CLASS VI. (Hansard, 18 February 1926)

§ Captain GARRO-JONES
I regret that I was unable to be present when the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade gave his explanation of this Vote. I am extremely interested to note that £20,000 has been spent on advertising. I would be much obliged if the hon. Gentleman would kindly say how this amount is to be expended.

§ Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department)
As I explained on a former occasion, £20,000 was expended as a result of the recommendation of the Advisory Committee of the Department, and a Committee was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Higham, a former Member of this House. The results of the advertising were excellent, and the Press gave us every help.

§ Mr. LUNN
If the Government are believers in the policy of buying British goods why do they buy typewriters from 2291 abroad? Has the Minister been to the office of the Department at the British Industries Fair? If so, he would have seen that it was equipped with American typewriters. Why do the Government not follow the policy that they urge other people to follow?

§ Mr. SAMUEL
I spent most of Tuesday at the fair, and I had the privilege this morning of accompanying His Majesty through the fair. We are pleased with the way in which the fair is bringing trade in. Every holder of a stall whom I asked was perfectly satisfied with the result of the business he had done. I regret that there are many foreign typewriters in this country. If the hon. Member (Mr. Lunn) will join with us in putting on a duty to prevent so many typewriters coming from abroad, I have no doubt something can be done. So far as I can I shall do my best to see that British typewriters are used.

§ Captain GARRO-JONES
rose—

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right to speak again.

§ Captain GARRO-JONES
I was not proposing to make a speech. I wanted only to ask a question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a point of Order. May I submit that this display of hon. Members opposite, not allowing a Member to put a point to you, ought to be suppressed?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I understand that the hon. and gallant Member wants to ask a question.

§ Captain GARRO-JONES
I am sure that the Minister will answer my question. I am told that this amount is being expended largely in this country. In what proportion is it being expended in this country and in what proportion abroad, where it ought to be expended?

§ Sir HENRY CRAIK
On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member not committing a distinct breach of order in making a further speech?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member that he could not make another speech, but he is justified in putting a question.

§ Mr. SAMUEL
I can only answer the question by permission of the House as I have exhausted my right. A considerable proportion has been spent abroad. The greatest object we had in view was to bring overseas buyers here, and we arranged we should put these advertisements abroad—not only in His Majesty's Dominions, but in Other countries. I think we have succeeded in bringing buyers here by our policy.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
With regard to the question of typewriters, I do not think that can be raised here. The item is only for advertising.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
On the point of the expenses of the staff of the Department, can we not raise the question of supplies?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Not on this Estimate.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Yesterday, to the Government's surprise, this Estimate passed without any discussion, because there was a feeling abroad that the Locarno spirit ought to be extended to the House. I hope I shall be excused if I now ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote to give us some idea of this expenditure, which we did not get yesterday. There is one item of £8,000 in connecting with a Tattoo at the Wembley Exhibition. Some criticism has been passed on that tattoo, and it is felt that in these days, when peace is so anxiously spoken of, we ought not to devote so much money to a purely military display. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much has been spent in connection with the exhibition on military displays as it is thought that a better use could have been made of the exhibition without spending so much money in this way? As to the Appropriation-in-aid of £13,000, I confess I do not understand this item, and would like an explanation on that point also.

§ Mr. HARRIS
I wish the hon. Gentleman also to make clear the exact 2293 financial position of the Tattoo in relation to the War Office. Were these troops provided free by the Army for display, or was a charge made by the War Office against the Exhibition? It would be undesirable that our Army should be exploited for exhibition purposes without a proper return being made to the War Office. The Tattoo, of course, gave immense pleasure to many people, and no doubt it was a sound proposition to help the exhibition. But if our Army is to be used for these purposes, the War Office should receive financial credit in the adjustment of the book-keeping. I also wish to know if this is the end of our liabilities in this connection? Is this the last word? Are we quite clear that when the Wembley Exhibition is wound up and the buildings are sold there will not be further calls on the public purse?

§ Mr. SAMUEL
I think this is the last Estimate. I know of nothing that will require me to come to the House again for more expenditure. In reply to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), there was no exploitation of the armed forces of His Majesty. I would like to have made a claim upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for the amount of help I gave him in recruiting.

§ Mr. HARRIS
Were those services given without charge to the exhibition?

§ Mr. SAMUEL
We paid all the expenses. The first item of £5,010 is not additional expenditure. It was sanctioned last year and it is merely a revote. I could not expend it, because I did not get the bills in in time. As to the £8,000 more, as a matter of fact, although we ask the House to allow us the £10 additional we carried on the display for 10 weeks instead of five. We originally estimated it would cost £82,000 for five weeks, hut, as a matter of fact, we carried on for 10 weeks for only £4,000 more.
I could not use the money we received out of the takings, because it would be against the Treasury practice. I had to anticipate the permission the House will give me now, and use the money as it came in, and I am now asking permission for it. The £8,000 includes an amount of money we thought it right to give as donations to the Service charities. We propose to give £1,000 to the British Red 2294 Cross and St. John's, £1,000 to the Sailors and Soldiers and other Fighting Services' Association, £1,000 to the Soldiers' and Sailors' Help Society, £1,000 to the National Association for Employment of Regular Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen. This £4,000 with the £4,000 extra cost of running the display makes the £8,000 we are asking for. I estimated that we should receive for the Tattoo and Stadium £85,000, Zeebrugge and other receipts £12,500, making £97,500 in all. Instead of receiving £97,500, I am glad to say I received £135,000.
We made a very fine profit, and we therefore have received £37,500 surplus out of which I have used £5,010 for the re-Vote, £4,000 for the extra cost of displays, and £4,000 for the charities. This makes £13,010. This leaves £24,500 still to pay back into the Treasury as profit after employing £13,000 for appropriations-in-aid as appears on page 34. The Tattoo authorities are about to hand back to the Treasury no less than £38,000 for Entertainments Duty in respect of the Stadium displays. The best reply I can make to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) is that just under 2,000,000 people went to the Tattoo and displays, and by so doing expressed their appreciation and approval of it.

§ Mr. THURTLE
The hon. Gentleman has given us the cash side of this military Tattoo. Can he not give us in a few words the moral damage which has been suffered?

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
May I ask one question? I have received letters from several men asking about outstanding claims and asking whether they would be paid at a reasonable date.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill)
I am sorry, but I had a little difficulty in catching what the hon. Member said.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The point is that certain people have outstanding claims against the Irish Constabulary. Some of 2295 the men are financially not well placed. I have been written to by one or two men who have claims against this Fund, asking when the claims will be settled.

§ Mr. McNEILL
I did not know that there were outstanding claims of that nature. I agree they should be settled as expeditiously as possible, and I will look into the matter at once.