Money for Fun
The British public is by this time so apathetically accustomed to expenditure measured by thousands of millions tbat the mere increase in the cost of the Festival Gardens at Battersea (which their warmest devotee would recognise as a luxury rather than a necessity) from a tender of £524.370 to a cost of £1,500,000 stirs few emotions. Yet it - is manifest that something has gone seriously wrong, and Mr. Stokes did well to inaugurate his owl' assumption of responsibility for the Festival of Britain by asking two well-known firms of accountants to investigate and report. It is only an interim report that was issued on Monday, but it , contains enough information to furnish ample material for the debate that will doubtless be called for in the House of Commons. Many questions need to be asked. It can well be believed that the abnormal weather of the early months of this year delayed operations to some extent. But who was responsible for the delay between the end of June, 1949, when the basic. scheme was agreed on, and April, 1950. when the contractor began work, with only a general lay-out plan prepared and only a very limited part of the site available? Who decided that thirteen unpaid directors, all with businesses or professions of their own. were a fit body to take charge of this extensive and novel enter- prise ? It is true that the £1,500,000 is the cost of more extensive work than was covered by the original tender, but why were not the whole requirements foreseen from the beginning ? After all, this Government does claim a certain expertise in planning. There may, of course, have been unavoidable miscalculations, but it is noteworthy that the result in such cases is always an increase, not a reduction, in expense. The investigation must be pursued to the end, if only to exonerate persons who, in the general confusion of authorities, might be unjustly blamed.
Previous page
