HC Deb 11 December 1929 vol 233 cc438-9
16. Captain EDEN

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the decision to suspend work on the naval base at Singapore has involved any transfer., discharge, or disbandment of personnel in the employ of the Admiralty; if so, how many; whether the terms of the contract with the contractors engaged on part of the work include any break clause; whether the contractors have yet preferred any claim for compensation as a result of the decision to suspend; and whether the period of suspension of which notice has been given to the contractors is limited in time?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander)

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative in so far as concerns personnel directly controlled from the Admiralty; on the third part, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer on 29th November (OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 463) to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). On the latter parts of the question, I would say that no notice of suspension has been given to the contractors, but we are in communication with them on the question of slowing down.

17. Captain EDEN

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the new floating dock erected at the naval base at Singapore in 1928 has yet been utilised; and whether it is proposed to move this floating dock to some other port during the suspension period announced in connection with the base?

Mr. ALEXANDER

The reply to the former part of the question is in the affirmative and to the latter in the negative.

23. Colonel HOWARD-BURY

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the decision to suspend further work on the naval base at Singapore involves the closing down of the anti-malaria measures now being undertaken in the neighbourhood of the proposed base; and whether the cost of these anti-malarial works are charged to the Straits Settlements Government or to the several Governments of the Empire contributing to the cost of the base?

Mr. ALEXANDER

As regards the first part the reply is in the negative. As regards the second part this expenditure is being borne by Navy Votes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

Does not this expenditure indicate the unsuitability of Singapore as a naval base?