MILITARY BUILDINGS AT ST. LUCIA. (Hansard, 27 March 1905)

§ LORD TWEEDMOUTH
My Lords, I rise to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what expenditure arid what contract liabilities have been incurred for the barracks, hospital, and other buildings erected by the military authorities at St. Lucia during the last three years; whether it is the fact that, in spite of the decision to withdraw British troops from the West Indies, the works are still being continued at St. Lucia; and, if so, why, and to what use it is intended to put these buildings in the future.
This question raises an important point of policy and also refers to a large expenditure of money. I think it is only fair that I should state the reason why I have placed it on the Paper. I do not pretend that it is based upon firsthand information. It is fifteen years since I was at St. Lucia, and these buildings were not then thought of; but it so happens that at this moment I have a great personal friend in the West Indies who is a solid and trustworthy person, and not one likely to be led astray by mere gossip. Writing to me on February 22nd, he describes a visit he paid to these barracks and buildings, and goes on to say— Even the colonists who have profited by the expenditure openly laugh at the absurdity of having erected expensive barracks and a large hospital for troops within the last three years and then deciding that they shall not be used. I am told that in this island alone over £1,000,000 sterling has been so spent. The same thing on a greater or less scale has been going on all round. A year or two ago a sort of 1167 funicular tramway was made from the harbour to the barracks at the top of the hill. It was so badly constructed and engineered that a serious accident happened the first time it was used, and it has never been tried since, and the thousands which it cost have been thrown away. A week later he writes to me as follows— Since writing I have heard that the barracks hospital, and other buildings erected by the military authorities at St. Lucia have cost —3,000,000. Apparently, under their contract they have no power to stop the work, so that although they have decided to remove the troops and have no further use for the barracks it is cheaper to continue to build rather than pay heavy penalties for breach of contract. I think your Lordships will agree that even if there is only a moderate amount of foundation for the statements contained in these letters, I was justified in bringing the matter before your Lordships' notice for the purpose of eliciting information with regard to it. If I might add one further Question to those on the Paper, I would ask the noble Earl how far the Colonial Office was responsible for the initiation of these works, and whether the late Colonial Secretary was responsible for the works when they were undertaken.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
My Lords, I am happy to be able to inform ray noble friend that the case is not quite such a grave one as his friend thinks. I am informed that the expenditure at St. Lucia during the last three years is £133,086.

§ LORD TWEEDMOUTH
Will the noble Earl give me the total expenditure on these buildings?

*THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
I have not got the total expenditure. The noble Lord in his Question asks me to state what expenditure has been incurred during the last three years, and that figure I have given him. I shall be glad to get him the other figures if he requires them. It is not the fact that the works are still being continued at St. Lucia, except that we felt it would be unwise to allow any building to remain not watertight. Therefore, we are completing any particular single building 1168 that was not finished in order to make it watertight in case it is ever required. We do not, however, anticipate that it will be required in the early future. The noble Lord next asked to what use it was intended to put these buildings in the future. As far as I know it is not intended to use them for any purpose at all. We are going to put caretakers in and leave them in their charge. The noble Lord will, I am sure, understand that in making a building watertight we are not necessarily committed to carry out the whole scheme originally intended if St. Lucia had been retained as a defended port. It is not our usual custom to make contracts for entire schemes, but for individual buildings or groups of buildings, and I do not anticipate that the sum necessary to finish off these buildings and make them watertight will be very large. As to the attitude of the Colonial Office in this matter—I am speaking without book, because the noble Lord did not give me notice of this Question—I should think that the Colonial Office had nothing to do with it at all. These buildings were part of a scheme of naval and military policy. I shall be prepared to make further inquiry in the matter if the noble Lord wishes it.

§ EARL SPENCER
My Lords, I made some remarks the other night on the expenditure at St. Lucia, and my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in his reply rather denied that there had been any large expenditure such as I hinted at. I immediately replied, "Not on the Navy Estimates, but on the other Estimates." I think we ought to have from the noble Earl a full account of the total expenditure on these buildings. The fact that the Government have spent large sums of money on these barracks and other buildings, and have now decided not to use them, is a strong condemnation of their previous policy. The noble Earl says he does not believe that the Colonial Office had anything to do with this. If I remember rightly there was a very important Joint Committee, which I knew very well when I was at the Admiralty—the Colonial Defence Committee, on which the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Colonial Office were 1169 represented—which constantly went into all questions of this sort, and they were, I imagine, responsible for this large expenditure. I am glad to hear the promise which has been given by the noble Earl that we shall have a full account of the monies that have been spent on these works.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)
My Lords, the Question on the Paper had reference to the expenditure during the last three years, and that Question was answered categorically by my noble friend. Of course, the other information can easily be provided, and I dare say it will show, as the noble Earl supposes, that very largo sums of money have been spent in past years on St. Lucia. The fact is, there has been a change of naval policy, and these things will happen. If the noble Earl suggests that after we have spent a great deal of money on naval bases in different parts of the world, we are bound to stick to those naval bases and go on spending money upon them, I must take leave to differ from him.

§ EARL SPENCER
I particularly said the other night that I did not condemn the course taken by the Government, but that I thought that after a deliberate policy had been adopted a full and ample justification of the change should be made.

§ *THE MARQUESS OK LANSDOWNE
I have no doubt that the change of policy could be fully explained, if desired, by persons claiming more expert knowledge in these matters than I possess. I believe the noble Earl is quite right when he says that the expenditure incurred in past years was incurred after examination and discussion by that very important and useful body, as it then was, the Colonial Defence Committee, on which all the Departments responsible were represented.