HC Deb 22 July 1919 vol 118 cc1170-2W
Mr. BRIANT

asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the statement made by the Cippenham Select Committee that the War Office files carrying the history beyond the summer of 1917 are missing, whether an investigation has been held into the loss of these official documents and those responsible for the loss; and, if so, what was the result of such investigation?

Mr. CHURCHILL

I have caused this matter to be investigated, and I will circulate the result in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the statement referred to:

The Report of the Select Committee on the Government works at Cippenham stated: The Committee have not been supplied with War Office files carrying the history beyond the summer of 1917. It is stated that these files cannot be found. Turning to the evidence, references to missing War Office papers were made by two witnesses only—namely, Major-General Sir A. Crofton Atkins and Sir C. Harris. The former stated on 2nd May (Questions 228 and 229) that there were War Office files, which were either lost or unobtainable, on which he had written minutes, prior to May, 1917, on the seriousness of the position as regards mechanical transport repairs. On 3rd May the secretary to the Committee wrote to the War Office asking that these files should be produced, and on 10th May the only registered official file containing minutes of the kind and date referred to was sent to the Committee. On 16th May this Paper was laid before the Committee, and, as would appear from the evidence, and especially from the Report as quoted above, it satisfied them as to the history of the case till August, 1917.

The Committee then asked, for the first time, for files carrying the history beyond that date and up till the adoption of the site at Slough, which had not been mentioned hitherto. Accordingly a file, the next in chronological order on the subject, carrying the history forward to November, and showing the acceptance of the Slough scheme by the War Office, was obtained from the War Office by the Ministry of Munitions, who had been asked by the Committee to examine and prepare such papers for them. The Ministry derived from it a part of the information contained in the paper, marked Appendix P to the Report, which was put in by them, dated 30th May. The secretary to the Committee was informed that this file was with the Ministry of Munitions, but he made no request for it, and was presumably satisfied on receiving the extracts contained in Appendix P.

On 23rd May, Sir C. Harris was called before the Committee, and stated, in the course of his evidence, that he had to trust to memory for the date upon which the paper came to his Department, and that on which Treasury approval for the Slough scheme was sought and obtained, as the file had been temporarily mislaid and was being searched for [Questions 3732 and 3753.] He had had very short notice that he was required to give evidence. This set of papers was, in fact, recovered on the same day from the Exchequer and Audit Department at Adastral House, and was sent to Sir C. Harris, too late, however, for his evidence. No later request was made for the production of these papers, because, presumably, the dates given by Sir C. Harris were approximately correct.

Thus the papers carrying the history of the discussion beyond the summer of 1917, to which alone the Committee allude in their Report, are not lost. Moreover, they were found within a short time of their being required, and the substance of them was placed before the Committee in the paper submitted to them by the Ministry of Munitions on the 30th May. (See Appendix P.)

The only papers which are not forth coming are those which Sir A. Crofton Atkins stated contain minutes, other than those in the file laid before the Com- mittee, written by him prior to May, 1917. Sir A. Crofton Atkins is unable to furnish any more precise reference to such papers, and none answering the description can be traced amongst the registered files of the Department. The minutes were per haps written on papers which were never sent for entry in the registers of the permanent records of the War Office.

The suggestion that important official papers essential to this case have been lost, therefore, takes its place among the many misleading legends which have been put in circulation about it.