HC Deb 19 February 1957 vol 565 cc179-80
3. Mr. Strachey

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish the Report of the Hull Committee.

Mr. Hare

No, Sir. As I explained in a Written Answer to a Question by the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 23rd October, the Report is unsuitable for publication for reasons of security.

Mr. Strachey

In view of the fact that an unauthorised précis of the main conclusions of the Report has appeared in The Times, would it not be wise to let us know at any rate its main features—a bowdlerised version of the Report, or something like that? The present position is unsatisfactory, and we do not know whether The Times report is accurate or not.

Mr. Hare

The Times was dealing with the changes in organisation, size and shape of the Army which would result from the recommendations of the Report. It did not actually publish details of the Report itself.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray

Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision in this matter, because it is really difficult for hon. Members to have a worthwhile opinion on this important subject without information? As to security, surely my right hon. Friend could exclude anything that was particularly secret?

Mr. Hare

I will consider that. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that this Report was never intended for publication. It was intended as a confidential guide for the Army Council when it came to consider the future size and shape of the Army.

Mr. Strachey

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that The Times report purported to give the conclusions of this Report? Surely we ought to have before us some statement from the War Office which will tell us whether that is correct or not, and give us the main outline.

Mr. Hare

"Purported", the House will have noticed, is the word which the right hon. Gentleman used. I will consider the matter carefully.