§ 21. Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now prepared to institute an inquiry into the requisitioning of chattels at a camp, the name of which has been given to him?
§ Sir E. GriggI am afraid my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The chattels in question have not yet been requisitioned, although it is true that the termination of the present hiring agreement with a view to subsequent requisitioning is under consideration. I have looked further into this matter but I can see no reason for any special inquiry.
§ Sir H. WilliamsCan the hon. Gentlement tell me why the Secretary of State for War some weeks ago said there was no need for an inquiry on the ground that the whole matter had been settled, and why there is no need for an inquiry now since an inquiry was started which revealed a prima facie case of irregularity, and the Board of Officers were dismissed before they could report?
§ Sir E. GriggI cannot accept that. What actually happened was that a board was appointed for a purpose distinct from the question of requisitioning which the Lands Department of the War Office were at that time considering. It was useless for two bodies to operate at once and the board was therefore dissolved.
§ Sir H. WilliamsIn these circumstances why has the Secretary of State, specifically in answer to a question, told me in writing, and the Financial Secretary told me across the Floor of the House, that no inquiry had ever taken place? Now we are told that two inquiries have taken place.
§ Sir E. GriggThe hon. Member is obviously asking for an inquiry into whether the occupation was properly conducted.
§ Sir H. WilliamsNo, I am asking why I have been told in the House and by letter that there has been no inquiry, and now I am told that there has been.
§ Sir E. GriggI am afraid I cannot accept that. If that answer was given, it was certainly given under a misapprehension.