asked the Secretary of State for War who was responsible for the preliminary survey for the camp, of which he has been told; what was the extra cost involved in shuttering and timbering the drains below the depth of 18 inches to prevent collapse due to running sand; and why was not the nature of the subsoil ascertained before a decision was taken?

The preliminary survey of this camp was carried out by the local military authorities, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that, apart from the necessity of taking into account factors such as water supply, road facilities, and agricultural interests, the choice of site was limited by the operational needs of anti-aircraft defence. In order to ascertain the extra cost involved in shuttering and timbering the drains below the depth of 18 inches, it would be necessary to employ a surveyor and thus incur expense to the taxpayer which would not, I think, be justified. As regards the last part of the Question, I understand that the discovery of pockets of running sand during the progress of work is not unusual in building operations, and that investigation of the subsoil over the whole area of a site of this kind would involve expenditure out of all proportion to the results obtained. I am satisfied that in this case all reasonable steps were taken by the officers who carried out the preliminary survey.

Why was a surveyor not employed before this camp was constructed? Will the particulars in this case be sent to the Chancery Judge for him to see whether there is a prima jade case?

The reason why a surveyor was not appointed in the first place to survey the site is that there is no reason to do it in every case, as it would involve the taxpayer in expenditure out of all proportion to any savings that might be made.

asked the Secretary of State for War the cost of the sewage disposal plant at a camp of which he has been informed; why was it condemned by the public health authority; has the plant been abandoned; if so, what alternative method of disposing of the sewage has been adopted, and at what cost; and will he give the names of the persons responsible, and state what disciplinary action has been taken?

The cost of the sewage disposal plant at the camp to which my hon. Friend refers was 1,200. The plant was designed and installed in accordance with the best expert advice, but it was subsequently decided to abandon the scheme in deference to representations by the local authorities that the local water supply might be contaminated. The camp drainage was accordingly connected to the main sewer at a cost of £2,490. The machinery of the abandoned sewage plant will be used elsewhere. I am satisfied that no blame attaches to any officer of my Department, and the question of disciplinary action does not therefore arise.

Again, will the particulars in this case be sent to the Chancery Judge to see whether there is a prima facie case?

I do not think that a case of this kind falls within his terms of reference.

Is it not inconceivable that the War Office, in snaking this kind of arrangement, should not follow the same procedure as every local authority?

In this case the War Office acted on the advice of their own consultant, who is one of the most eminent sanitary consultants in the country.

Why did the War Office not avail themselves of the detailed information which the local authority would have of the site?

They did avail themselves of every kind of information. My hon. Friend must bear in mind that the choice of the site is determined by operational necessity, and the local authority cannot be expected to know the strategic implications of the site.

Why was the local authority not consulted before this matter was started, instead of afterwards?

The local authority was not consulted because, in the opinion of the expert adviser whom I have already mentioned, there was no need to consult anybody. In his opinion, which he still maintains, there is no danger whatever to the local drainage system; that was his opinion, and it still is.

May we know who the eminent consultant is?

If the eminent authority who advises the War Office makes a mistake, what happens to him?

If he made a mistake, clearly some action would be taken against him. In this case, I do not think that the consultant can be held to have made a mistake merely because the opinion of the local authority went one way and the opinion of the eminent authority went another way. It was all a matter of opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for War who settled the site for the camp of which he has been told; what was the extra cost involved in excavating to obtain level sites for buildings, and for the parade grounds, respectively; and why was not a site selected which would have obviated this expensive excavation?

The site for this camp was selected by the local military authorities within the narrow limits imposed by the operational needs of anti-aircraft defence. In addition, consideration had to be given to important factors such as the availability of water supply, existing road facilities, and the avoidance of good agricultural land, and my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not always possible to find a level site which will meet all these requirements. The extra cost of excavation to obtain a level site for the huts was £350 and for the parade ground and roads £2,150.

May I ask the same Supplementary Question, as to whether these particulars will be sent to the Judge for examination as to a prima facie case?

If I may, I will give the same answer. Cases of this kind do not come within the terms of reference.

That is a matter of opinion.