X
that in fact the £2,300 would be for the actual preliminary trial borings.
Mr. Lloyd has directed that we should now seek Treasury approval for the expenditure of this sum. Mr. Woodward who has telephoned me to-day however to make enquiries as to the present position tells me that a sum of £145,000 was authorised by the Treasury in a letter dated the 28th February, the reference of which is S.51336, for supplies in connection with the Hong Kong waterworks and that it included provision for boring equipment. Mr. Woodward believes that of this sum there is still an unexpended balance of £35,000. He thinks that you were responsible for the approach to the Treasury in this connection and that the number of the Colonial Office file concerned is 617194/17/46. Could you very kindly say whether X
above is correct and if so whether the Treasury authority could be taken to include a sum for the actual work of boring, namely £2,300.
24024/2/4617294/27/46.
eu
In the light of this further conversation with Mr. Woodward, I gather that the firm of Le Grand, Sutcliffe and Gell are not alternative consultants to the firm of Binnie, Deacon and Gourley as suggested at X in my minute of 25th July, but that they were suggested by Binnie, Deacon and Gell as specialists qualified to undertake this particular piece of boring work.
Atlet
29.7.46.
Details of the estimated expenditure Hong Kong Water Warks Supplies, which
in him. Kenrick's letter of '28/1/46
are given
e as
(42 on 59024/2/46 below), are
Water cleansers 3,870
380
Permanent equipment 112,000
Jointing materials
116,250
+25% Freight +c.
29,063
£145, 313.
follows:-
Treasury approval for this was on 26/2/46/55 on 54024/2/46).
We have no
information as to how
given
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.