§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH had the following Question on the Paper—
§ To ask at what date and on whose authority the resolution was taken to establish an aerial gunnery school on Loch Doon; who was the engineer who was responsible for recommending the scheme; what local representations were made as to the difficulties in the way of carrying it out, and whether these representations have been justified in the result; and to move for a complete Return of the total cost to the public funds for materials, the cost of construction, of labour, of employment of prisoners, and the amount of compensation paid, and the probable amount of compensation and cost of restoration still to be met.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke at some length a few weeks ago about the Question which stands in my name on the Paper, and although everything I have heard since confirms is what I then said, I do not intend to repeat my statement. I propose simply to put this Question, to make the Motion which stands in my name, and to move for Papers.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON)My Lords, in the absence for the time being of any representative of the Air Ministry in your Lordships' House, I have undertaken to reply to the Question of the noble Lord this afternoon. Indeed, it was at my instance, on the occasion to which he has alluded when the subject was raised before, that a further Question was put on the Paper by the noble Lord in order to enable additional information to be given from this Bench. I have investigated this matter to the best of my ability, and the circumstances, as I shall state them to your Lordships' House, throw a somewhat different light on the affair from that which was supposed by the noble Lord when he spoke on the matter a few weeks ago. I will give the House the sequence of events 943 as they have occurred in relation to the selection, in the first place, and, in the later stage, the abandonment of Loch Doon.
In the summer of 1916 it was considered very desirable to establish a school of aerial gunnery at some point in the British Isles. Certain conditions were necessary in the selection of such a site. It was desirable that the place should be a lonely and isolated spot where there would be little or no population, so that the requisite shooting practice could take place without risk to human life. Secondly, it was indispensable to get an expanse of smooth water. Accordingly a committee of experts went round the British Isles investigating the various possible sites that would answer to this description. They went over Scotland, Ireland, and the most likely parts of England, particularly the Eastern counties, Norfolk, and the Fen country in Lincolnshire. The first reconnaissance was made by them in the month of May, 1916, and their report, on which action was afterwards taken, was handed in during August of that year. They reported in favour of Loch Doon, stating that it was in many respects an almost ideal spot for the purposes that I have described.
Loch Doon itself, which I do not know, and of which I can speak only from hearsay, appears to be a long, narrow, extensive stretch of smooth water. It is surrounded by high hills, which were suitable for the target practice and other operations that were in contemplation. Shooting could take place there without the injury to human life of which I have spoken, because there was little or no human population to be disturbed. Accordingly the committee made this recommendation to the War Office. The decision in its favour was an Army Council decision—that is to say, it was a decision of the War Office, which was in charge of the matter at that time.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONAugust, 1916. This decision was taken on the advice of Lieut-General Sir David Henderson, the Director-General of Military Aeronautics at that time; of Major-General Brancker, the Deputy Director-General, who twice visited the spot; of Brigadier-General Charlton, the Director of Air Organisation; and of other officers of 944 the Royal Flying Corps, who had direct, personal experience both of flying in the air and of aerial gunnery. It was recognised from the start that certain—I will even say formidable—difficulties would have to be met, and, if possible, overcome. There were engineering difficulties, in the first place, arising out of the construction of a road or roads to the loch, and possibly of a railroad, should that be required. There was the difficulty that confronted the construction of the aerodrome itself, arising from the wet and marshy character of the ground on the borders of the loch, where obviously a good deal of drainage would be required. This difficulty, I understand, it was proposed to meet by placing the aerodrome, not on the borders of the loch, but rather lower down, a little distance from the loch and at the bottom of the hill. But the difficulty of the aerodrome was not looked upon in itself as of capital importance, because it was in the main for the experimental use of seaplanes rising from the water that this particular site was demanded.
Then also doubts were entertained in some quarters as to the suitability of the climate, in reply to which it was pointed out that the climate for aviation at Ayr, which is, I believe, only twenty miles distant, is among the best in any part of the British Isles. Thus, my Lords, there was at that time a very strong consensus of expert opinion in favour of the selection of this site. Apart from this—in reply to one of the Questions of the noble Lord—a local inspection was carried out by the Chief Engineer of the Scottish Command, Brigadier-General Stewart; by the Commanding Officer of the Royal Engineers in the Lowlands, Lieutenant-Colonel Molony; and, as regards drainage, by Mr. MacGregor, the county surveyor of the area. On the other hand, considerable stress was laid upon the gravity of the engineering difficulties (to which I have referred) by Major-General Sir George Moncrieff, the Director of Fortifications and Works; and he urged that in view of those difficulties some other site should, if possible, be preferred. But in the inability to discover any more suitable alternative, that officer reluctantly acquiesced in the choice of Loch Doon in deference to the opinion of the technical experts to whom I have referred. The next step before the final commencement of works on this spot was that it was visited by a committee of experts consisting of representatives of the 945 Director of Fortifications and Works, the Director-General of Military Aeronautics, and the county surveyor whose name I have given. I might add that several of these officers—some of whom I have seen—still retain the opinion that the choice was a right and wise one, and that the mistake made was not in the selection in the first place, but in abandoning it at a subsequent period. I do not offer any opinion about that, because my information is only second-hand.
Now as to the point of the local representations, about which the noble Lord asks in his Question. Local representations of a kind were made, but they related mainly to the effect on the fishing and other amenities of the property, and were chiefly made by the firm of solicitors representing the principal owner of the property involved. Satisfactory arrangements were made with that property owner, a lady, no doubt known by name to the noble Lord. So far as I can ascertain, no other representations were made by, and no protest was received from, the local inhabitants, such as they were, in the neighbourhood. That was the position of affairs when the works were instituted. They went on during the course the past year. A great deal of money was spent—though not nearly so much, as I shall show in a minute, as has been stated in some quarters—until the matter came under revision on the creation of the new Air Ministry and the constitution of an Air Council in the beginning of the present year. The matter was looked into afresh by them. The climatic conditions, after the experience of a year, were again severely criticised, and were apparently not very successfully defended. It was found that the engineering difficulties had been under-estimated, and that the scheme had been very much more costly and had taken much longer in carrying out than had been anticipated. Your Lordships must, I think, in fairness remember that this is to some extent due to the great and obvious difficulty of obtaining labour and materials in war time. Had these works been undertaken under normal conditions in time of peace I think there is little reason to doubt that they could have been successfully carried through. But when you come to the fact that the works were being inevitably prolonged, that the date of opening seemed remote, that the difficulties of carrying them out were considerable, and that the cost was very large, it is obvious 946 that the claims of other and competing public objects in connection with the war had to be considered and might have to be preferred in its place. Now as regards the cost. In our previous discussion upon the matter some noble Lord—I rather think it was Lord Balfour—from a letter which he quoted gave the gigantic sum of £3,000,000.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHWhat I actually said was that I had no information, but that I understood a sum of £3,000,000 had passed through the local branch bank, and that some large portion of that money was undoubtedly for these works.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONThe impression suggested was that if £3,000,000 had not been expended upon these works, at any rate £3,000,000 had been banked in a neighbouring banking institution; and the inference was that a considerable proportion of that sum had been devoted to these works. I will give the noble Lord the actual figures, which I have been careful to ascertain. The best estimate of the total cost which I have been able to procure is £433,229. That may be taken as the cost of construction. Of this sum it is estimated that about £152,000 represents the cost of labour, while the amount paid for employment of prisoners of war was £10,718. But it is fair to inform your Lordships that we have already credits estimated at £205,000 in respect of plant, timber, and other materials, to be set against the £433,000 odd that I gave just now. So that the net adverse balance is brought down, as will be seen, to £228,000.
Those are the facts as I have been able to ascertain them, and I think they may be held to establish the following propositions. First, the construction of such a school of gunnery, with if possible an aerodrome attached to it, was, and remains, a matter of capital importance; because I may add that in the failure of Loch Doon no site of similar qualifications, or with what are believed to be similar qualifications, has been found to take its place. Secondly, the selection of this particular site was preceded by a careful examination not only of this but of other possible sites in all parts of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the site was selected, after careful examination and visits to the spot by expert authorities, as the most suitable for the purpose. Fourthly, the 947 engineering difficulties were clearly underestimated by the engineers to whom I have referred, and were found as the work went on to be greater than had been anticipated. Finally, as to the decision for abandonment, I can, of course, offer no opinion, because I took no part in the discussions which led to that result; and I am all the more precluded from offering an opinion, even if I had one, by the fact that the matter is under investigation by a Committee of another place which is inquiring into this among other objects of national expenditure arising out of the war. I think it as well that your Lordships should await the Report of that Committee, because, as I mentioned just now, though some of those who are concerned in this matter might conceivably be held to be prejudiced, nevertheless they held the opinion very strongly indeed that the right choice was made, that it, ought to have been persisted in, and that the cost, of which so much complaint has been made, should have been incurred and continued to be incurred; and it is conceivable that when the Report of the other House reaches us some weight—I do not say how much—may be attached to that expression of opinion. Those are the facts of the case as I have been able to ascertain them. I have put them before your Lordships, I hope, with candour, and I trust that they give a sufficient reply to the Questions which have been asked by my noble friend.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHMy Lords, I should like to express my acknowledgments to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council for the evident care and pains which he has taken to investigate this matter and to give us the fullest answer that he thinks consistent with the public interest at the present time. I fully recognise some of the considerations which he mentioned towards the close of his speech, and I am perfectly willing to wait for the Report which he has indicated. I think, however, that he was in error on one point at any rate, when he said that the local representations were only as to sporting rights, fishing, and so on, which I personally in a matter of this kind would be perfectly willing to disregard and compensate for. The local representations, as I am informed, were really upon the engineering difficulties, and if I am not in error it was really these engineering difficulties which caused the abandonment of the 948 scheme—engineering difficulties as to the impossibility of draining the depth of the peat area in this district; the extraordinary flooding which there is at times of the year owing to the peculiar configuration and the narrow outlet of the loch at the southern end; the, comparatively speaking, smaller area over which the water collects at that point, and the impossibility of getting the water away from the southern end of the loch. For weeks at a time it lies over the flat area on which some of these structures were intended to be built. My information is that all these points were put before those who were sent down to investigate, and that they did not receive the attention which they ought to have received. The noble Earl made a debtor and creditor account of the expenditure and of what it was expected to get back, but, so far as I could follow him, he did not mention anything about the amount of compensation paid for disturbance, either for sporting rights or other things, or the amount of compensation and restoration which may still have to be met. Therefore I think to that extent his answer was not complete. As far as my information goes—I had a letter from the owner of the estate at any rate within the last few weeks—no compensation has yet been paid, and the question of compensation and possible expenses of restoration has still to be met.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONMy Lords, in regard to the two points made by the noble Lord, of course I cannot speak as to what local representations may have been made to the officers visiting the spot. I could only ascertain whether such representations were made by seeing the whole of the officers. I have given all the information in the possession of the Air Ministry upon the point, and there is no record other than that to which I have referred. As regards the question of compensation, the noble Lord is, of course, quite right. I cannot give such figures because nothing has yet been paid. The amount remains for settlement and will have to be added to the adverse balance, as I have called it.
§ EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTONNo. The amount that may have to be given for restoration and compensation cannot be stated. At a later date, if the noble 949 Lord requires the information, I will do my best to supply it.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.