coming before the Division is called. In the earlier part of his speech the Minister made great play with the fact that his Department were economising and had reduced their expenditure. May I remind him that a different view was taken on that subject by the Geddes Report in which I find these words: Their activities overseas are being curtailed to a very small—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can bring that in on this Vote.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
The Minister advanced this definite argument in favour of the House of Commons voting this money this evening, that he, through his Department, had economised in other directions and therefore the taxpayer would not have any further burden placed on his shoulders by this Supplementary Estimate. I think I shall be in Order, without going into details, in pointing out to the Committee that this Department has been judged and found wanting by the Geddes Committee.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is quite out of Order. The Minister simply said there was money in hand. Whether it might be more is another question. The right hon. Gentleman can ask how the money came to be in hand, but he cannot argue against the whole policy of the Department.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
The Minister this evening invites the Committee to grant a sum of £5,000 towards a sum of £35,000 which will be ultimately required, and I suggest to the Committee that in deciding whether this new Vote should be passed by the House they are entitled to judge by the records of the Department in the past, and if it can be shown—

§ The CHAIRMAN
That is exactly what is not in order. The discussion must be confined to the Estimate.

§ Sir G. COLLINS
Then I will turn to the Supplementary Estimate itself and argue whether this expenditure is justifiable or not. In the original Estimate large sums of money were voted by this House for different exhibitions in different parts of the country and overseas. This evening the Minister invites the House of Commons to grant a further large sum of money for a similar purpose in another country. My right hon. Friend suggested that the industries which might benefit or expect to benefit by the institution of this exhibiiton and the preparation of the British pavilion in Rio in 1922 should pay for the cost of this pavilion. I think that is a thoroughly sound proposition. It is not as if this House had been negligent or cheeseparing in granting large sums of money to the Ministry. They have been generous in the Estimates for the present year for that purpose, and I think we should now call a halt to the activities of this Department. I have been ruled out of Order, and have no desire to infringe the ruling of the Chair on that point, but I do suggest that the test whether the policy of the Department is a wise one is to be found in the Geddes Report, in which the Department has been judged and found wanting.

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Several of the speakers are somewhat under a mis-conception as to the nature of this exhibition. It is not simply a trade exhibition. It is a great centenary exhibition promoted by the Republic of Brazil, and I think it would be a very serious slight if, this country having received an invitation to take part in it, the Government declined to do so. The Government have sought to exercise economy in this matter. It considered very carefully whether it was possible to raise the money entirely from private sources, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself met representatives in the City to discuss that point. But it became perfectly clear that the whole of the money could not be raised in that way. I have been asked how much has been raised by the subscription in the City. I think it amounts to about £26,000. My hon. and gallant Friend quite misunderstood the position in 2226 savings. They will not be savings made out of the Brazilian Exchange. My statement was that savings had already been made in the Department which would be sufficient to cover both the immediate grants and the future grant which the House will be asked to give.

§ Lord R. CECIL
Am I right in supposing that if these savings were not contributed to this purpose they would go in reduction of Debt?

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Yes, of course, the Noble Lord is right in that. I was asked also whether the other countries which are participating in the exhibition have voted money in the same way and whether our Vote is singularly out of proportion to their contributions. The Committee will see that the Vote really authorises the Government to spend £35,000. The United States of America, to which special reference has been made, has voted 1,000,000 dollars for this purpose. The French Government have, I understand, voted 5,000,000 francs, and therefore I do not think that the expenditure by this Government of £35,000 is unreasonable, in view of the expenditure by the United States, who, after all, are keen trade rivals of ours in Brazil. One other question was raised, and that is as to the assistance given by individual traders. My hon. Friend was correct in saying that traders who wished to exhibit their own goods will, of course, pay their rental at the exhibition and their own expenses in the usual way. In regard to the assessment of the rent, the committee which is managing this will try, of course, to secure the most favourable terms. I observe that an objection was raised by the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. E. Harmsworth). I remember reading an article in the "Times" newspaper not very long ago in regard to this very centenary exhibition in which it was pointed out how very important it was that the British Government should take part in it.

§ Mr. E. HARMSWORTH
That is hardly relevant. I am not in any way responsible for that article.

§ Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME
Even if the hon. Member was not responsible, I am sure he will agree that it is a very reasonable authority to which to appeal. I do feel there can be [...] course open to the 2227 Government except to take part in this centenary celebration and I suggest it is being done in the most economical way,