HC Deb 07 July 1927 vol 208 cc1432-3
46. Mr. PONSONBY

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will explain why the despatch printed on pages 28 and 29 of Command Paper 2895, Russia No. 3 (1927), appears over the signature of J. Ramsay MacDonald, in view of the fact that the original document was signed by a Departmental head in the Foreign Office in the absence of the Secretary of State; and why, if this alteration was to be made, the consent of an ex-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was not obtained before his name was made use of in this way?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson)

It is the ordinary routine practice of the Foreign Office in printing, either for Departmental use or publication, a note or despatch purporting to be written by the Secretary of State, to print his signature, without consultation with him, even though the document may have been signed by an Under-Secretary or head of Department on his behalf.

The usual practice was followed in this case, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, entirely agrees that this was a mistake. The special circumstances of the case called for exceptional treatment and my right hon. Friend desires me to express to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition his regret that this was not noticed at the time of printing. He trusts that this explanation will remove any annoyance caused to the right hon. Gentleman by the oversight.

Mr. PONSONBY

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask whether it would be possible for the correct signature to this document to be printed in a re-issue of this Paper in order that those who are referring to this document in future may see precisely what the circumstances were?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

Certainly, in any reprint that will be done.

Colonel DAY

Is it not possible, in the case of those books which have not been already distributed, for a copy of the question and answer to be put in the back of the book?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I think the question and answer in this House will be quite sufficient notice.

Back to