HC Deb 27 February 1912 vol 34 cc1167-71
Sir HENRY CRAIK

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that the military correspondent of the "Times," in the issue of 2nd February, quotes a table as to the strength of the Regular Army on 1st October, 1911, purporting to be taken from page 26 of the General Annual Report, and that that Report has not yet been laid before Parliament; and how the military correspondent of "The Times" obtained access to a Report which is not yet available to Members of Parliament?

Earl WINTERTON

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that an article appeared in the Press recently in which the author quoted from the General Annual Report of the British Army for 1911; and if he will state whether this Report had been presented to Parliament on the date when the article appeared?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely)

The answer to the first part of each question is in the affirmative. The military correspondent of the "Times" obtained the information from the War Office. He was not aware that the figures he quoted had not previously been published, and, by a misunderstanding, this fact was not brought to his notice by the Department concerned. I should add that the figures quoted were not in any sense secret, or even confidential; they would, of course, have been supplied to any Member of this House who had applied to me for them. It is regretted that owing to the misunderstanding to which I have referred the figures were thus published before they were formally laid on the Table of this House.

Sir H. CRAIK

Why was this General Annual Report available for a favoured correspondent at a time when it is not laid on the Table of the House?

Colonel SEELY

It is available for the House now.

Sir H. CRAIK

But why was it not laid on the Table of the House instead of being available for a favoured correspondent of a newspaper?

Colonel SEELY

It is laid on the Table of the House. It is in anticipation. The Return is only published annually. If it were published quarterly or every six months, as I presume this gentleman must have assumed, there would have been no question. But in order to save time, trouble and expense, it is only laid annually. It has just been laid now.

Sir H. CRAIK

When will it be distributed and in the hands of hon. Members of the House?

Colonel SEELY

I think if the hon. Gentleman goes to the Vote Office now he will find it there. It was formally laid yesterday.

Mr. ASHLEY

Why were we informed last year that this gentleman would have no access to any documents?

Colonel SEELY

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer which I then gave he will see that I then said that he would have no access to any secret or confidential documents. This, of course, was neither a secret nor a confidential document.

Mr. LEE

Will similar facilities be given to the other papers?

Colonel SEELY

I do not think any newspapers applied, but I have got a request this morning from the editor of a newspaper. Of course, I was able to send him a copy, as it had already been laid.

Earl WINTERTON

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the frequency during the last five years of cases with which documents have been shown to newspaper correspondents and others outside this House before they were laid on the Table of the House, and to the Prime Minister's promise on the subject?

Colonel SEELY

I think that this is the first case that has been brought to my notice since I have been at the War Office.

Mr. W. PEEL

Was this information given to the correspondent of the "Times" in his capacity as a semi-official of the War Office, or in his capacity as a newspaper correspondent?

Colonel SEELY

I do not know exactly what happened except this, that this gentleman, the editor of the "Army Review," asked for these figures and they were supplied to him. He, not knowing that they had not been published, and assuming that they had been published, as the information was already three months or more old, openly quoted them in his article. There could be no attempt on his part to obtain access to secret documents.

Mr. W. PEEL

Is it not beyond the wit of any one man to distinguish his own capacity, as to whether he is acting as the correspondent of the "Times" or the editor of this paper the "Army Review"?

Colonel SEELY

I do not think that it is beyond the wit of this man. I do not think he will make a similar mistake again.

Mr. KING

Is this gentleman Colonel Repington, the gentleman who exposed the Leader of the Opposition?

Colonel SEELY

I do not think that that has anything to do with it He is correspondent, for a newspaper which is not very favourable to the Government in its general politics. I do not know his politics, but from conversation I gather that he by no means agrees with the policy of the Government of the day.

Earl WINTERTON

asked upon what date it is expected that the General Annual Report for the year ending 30th September last will be ready for circulation?

Colonel SEELY

The report is being circulated to-day.

Earl WINTERTON

asked whether Colonel Repington continues to be officially connected with a War Office publication; and, if so, whether there is any agreement binding him not to write upon military subjects for the non-official Press?

Mr. LEE

asked what official position, if any, is or has been held by Lieutenant-Colonel Repington since he became the military correspondent of the "Times" newspaper; what is the amount of the salary, if any, that he receives or has received from public funds in connection with any such official position, and under what sub-head of the Estimates is such salary accounted for; whether any official office accommodation inside or outside of the War Office is or has been provided for Lieutenant-Colonel Repington; and what is the exact nature of any official duties that may have been performed by him since be became military correspondent of the "Times"?

Mr. LEE

asked what precedent, if any, there is for the official employment and State remuneration of a newspaper correspondent in connection with the War Office or other Government Department; and whether it is proposed to continue the employment of the military correspondent of the "Times" in an official capacity?

Colonel SEELY

Lieutenant-Colonel Repington is editor of the "Army Review," and has held this appointment since 1st April, 1911, when the "Review" was first started. His salary as such is £500 a year, and will be found provided founder Vote 12. He has been allowed the use of a room at the War Office. His exceptional capacity for writing on military subjects was the reason for his selection for this new post. There is no engagement binding him not to write upon military subjects for the non-official Press, and his employment by the "Times" as their military correspondent has not been found in any way to interfere with his duties as editor of the "Army Review."

Mr. LEE

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for War stated in another place the other day that Colonel Repington had not been provided with a room in the War Office, and will he inform us what are the facts of the case?

Colonel SEELY

There was no special room allotted to Colonel Repington with his name placed on the door. The hon. Gentleman knows the way in which rooms are allotted in a public office. But for the purpose of the editing of the "Army Review" he goes to the War Office two or three times a week. It is not what is called a whole-time appointment. He has been in several different rooms, and has been moved from place to place in order to find a desk to write upon.