HC Deb 27 June 1951 vol 489 cc1357-9
23. Sir Waldron Smithers

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he has considered the remarks contained in Sections 33 to 37 of the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee concerning the expenditure of £400,000 on the Changi airfield; and, in view of the waste of money revealed, if he will take steps to reorganise the branch of his Department which is concerned with the making of contracts such as that concerned in this case.

Mr. A. Henderson

I share the Committee's regret that this nugatory expenditure should have occurred. I have already explained the circumstances in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) on 11th April.

The failure to appreciate fully the difficulties of the site which led to the abandonment of the original scheme was not the responsibility of the contracts branch of my Department, but of the Air Ministry Directorate of Works. It was due to errors of judgment by the engineers on the spot and in the Directorate of Works and not to defects in organisation.

Sir W. Smithers

Would it not be healthier and better for the taxpayers if the people who committed these errors got the sack, as they would in any ordinary private company?

Mr. Henderson

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that in dealing with engineering matters it is not always right to blame the technicians responsible. In this case it was not due to any kind of negligence but to the unusual soil conditions which exist in this part of the world.

Mr. Powell

Does the Secretary of State for Air really mean that His Majesty's Government regard the expenditure of nearly half a million pounds as a "nugatory" expense?

Mr. Henderson

What I said was that I shared the feelings of the Committee as to the effect of the mistake which was made. In saying it is "nugatory," I was repeating the words used by the Committee.

Mr. Walter Fletcher

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really wish the House to believe that the soil conditions of this area were not perfectly well known to practically everybody concerned? The excuse he has produced on those grounds is quite obviously incorrect.

Mr. Henderson

It is an extraordinary thing that the hon. Gentleman should say the unusual conditions were known to everybody, because the borings takes in 1946 were known to the technical experts of the Government of Singapore and, if any one should have known the soil conditions, they should.

Air Commodore Harvey

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that when constructing airfields abroad the works department of the Air Ministry take advantage of the knowledge of men on the spot instead of making wild decisions itself?

Mr. Henderson

I have just indicated that the technical experts of the Government of Singapore were associated with the technical experts of the Air Ministry at the time these borings were made.

Mr. W. Fletcher

In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the replies to this Question, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.