§ 17. Mr. P. B. Lucasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what is the estimated cost of the damage to buildings, stores and equipment, caused by the recent fire at London Airport; whether such losses were fully covered by insurance; and in what sums were the damaged spare parts insured.
§ Mr. BeswickI am not yet in a position to make a statement on the total cost of the damage. The building, which is the property of His Majesty's Government, is fully covered by commercial insurance taken out by British Overseas Airways Corporation as tenants. Insurance of the stores and equipment belonging to B.O.A.C. is a matter of management for the Corporation, but I understand that items of fixed equipment 1935 destroyed were insured in the open market while the risks on the other contents were borne by the Corporation.
§ Mr. LucasIs the hon. Gentleman yet able to say what was the cause of the fire which led to these losses, and will he deny the suggestion that it was the result of sabotage?
§ Mr. BeswickThe investigations are not yet complete.
§ Mr. J. GrimstonDoes not the information which the hon. Gentleman has just given conflict with what he said last week? Has he any idea whether the value of the spares which were not insured was about £500,000?
§ Mr. BeswickWhat I said last week was that I understood that the equipment was insured. What I have said today is that items of fixed equipment were insured in the open market. Therefore, there is not such a contradiction as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
§ Mr. GrimstonDid not the Minister say that the spares were not insured? Has he any idea whether the value was about £500,000?
§ Mr. BeswickNo, Sir.
§ Mr. ProfumoAre not the security arrangements at London Airport the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman's Ministry and not that of the Corporation? Is he aware that the arrangements are at present totally unrealistic and inadequate?
§ Mr. BeswickIt is always possible to spend more money on security arrangements. Whether they are totally inadequate or not is another matter. I agree that they should be re-examined, and they are being re-examined.
§ Brigadier HeadLast week the hon. Gentleman was asked not about the fixed equipment but the stores and equipment and whether that was insured, and he informed the House that it was insured. Should he not at least apologise for his error?
§ Mr. BeswickI do not think that any apology is called for. I was asked in a supplementary question last week if I thought that the equipment was insured. What I said was that I understood the 1936 equipment was insured. I am now telling the House that fixed equipment was insured in the open market and that spares—the moveable equipment—the value of which I am unaware, were covered by the internal arrangements of the Corporation.