HC Deb 02 March 1925 vol 181 cc108-33

Resodution Reported, That it is expedient to amend the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Act, 1920, and the British Empire Exhibition (Amendment) Act, 1922. by increasing from one hundred thousand pounds to one million one hundred thousand pounds the amount lip to which a guarantee may he given there-. under, and by providing that those Acts shall have effect as if they had authorised the giving of a guarantee in respect of any loss resulting from the holding of a British Empire Exhibition in the years nineteen hundred and twenty-four and nineteen hundred and twenty-five. Motion made, and Question proposed," That this House cloth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

When this Vote was last before the douse, information was given by the hon. Member in charge of the Financial Resolution; information of a somewhat varied character. Questions were put to him from the Front Opposition Bench, and the result of the cross-examination was that the Parliamentary Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department paid very high compliments to his predecessor in office, and his predecessor in office said how extremely well the present occupant of the office was dealing with the subjects that were put before him. They exchanged compliments to their great mutual satisfaction, but I am afraid that in doing so the information which the Committee required regarding the finances of the Wembley Exhibition, and the guarantees which we are asked to extend, was not given. Inquiries were put gently on one side, and there seemed to he a desire to keep the discussion on the smoothest possible lines. The Minister in charge of the Vote must have been the despair of the reporters in the Press Gallery, for, with the greatest possible rapidity, seldom excelled in this House, he gave us the most meagre information.

The hon. Member was asked a number of questions which are of great importance if we are to safeguard the expenditure of public money with any care. The first subject on which I would like the hon. Member to enlighten us is, how and when the various guarantees which have been promised by the Government were given'? As far as I can gather from the circulars issued by the exhibition authorities, the circular of July, 1920, asking private guarantors to create a fund, without which the exhibition could not be held, declared that It will be financed by means of credits obtained from banks on the security of the guarantee fund, to which His Majesty's Government have agreed, subject to the sanction of Parliament, to contribute £100,000. So far as I can ascertain—this did not appear in the narrative which the hon. Member gave us—that £100,000 was the first guarantee. The next information that I have been able to procure on the subject was in the form of a communication, addressed to the signatories to the deficiency undertaking, commonly known as the guarantors. In that document it is stated that the Government guarantee was to be raised to £1,000,000, not to £1,100,000, as is now proposed in this Financial Resolution. The Government guarantee was to be raised to £1,000,000 "provided that sufficient support comes from the Dominions and Colonies, exhibitors, etc., and that the consent of the guarantors is given to the continuation of their guarantees."

Therefore, between the period in 1920, when the first undertaking was given, and November, 1024, the guarantee had gone up from £100,000 to £1,000,000. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the guarantee went up in stages. In May of last year, apparently, a communication was sent either to the hon. Member's Department or to the Treasury making it clear that the Duke of Devonshire had made himself responsible, either on behalf of himself or for others associated with him, for a guarantee of £500,000. In May of last year, therefore, the guarantee stood in this form—the private guarantors were the guarantees for £1,000,000, there was the guarantee of £100,000 promised by the Government, and the guarantee of £500,000 which the Duke of Devonshire had initialed. So that the guarantees stood at £600,000 outside the amount guaranteed by the private guarantors.

In May, 1924, the Duke of Devonshire asked the Government then in office to undertake his guarantee of £500,000 and, as far as I can ascertain—the compliments between the two front benches on the last occasion were so numerous and passed so rapidly that we never got any information on the subject—the hon. Member's predecessor in office gave an undertaking that the Government would take over the Duke of Devonshire's guarantee of £500,000. That may have been quite proper, and I daresay it was, but we ought to have been told about that, not only in the last Session of Parliament, but when a fresh Vote was asked for last week. That guarantee of £500,000 plus the £100,000 guarantee that the Government hail already given, brought up the Government's guarantee to £600,000, and a further £400,000 teas, apparently, apparently, promised in November, 1924, for it was in November, 1924, that the signatories to the deficiency undertaking were communicated with. That brought the Government guarantee, if that promise were carried out, up to £1,000,000. Now, there is an addition of £100,000. Therefore, the Government guarantee hart gone up from £100,000 to £600,000, including the £500,000 guarantee taken over, then to £1,000,000, and now to £1,100,000.

What we want to know, and what the House is entitled to know as the guardians of the public purse, is this: where is this sort of thing to stop'? What is going to be done if the exhibition of 1925 shows another heavy loss? Is the Government committed to guaranteeing that deficiency, whatever it may come to? If the Government is not committed, who is going to make up the deficiency? I do not ask merely whether the Government is committed in writing, but I want to know whether there are any under standings. Apparently there was every reason to suppose that in May of last year the Government was committed to what may be called the Devonshire half-million, in addition to the Government's other responsibility. If there be a deficiency this year greater than that which is now anticipated, is this House going to be asked to make up that deficiency?

Another point on which further information might have been given to the Committee, and which 1 hope will now be given to the House, is, what is to happen if, instead of making a loss, the exhibition makes a profit this year? As far as I can gather from the circular of November, 1924, part of that profit will be used to reduce the amount of the private guarantees, and to provide, after the payment of taxes and Government duties, any contribution which may have to be given to the Dominions, Colonies or others for co-operating in the exhibition. What are the undertakings with regard to the Dominions, the Colonies, and others who are co-operating in the exhibition? Has any undertaking been given in writing in regard to the contributions from the Dominions, Colonies and others? Are they to be entitled to a share of the profits? Are they to be entitled to any share in the assets which may remain? If there have been any undertakings given, why should they not be disclosed to the House? If they were given, when were they given?? In the circular issued by the exhibition authorities, it is clear that part of the surplus, if there be any surplus, will be used for the payment of contributions to the Dominions, the Colonies arid others. This information was not- given to us when the Vote was asked for in Committee, and it. is only fair that it should be given to us now, so that we may know exactly where we stand in regard to the profits, if there be any, and in regard to any loss that there may be.

When the exhibition is wound up there will be, no doubt, a number of creditors, unless there has been a very large profit made in the exhibition during the next few months. Lloyds Bank are the first creditors. They hold the guarantee of the private guarantors, and they also hold the guarantee of the Government up to the present year. They will be covered for an advance which has now reached £1,800,000 by guarantees amounting to £1,700,000. There remains a sum of £100,000 still to be covered. Has that hiatus already been filled? I am informed, and I should be glad to know whether it is the case or not, that the freehold property of the Wembley Exhibition authorities has been guaranteed to Lloyds Bank, and that a first mortgage has been registered. Does that mean that, whereas Lloyds Bank will have an advance up to £1,700 fully covered at 20s. in the £, and has only £100,000 at risk, we are to be asked in this House to guarantee £1,100,000, and that we are to have no share in the assets, if there be any? That question was put by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) last. week, and no answer was given to him. The Minister in charge of the Bill ought to tell the House whether, if the property is sold, we are to share in the distribution of the assets, or are they to he held entirely by Lloyds Bank to cover themselves'? It we advance £1,100,000 on what is, in fact, a semi-private public undertaking, we should also share in the division of any assets which may be left when the exhibition is wound up.

I have raised these various questions because I think it is right that this large sum of money should not be handed over to the exhibition authorities without their expenditure being carefully scrutinised and full information being given by the Minister responsible. The more one looks into the financial arrangements of the exhibition the more shocked one is at the looseness with which it was undertaken and administered last year and a year or two before the exhibition was held. The Minister in charge told us on the last occasion that this embarrassment arose very largely owing to the fact that the actual expenditure far exceeded the estimate. I am sure that in no similar case has the excess of expenditure been so large. The original estimate was £1,600,000 capital expenditure for buildings and land. It rose to £2,950,000 before these accounts were presented to the House of Commons, and the only explanation given by the hon. Gentleman of this great increase was that Borneo and Sarawak had come in. Certainly that. did not involve any great extension of the size of the exhibition. It did involve an extension, but that was very small and unimportant in comparison with the whole size of the exhibition, and of the British Empire.

There was no explanation of the very large expenditure over the original estimate given at the time. It is accounted for very largely by the fact that the contract was made for a great deal of the work on the basis of time and line, and that this was done at a time when labour and everything else were expensive, but no doubt the contractor took a satisfactory basis on the time and line arrangement, though he need not have done that for the contract itself provided for him. That is not the only instance of bad management in connection with the exhibition. The accounting itself was loose. I think that the hon. Gentleman himself confessed on the last occasion that the accounting was loose, and wherever you have loose accounting you are bound to have a waste of money. A great deal of this money was the money of the State. and it is only right that we should scrutinise with the greatest care the arrangements for the coming season lest we find ourselves at the close of the exhibition with no share of the assets, and with the possibility of a heavy deficit which would have to be met by a further guarantee. While criticising the financial methods of the exhibition, and the way in which the Department dealt with it, and the lack of scrutiny into the details of the expenditure, I do not undervalue in the least the Imperial service which the exhibition has done, but I doubt whether we are justified in embarking on this large financial guarantee for an exhibition in its second year, as there has been no example in this country in the past of an exhibition which was opened for a second year, and which turned out to be a success.

M. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department)

Perhaps I may now deal with the important points which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman, while they are fresh in our minds. In the first place may I correct a misapprehension under which he has laboured? He said that I had said that the expenditure had gone up from £1,600,000 because Sarawak and British North Borneo had come in. What I said was that the increase in the amount of the expenditure was caused by the fact that all the units of the British Empire came in except the Irish Free State and British North Borneo. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not try to misrepresent me, but what he has, by a misunderstanding, stated is contrary to the facts.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I do not wish to be in the least unfair, but the rapidity with which the hon. Gentleman dealt with the question made it impossible to follow him. What the right hon. Gentleman did say was that there was an unforeseen extension of the exhibition—I do not care whether it was Sarawak or Borneo—and that that accounted for the expenditure being nearly doubled.

Mr. SAMUEL

I will take the right hon. Gentleman through this White Paper which I have ventured to lay before the House, and explain the balance sheet, to enable me to clear up for him the matter of £100,000 and of the guarantee to which he referred. At the bottom of page 2, he can see that there is an amount advanced by Lloyds Bank to the exhibition authorities of £1,800,000 to make up the deficit. On page 3, he will see that the total of the guarantee fund, excluding the Government guarantee, is £1,107,991. That is the amount which was provided by public-spirited private persons. Then we have the Government guarantee of £100,000, making the total guarantee fund £1,207,991. That leaves us with a shortage of £600,000. The guarantee of £100,000 is a guarantee of July, 1921. Then in May, 1924, the Government Resolution guaranteed a further £500,000. That brings up the credit, to meet the £1,800,000, to £1,700,00. There is, thus, £100,000 shortage. It is asked how is that shortage covered. it has been covered by Lloyds Bank taking a charge upon the site and the roads and the buildings of the exhibition.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

A first mortgage.

Mr. SAMUEL

Well, a charge. To recapitulate: As I explained before the deficit was £1,800,000, The Government's first guarantee was £1,100,000. The guarantee of private guarantors was £1,100,000. These two guarantees made £1,200,000, rendering it necessary to raise £600,000 to cover the deficit. Against this there is the £500,000 covered by the Resolution passed by this House in May last, and there is also the £100,000 advanced by Lloyds Bank for which they have taken a charge upon the property. The right hon. Gentleman raised the point about the Duke of Devonshire, and in this connection let me pay a tribute to the Duke of Devonshire. If the Duke had not taken the responsibility of guaranteeing the £500,000 the whole exhibition would have shut up. The late Government took over that guarantee, and the House of Commons ratified the promise of the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the £500,000 should be put on the shoulders of the taxpayer. That was how the Duke of Devonshire guaranteed that £500,000 and how the responsibility was taken off his shoulders.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

May we take it that it was the Duke's own private guarantee and was not given by him as Secretary for the Colonies?

Mr. SAMUEL

It was with the public spirit which marks his every action, and the House, I am sure, is very much obliged to him. The House is committed to nothing beyond what is now set out—the £1,100,000. The right hon. Gentleman asked how that was split up. There is £100,000 of July, 1921, there was the £500,000 dealt with in the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman of May, 1924, and there is the request now for the further £500,000 which is lumped in with the £600,000 made up of £100,000 and £500,000, bringing the total up to £1,100,000. The right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of figures, is perfectly right in drawing attention to the jump from £400,000 to £500,000. That was made because it was found that the £400,000 would be an incorrect estimate, and we had to do what we thought was necessary to give a correct estimate.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what would be the position of the guarantors if there was a profit. I can give a definite answer to that. I have taken occasion to find out. exactly what would happen in such an unlikely event. I am afraid that there will not he any profit after the guarantors are paid, and I hold out no hope of a profit, but, if there is anything left over, it is laid down that any profit, after all expenses have been met and the guarantors have been recouped the full amount of the guarantee, shall be devoted to public objects approved by the Board of Trade. The question has been asked as to what is the position of the guarantors in the event of a loss? If the right hon. Gentleman would look at the document of July, 1921, I think that he will find that this is defined in Clause 2, in the Form of Undertaking to Subscribe. I read it to mean that. the guarantors would probably be called on first to make good what they guaranteed because the realisation of the assets may take a considerable time. Then, when all the assets are realised and the amount due to Lloyd's Bank has been discharged, any balance which may remain will be used for a refund, or a partial refund, to the guarantors of whatever amount they may have been called upon to pay. That is to say, after paying all debts, charges and costs, any money left would he for the benefit of the guarantors. I do not think that there is any other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman which remains to be dealt with.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

Does that apply to the private guarantees and not to the State guarantee?

Mr. SAMUEL

They are pari passu. They both stand together. That was the question which the right hon. Gentleman put to the House when we debated this point the other day. I think that that Debate made it clear that we stand to recoup ourselves pari passuwith the other guarantors, if there is anything left after the debts and charges of the exhibition have been paid.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

What is to happen if there is a loss over and above the amount of the guarantees?

Mr. SAMUEL

If more money should be required than is covered by these guarantees, someone will have to come along, and put up a fresh guarantee to cover those requirements. It would probably take the form of a charge on the property. We have no intention now of asking the House to assume any further liability with regard to the exhibition. I have answered these points without delay as they seem to present some difficulty. If there are any other points raised later on I will ask permission to deal with them, but 1 thought it better for the convenience of the House to deal with all these points of accounting at once.

Sir ALFRED BUTT

I have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation of the White Paper, and confess that I am still at a loss to understand what is the proposal before the House. As far as I can see, there is a deficit of £1,800,000, and there are private guarantees at the moment for £1,100,000, which, I think the Parliamentary Secretary has said, are liable to be substantially 90 per cent. If we take it at £1,000,000, there is still a deficiency of £800,000. The Parliamentary Secretary is asking us to increase the total Government guarantee to the sum of £1,100,000, so that if the £800,000 be taken from the total guarantee of the Government, there will remain £300,000. Against that an addition has to be made of £150,000 owing to the Government for Entertainments Duty. As far as I can make out from the Memorandum, there will be a sum of only £150,000 available for this year's exhibition. The figures seem to me to be quite clear. According to this White Paper, the remaining guarantee of the Government was to provide £500,000 for the opening of the exhibition this year. I think it is quite clear that there is a discrepancy there of something like £350,000. When I read the last lines of the White Paper, I find these words: The additional guarantee of £1,000,000 will rank pari passu with the original Government guarantee of £100,000 and those given by firms, corporations, private individuate, etc. If my interpretation of these words be correct, they mean in effect that of the Government guarantee they will be called upon to pay something like 81 per cent. in order to discharge the present liability, and they will thereby relieve the present guarantors, whose money is wholly lost, to the extent of 19 per cent., leaving only the difference between £896,000 and £1,100,000 for the future conduct of the exhibition. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary would explain why the Government should now be asked to provide money to rank pari passu with the existing guarantors, whose money is already irremediably lost? Why has no provision been made in regard to this claim for £150,000 Entertainments Duty? What is of even greater importance is that we have on successive occasions had Estimates placed before the House which have subsequently proved to be totally inadequate and misleading—Estimates which, if they had been produced in an ordinary trading concern, would have led to very serious criticism from the whole of the business community. As recently as May last the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department stated in this House that the total expenditure was something like £3,720,000. In fact, we are now told that it was £3,900,000, an increase of something like £200,000. At that same time the Parliamentary Secretary said that if 30,000,000 people visited the exhibition the receipts would be 13,500,000. In fact, they were 22,100,000. That is a difference of £1,700,000 between the estimate and the receipts. We have been told that the number of people who visited the exhibition was something like 17,000,000, so that if we give credit to the exhibition for the 13,000,000 who did not visit it, there is still a discrepancy: in the estimate of £1,000,000 on the receipt side and of £200,000 on the expenditure side.

I have been told on previous occasions that this has nothing to do with the Government, that they were only guarantors for insignificant sums, that the whole management rested with the British Empire Exhibition. That may have been true in 1920, when our guarantee was an insignificant sum of £100,000, but now that we are asked to guarantee more than half the total expenditure I think it is right that the House should have some better and fuller information, both with regard to the financial side and the business management of the exhibition. If the Parliamentary Secretary is able to do so, I wish he would tell the House whether he can give any assurance that the item of capital expenditure of £2,950,000 is an item which has been vouched for by any firm of repute. I am told that that item is at least £1,000,000 under the final cost for the exhibition. I do not think it is fair that this House. should be continuously asked to vote money in order that this exhibition can be carried on in a manner which, to say the least of it, would not be worthy of a seaside fair, and at the same time have no control over public expenditure. I say with full knowledge of the responsibility of my words that the British Empir3 Exhibition is a very great scandal. There is a great deal of corruption in regard to the management. I do not suggest for one moment that the Parliamentary Secretary, whose unenviable task it is to defend this Motion, has been able in the short time at his disposal to investigate the matter fully. But I do say that if this House is to be asked to pledge itself to continually increasing expenditure, it is only right that the Government should have placed before them a balance sheet properly audited by a firm of chartered accountants, showing the whole of the capital expenditure, and showing exactly what is to be done in future, so that we can know our liabilities.

Mr. MAXTON

I wish to refer to one or two points which have been raised before in this House, and to which no adequate reply has yet been given. I am supporting generally the view that the Government should take these financial burdens upon their shoulders. But before this House grants this considerable sum, I want an assurance that some regard will be had to the interests of the public, who have ultimately to find these sums. On previous occasions, when this Vote was before the House, hon. Members on the Labour Benches have asked from the Parliamentary Secretary that he should use some influence or take some steps, first of all to see that employ´s about the exhibition, employed direct or by exhibitors, have reasonable regard paid to their conditions, to their convenience, to their hours. of labour, and to their wages. It is not right that a great British Empire Exhibition, to which visitors will come from all parts of the world, should be displaying among its other exhibits an exhibit of underpaid, overwrought., and badly-treated workers. The best exhibit that any Empire can make to the world is a group of well-cared-for and well-thought-of employ´s. Throughout the period of the arrangements for this exhibition, during the period when it. was previously opened, and with regard to the arrangements now being made for the further opening, there has been a very well-grounded suspicion among hon. Members on these benches that many of the employ´s about the exhibition were not receiving what could be regarded as decent terms.

Secondly, it seems to me that, whether we become liable for our guarantees or not, depends entirely on whether people can be got in sufficient numbers to visit the exhibition this year. In this regard we have a right to ask the Government representative that they should bring every influence to bear upon the exhibition authorities to see that a visit to the exhibition is brought financially within the means of the average member of the working classes. Whether this next instalment of the exhibition is to be a success or a failure—upon that depends the extent of our financial liability—will depend entirely on the number of people who pass through the turnstiles each day and take part in the various interests of the exhibition. Last year the big mass of the working classes did not go to the exhibition. Consequently, the receipts were down to a considerable extent. Every entertainment caterer in the industrial centres—I do not know that this applies so much to London—has in recent years quite definitely come to the conclusion that it is better to have a full house at 3d. per head than an empty house at ls. a head. It seems to me that the Government can quite reasonably use influence with the exhibition authorities to see that, first of all, the charge for admission is brought within the range of a man who is earning £3 a week. That is a fairly high average sum in these days. If you want to get 40,000,000 people to visit the exhibition rather than a select few, you must make a very low admission charge. Further, when the visitor is inside you ought to take some reasonable steps to see that for the refreshment and food which he requires he shall be charged what is reasonable, comparable with the charges outside, that side-shows and entertainments of every kind are brought within the range of the working-class purse, and, perhaps more than anything, that steps should be taken to see that the cheapest means of transit are secured to bring people in from the provinces to the centre of London, and that cheap means of transit are provided from the centre of London to the exhibition.

Further, there is the point that has been brought before the House on more than one occasion, namely, that some really definite and drastic step should be taken to prevent profiteering by hotel keepers in London on people who come here from the country in order to go to the exhibition. I know that in answer to questions the Government have stated that no such profiteering takes place, except in a few rare instances. In the ordinary second and third rate hotels that ordinary people can afford it was very general that prices were raised sometimes by 100 per cent. over the pre-exhibition charges. Immediately the exhibition was over the prices reverted to their ordinary scale. In all these directions the Government should show itself genuinely anxious to get people to the exhibition and to make it a success, and thus reduce very considerably the liability which this House is being asked to take upon its shoulders for the success of the exhibition

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman). If he will not mind my saying so, I thought he was as adroit as ever in making out a rather difficult case. When you get a sadden jump of £100,000 in an estimate in a very few weeks, it takes a great deal of explaining away. There is, of course, no serious opposition to this sum of money being granted. The criticism of my right hon. Friend really summed up the position. The Imperial gains from this exhibition, 7.0 P.M. we hope, will be so great that no one will take the responsibility of refusing to make this guarantee. That is the position. Might I put those two points to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) before he replies. I hope he is not going to allow himself to be tempted into any question of the Sunday opening of this exhibition. I believe that would be a profound mistake, and repugnant to the majority of the people in this country who wish to see the Sabbath properly observed. I think it will be a great mistake if any such attempt be made. It will only add more terrible conditions of work for the people employed in the exhibition. [An HON. 'MEMBER: "More enjoyment for the workers!"] The hon. Member talks about more enjoyment for the workers. There is plenty of music on Sundays. The workers can go on other days of the week, especially if the suggestion of the hon.

Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) be accepted. Secondly, as we are now guaranteeing such a very large amount; we are practically financing the re-opening. The £600,000, if I may paraphrase, is to provide the exhibition authorities with finance to meet the expenses of re-opening in 1925. That being the case, I think the last excuse has been removed for the Government not insisting on Fair Wages Clauses being in all contracts and proper facilities and conveniences for all workers being supplied. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. M. Samuel) will find himself during the months to come, I hope, closely questioned from all parts of the House, if everything be not right and up to the mark, and he will not be able to say, as his predecessor and other hon. Gentlemen who had to answer for this exhibition said, "We have no real power; it is the guarantors." We are actually finding money now, and by every calculation will have to put down the cash; therefore, we must demand that it shall be worthy of such an exhibition held in the capital of the Empire.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON

I rise for one purpose only. I wish to congratulate the Minister most sincerely on the very important declaration that he has made to-night. He has declared to this House that this is the last time he is coming to us for money for Wembley. During the time Wembley has been under discussion, I think we all realise that the feeling on behalf of the exhibition is the same from whatever side of the House the Member speaks. At the same time, there has been a very uneasy feeling throughout the House with regard to Wembley finance. We know the Minister in charge is new to it, and we look to him to see that things are put straight. I hope we shall never have to remind him of the declaration he has made that he is never coming to this House for money again.

Captain GARRO-JONES

I shall not detain the House more than two minutes while I put before the Minister one or two points. The first is the question of the food supply to the exhibition. Last year in addition to gross examples of profiteering the service was totally inefficient, and there was a large number of cases of actual poisoning of people who went to take food in some of the restaurants.

These, I regret to say, were hushed up in the Press. In the allocation of new contracts, can he give the House the assurance that there will be satisfactory conditions with regard to food service and prices? The second question has regard to ex-service men. In my constituency, where we have a very large branch of the British Legion, the honorary secretary sent a request to the management of the exhibition asking whether he could bring up a small party of blind and disabled ex-service men, and whether they could get into the exhibition free of charge. He received a very curt refusal from the management of the exhibition, who said that disabled men would have to pay the same as anybody else. This is the British Empire Exhibition, and I should like 1.0 ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he could secure that disabled ex-service men should have the privilege of free admission.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL

I can only speak by leave of the House, and, if the House will permit me, I will reply to further points which have been raised. The hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt) asked me about the guarantors. The broad answer to him is this: The private guarantors were not forced to allow their guarantees to run on. Had we not made the present arrangement we could not have got them to carry their guarantees On. The understanding was that we came down to the House and asked for £500,000 and also allowed them to stand in pari passe. The hon. Gentleman also asked what we had done about the audit. I am glad to tell him that a very well-known firm audited the accounts and the audited balance sheet will he laid before the executive council this week. The chairman of the board of management is Lord Stevenson. I made a mistake the other day by saying it was the Duke of Devonshire. Lord Stevenson is chairman of the board of management, the Duke of Devonshire is a member and also chairman of the executive council, who have delegated their powers to the hoard of management. This body of gentlemen will see an audited account put forward this week. The firth has gone over the whole of the accounts.

Sir A. BUTT

My query was rather whether that figure of £2,950,000 of capital expenditure was a final figure, or whether there would be probably another million added to it.

Mr. SAMUEL

I have been long enough in commerce to know it is very difficult to know where the line should be drawn between capital expenditure and revenue expenditure. If there be a large expenditure necessary next year for maintaining the condition of the exhibition, I should not like, here and now, to say to which account that figure would be carried. I am sorry the hon. Member made a remark about "corruption." There is the Report to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary for India, the President of the Board of Trade, the President of the exhibition, by the present Secretary for Home Affairs. Here is a paragraph to which I would draw the attention of the House. This Report (Command Paper 1799) says: The granting of concessions for entertainments and amusements suggests lack of business acumen on the part of the authorities," etc.

Sir A. BUTT

That refers to a Report two years ago.

Mr. SAMUEL

This Report is 23rd January, 1923.

Sir A. BUTT

May I say that my observations referred to the period since that report was issued.

Mr. SAMUEL

Here is a charge, two years ago, similar to that made by the hon. Gentleman: Although no definite charge of corruption was made, I consider it desirable to take notice of this suggestion, etc. I have formed the opinion that there is no corruption of any kind. If the hon. Gentleman does make a charge. of corruption, I cannot help it. But I regret it. it will cause a great deal of unpleasantness. I think he said it in the heat of Debate. Perhaps he will be willing to withdraw the word and say anything else he likes, so long as he does not impute unworthy conduct. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made a point about labour conditions. The Government has only certain limited powers, and they are defined in the Exhibition Act of 1920. The Government has no control over the running of the exhibition, which is vested in the Board of. Management (of which Lord Steven-. son is Chairman). T have an extract here from the Exhibition Act of 1920. When the original guarantee was given, the condition under the Act was that the Exhibition shall be conducted by an Executive Committee and General Manager approved by the Board of Trade, and, second, that. the Executive Committee shall furnish the Board of Trade with such information with relation to the Exhibition at any time the Board of Trade may require. What I say to the hon. Member for Bridgeton is that I will do anything within my power to see that nothing is done of which he or I would not approve. But my powers are limited and strictly defined by the Act. In order to put that pledge into operation, I have invited the hon. Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) to come and see me in my room, and if they will put before me the points which they think I should take cognisance of, I will do all I can to see that nothing will take place of which this House would not approve. But they must remember that my powers are limited. The hon. Member for Bridgeton made one other point about the price of admission. He said that a lower charge would be more attractive and would probably bring more persons to see the exhibition. The charges could not have been too high, for no fewer than 5,000,000 children visited the Exhibition last year.

Mr. MAXTON

Special terms.

Mr. SAMUEL

Very well, then, it shows that the exhibition managers have in some degree agreed with the view of the hon. Member. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) raised the question of Sunday opening. Do not let us try to jump that hedge till we get to it. No proposal has been brought before the Government that the exhibition should be open on Sundays this year; besides, it would be impossible without legislation to permit Sunday opening. Very probably, if there were Sunday opening it could only be done at a loss. He also asks me to hear in mind certain. other paints. Note will be taken of his suggestions, and they will come before the exhibition authorities for consideration. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) has asked a question about the guarantee. The Government are committed to nothing more than the figures stated in the, White Paper. I cannot foretell the future, but I hope we may not have to come before the House on a future occasion. A question was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) about poisoned food. One cannot, of course, ensure that all foods, either at exhibitions or anywhere else, will be wholesome. If you could really guarantee that, a great many more people would oat oysters. I am sure, however, that everything possible will be done to see that only wholesome food is supplied, especially as those responsible render themselves liable to proceedings by a customer if the food is not of a proper nature. With regard to his point about disabled men who desire to visit the exhibition, if he will give me the facts I will go into them and ask what can be done.

Captain GARRO-JONES

Is the hen Gentleman in favour of the principle that disabled ex-service men should have free admittance?

Mr. SAMUEL

Of course I am in favour of helping disabled men; if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put the facts before me I will, within my powers, do my best in the matter. I think I have answered all the points which have been raised in the Debate, and I hope the House will now agree to the Report stage of the Resolution.

Miss WILKINSON

It is quite true, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has said, that he met my colleague the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) and myself with regard to labour conditions in the exhibition and has promised to meet us again to-morrow. When we met him, however, we were up against the fact, as he stated quite frankly, that he had no power to interfere in regard to wages and labour conditions at the exhibition. I understand when this Resolution is passed a new Exhibition Bill will have to come before Parliament, and as these arrangements are now being made, and as this House has not yet actually given the guarantee, I suggest that now, if ever, is the time for the hon. Gentleman to secure the insertion of such Clauses as are necessary and to take such powers as are necessary to see that the labour conditions are what we desire them to be. I suggest there is no excuse at the present time for the hon. Gentleman to say that he cannot take up this matter. If the point were raised six months hence, when the exhibition is in full swing, it would be a complete answer to any complaint with regard to wages and conditions to say that the hon. Gentleman had no power, but we are tackling the problem just at the moment when the hon. Gentleman has the power to deal with the matter, before the money is paid and before the guarantee is given. It is the simple fact that unless this House does give the guarantee there will not be any exhibition.

I put it to the hon. Gentleman that this is more than an academic question and much more than a debating point. I will give him one instance. During the summer there was held in London the largest congress of labour women ever held in this country. Over 1,000 delegates and some hundreds of visitors attended, and I was on the arrangements committee which had made arrangements for chars-a-bane to take those women to Wembley on the excursion afternoon. It was just following on the exposure made with regard to the conditions under which the waitresses were working, and the result was that, instead of taking at least 50 vehicles as we had hoped, we had to cancel the order at the last minute, and not one-tenth of the people who had promised to go actually attended. Even from the commercial point of view, which, I am sure, necessarily weighs largely with the hon. Gentleman, it is had business in an exhibition which is intended to appeal to the workers of this country to have dragging on this feeling that working conditions at Wembley are sweated.

The second point which I think the hon. Gentleman might easily take power to deal with is with regard to the representation of the staff at Wembley. One of the main difficulties last year was that. matters which, dealt with in an ordinary way by an ordinary trade union official, could have been put right in a very short time were made tremendously difficult by the attitude which certain exhibitors and contractors took up in refusing to meet trade union officials or to deal with the staff except individually. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that this most reactionary attitude was taken up by certain of the exhibitors, and I am sure he does not agree with it. Would it not be possible on this occasion to make arrangements for a joint council of exhibitors and staff representatives to see, right at the beginning, that these matters were settled and everybody allowed to know that there is not to be any feeling in that respect?

Apart from the labour question, might I also ask him, as a member of a local authority, if it would not be possible to improve—I say it with all diffidence—the manners of the board of management in dealing with local authorities? I know the Manchester Corporation felt that it was the victim of rather bad manners on the part of the people running the exhibition. I have no doubt that. was quite unintentional, and I know we were dealing with business men who were pressed, but there is no doubt the treatment which Manchester received from the board of management was responsible for that very great city not only refusing to take its civic fortnight. last year but refusing to take it this year as well. I know that many other local authorities feel sore at the very cavalier way in which they were. treated by the somewhat high-handed military gentlemen at the head of the exhibition. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department that a gentle word from so persuasive a gentleman as himself might have the effect of smoothing over the difficult situation which has arisen.

Mr. MONTAGUE

I did not desire to intervene in this Debate, in view of the agreement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to meet myself and my colleague (Miss Wilkinson), who has just spoken on the question of labour conditions, and I only do so because of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion either that he has no power in this matter or that his power is extremely restricted. If that be the case, no time should be lost by those who stand for the interests of the workers at Wembley in bringing the matter before the House. They should secure every appropriate opportunity possible to ventilate the grievances which are felt., and try to make possible some arrangement to avoid the difficulties which occurred last year. May I draw the attention of the House to one or two of the things which are in the minds of the representatives of the workers at Wembley. There is a joint committee of Wembley workers, and they are in the position that no representative of the workers earl, except by underhand methods, get upon the ground at the present time in order to deal with any dispute between those employed and those responsible for the employment. The joint committee of Wembley workers suggest that there should be a, committee, but not one composed of workers' representatives only. They do not suggest that there should be a special committee, exclusively of Wembley workers, to act as a kind of strike committee or something of that nature, but they suggest that there should be a permanent committee representing both the exhibition authorities and the workers. That committee, they suggest, should sit at stated intervals in order to go over the difficulties and grievances which the working people at the exhibition desire to bring before the management. Had that been done last year, and had it been possible to ventilate these grievances in time, the unofficial strike would never have occurred. I can give my word to the House on that question.

I pass to what has been suggested as a typical instance of the kind of hopelessly inefficient management rather than bad will which created difficulties last year. The girls employed at Wembley were charged 12s. a year for lavatory accommodation, and men were charged 25s. a year. Apart from that payment, which was absurd in itself and very irksome, the lavatory accommodation for women was exceedingly inefficient. Towards the end of the exhibition some modifications were made, but it was still impossible for girls employed in the centre of the exhibition to avail of lavatory accommodation in order to brighten themselves up after perhaps a half-clay's work without walking more than a quarter of a mile there and a quarter of a mile back, after being on their feet for a prolonged spell of work. The result was a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction among the girls, and that indicates the kind of petty annoyance which could be obviated if the matter were taken in hand in time. So far as wages are concerned, the complaint of the joint committee of Wembley workers is more against the exhibition itself than against some of those firms and concessionaires who have been referred to. In the Amusements Park, I am given to understand, the wages of men last year were £ 10s, per week, and of women £3 per week, whereas those employed directly by the exhibition authorities were paid £3 per week in the case of men and £2 7s. per week in the case of women. 1 need not point out that these differences make for dissatisfaction, and it is desirable that the staff should be a satisfied staff. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said as to his powers being limited, the House should, before granting this money, see that these questions are ventilated.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE

I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department should give the House an undertaking now that, before he comes to the House again to ask for more money for this exhibition, he will make it a condition that a satisfactory balance-sheet must be laid before the House.

Mr. BECKETT

I think we all join in admiring the way in which the hon. Gentleman opposite has stood up for the continuation of the exhibition this year, but my personal view is that, unless drastic steps are taken with regard to organisation, this year's exhibition is foredoomed to failure. I notice in the Press that the hon. Gentleman and his advisers have decided that on one day in every week they will put up the price of the exhibition, in order that, presumably, it may be reserved and made more exclusive for people who have serious business to do there. I am not in a, position to say whether or not that is a wise step—I have very grave doubts—but it may be that it is justified. What I am quite sure of, however, is that whether or not it is, good business to make one day a week a very expensive day at the exhibition, it would be extremely good business, and would very likely save the exhibition, if one day a week could be made a cheap clay at the exhibition.

Last year, we have already heard—and T think hon. Members in all parts of the House are prepared to agree—the labour and wage conditions were not as they should have been. The chief impression that I got of the exhibition on the one or two visits which I was able to pay was that the chief distinguishing marks of the British Empire Exhibition were low wages and high prices, and I do not think that those are calculated to improve the prestige of the country organising the exhibition. The prices of almost every kind of entertainment or amusement at the exhibition were most unusually high. I know it may be argued that people ought 'to go to the exhibition in order to walk round and see the machinery, and industries, and so on, and that is a very good argument in theory, but in practice you will find that, if you are going to get large numbers of people going back to the exhibition again and again, they have to have the lighter side catered for as well, and unless prices are reduced this year, and some pains are taken to see that seating accommodation, shelter, and amusement prices are lowered, it is quite impossible to hope for a large attendance of the poorer people, and if you do not get the poorer people there, it will not be a success, because there are not enough of the other people to make it pay.

I was sorry to hear that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenwarthy) expressed a very strong wish that the exhibition should not be opened on Sundays. I am afraid I cannot quite understand that. Here you have, within reasonable reach of London, an exhibition whose gardens and layouts, we are told, are going to be extremely beautiful, even better than they were last year, and here you have large masses of the population, who need the open air and the opportunity to see landscapes and flowers which they do not see every day. There are no protests against Kew Gardens and Hyde Park being open on Sundays for people to go into, so why should there he all this ferment about letting the workers of London go out to their own exhibition on a fine Sunday afternoon or evening and listen to a hand? We do not hear of protests because there are bands at the seaside resorts to which the hon. and gallant Member, probably, and his friends go, and why should not the workers, who cannot afford to go to seaside resorts for week-ends, have the benefit of a band beside the lake at Wembley? My suggestion would be that the price should be reduced. I am not suggesting that the amusement park should be opened, or anything of that sort.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Why not?

Mr. BECKETT

I do not see any reason why not, but I am afraid that public opinion in this country would be against me on that particular point. Personally, I would open the whole lot.

Mr. WALLHEAD

Public opinion is in favour of golf on Sundays.

Mr. BECKETT

The hon. Member forgets that there is still a puritanical streak in the working classes of this country which is not reflected in their masters. Directly the suggestion is made that healthy, picturesque, cheap amusement should be provided for the working classes, we are told that it cannot be done because it would be breaking the Sabbath, or that there is some law, that was passed many hundred years ago, to stop it. [An HON. MEMBER "No!"] An hon. Member says "No," but I have read the Reports of the Debate on Wembley in this House last year, when it was suggested that it should be opened on Sunday, and some obsolete law, passed in I forget what ancient king's reign, was quoted as a reason against it being opened. If Governments have any use in the world, one of their chief uses should be to rid us of obsolete and hampering laws of that description. I believe you will enormously increase the prospects of the exhibition this year if you will throw it open on Sunday at a reduced price, and engage good bands, not necessarily opening the exhibitors' section. I quite understand that that is a matter for the exhibitors to consider, and that we cannot expect them to keep their places open seven days in the week, but, with regard to the other labour, I want to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that, if the exhibition is opened on Sundays, it must not be made an opportunity to work men seven days a week. It must be made an opportunity to give men one day's work a week who would not otherwise have any work at all.

I hope the Government will consider making one day in the week a cheap day, as cheap as they can possibly make it. There are many hon. Members in this House who have an intimate knowledge of the entertainments industry, and it is obvious to all of us who have even run a penny bazaar for a political party, or anything of that sort, that it pays much better—it is so in every form of business—to get a large number of small orders or small customers than to sit in solitary state waiting for somebody to come along who is rich enough to- give you as much business in half an hour as otherwise you would have had in a day. I hope that that will be considered, that we shall have a cheap day at the exhibition, and that the Government will use their influence with the exhibitors and the contractors in the amusements park to get them to make it a cheap day inside the exhibition as well as a cheap day for going through the turnstiles.

I have not yet heard whether the rule that was introduced towards the end of last season, reducing the price of admission in the evening, is going to be maintained this year. It was introduced only after a great deal of pressure, and if you are going to get large numbers of Londoners to go out on a fine evening for an hour or two at Wembley, you will find it a very great inducement if you will allow the reduced price that you did towards the end of last year. The third suggestion that I want to make—and I ask that it should be considered carefully—is that the exhibition should be regarded not only as an entertainment, but is a- great open space, and that it should he open to as many people as possible on every day of the week, and at a reduced price on Sundays.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Amery, Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, Mr. Guinness and Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel.