§ Major ELLIOTI rise to ask, Mr. Speaker, a question of which I have given you private notice, regarding the accuracy of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It will be within the recollection of you, Sir, and of the House, that yesterday, during the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a difference of opinion arose between him and Members on this side. The passage which gave rise to that difference of opinion was reported in three of the journals of this country, the "Manchester Guardian," the "Daily Herald" and the "Daily Telegraph," roughly, as follows. The "Manchester Guardian" says:
Many months ago the Government wanted to refer the subject to a council of State. The Conservative and the Liberal parties sent their representatives. What was the result? The Conservative party representatives failed to make any recommendations.That was taken up by my hon. Friend who was my colleague on the committee. In the "Daily Telegraph" the passage runs:Many months ago, he continued, the Government wanted to refer the subject to a council of State. The Conservative and Liberal parties sent their representatives, but what was the result? The Conservative party representatives failed to make any recommendations at all.The "Daily Herald" states:Many months ago the Government wanted to refer the subject to a council of State. The Conservative and Liberal parties 601 sent their representatives. What was the result? The Conservative party representatives failed to make any recommendations.In the "Daily Herald" report those words are printed in italics. In the current issue of the OFFICIAL REPORT the words are thus stated:The question was referred to a committee and the Conservative party sent their representatives to that committee and so did the Liberals. What was the result? The committee failed to make any recommendations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February 1931; col. 441, Vol. 248.]I only wish to say, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend, that it was on the definite understanding that we did hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say the Conservative party representatives failed to make any recommendations that we interrupted and took exception to that statement; and, in view of the difference which we find here between the OFFICIAL REPORT and the report in these three papers, covering the three main parties in the State, I do suggest, Sir, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend, that our recollection tallies much more closely with the newspaper reports than with the report as it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the House. That was the impression of my hon. Friend, my colleague. I only wish to say that, in these circumstances, it seems most desirable that we should understand clearly what the accusation was, because the suggestion that we put forward no recommendations is, to put it no higher, quite inaccurate. The suggestion that the recommendations which we put forward were of no value is a matter of opinion, which anyone is entitled to have, and I make no complaint as to the estimate of the value or non-value of the recommendations which we put forward; but the statement that we put forward no recommendations is not accurate, and, when there is a divergence such as this between the OFFICIAL REPORT and the reports of journals who have access to the Press Gallery, I must say that it is a point which it seems to me, for the honour of the House, should be further cleared up.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member puts me in some difficulty. I hope he does not expect that I shall decide as to what was actually said, or on the discrepancies there may be between reports. I certainly could not do that. I cannot be 602 the judge of the accuracy of various reports.
§ Mr. P. SNOWDENI do not know that I have any right to intervene in this matter. Of course, one can never be absolutely sure of the exact words one uses, but I should say the report of the OFFICIAL REPORT is accurate. It was what I had in my mind. I did not expect a report from the Conservatives. What I expected was a report from the committee, and, therefore, the words in the OFFICIAL REPORT express what I should certainly have had in my mind, whatever words I used.
§ Sir HUGH O'NEILLWould it be in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in order to make it quite clear as to what took place, whether he asked the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT to correct what had been taken down or not?
§ Mr. SNOWDENThere is absolutely no foundation whatever for that suggestion. I knew nothing more about it until it was mentioned to me to-day when I came to the House.
§ Sir H. O'NEILLThe right hon. Gentleman knows that that is sometimes done, and I merely wanted to make it quite clear.
§ Mr. S. BALDWINOf course, we accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but there is a discrepancy, and these discrepancies do occur, and where it comes to a verbatim report you will generally find that the independent Press—and all those papers are independent—is accurate, because, of course, Ministers' speeches are often sent for the revision of grammatical errors which we all fall into, and that work is generally done by a secretary. I fully accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he had not himself seen the official report of his speech. There is no doubt that what the right hon. Gentleman did say, and I am speaking in the recollection of the House, is what was reported in those three newspapers, and I do suggest to him that he should instruct his secretaries to see that the OFFICIAL REPORT tallies with the report of those papers.
§ Sir HENRY BETTERTONWill the right hon. Gentleman give the fullest publicity to the fact that he did receive a report?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. I have seen, of course, the papers of the proceedings of the Committee, but I do not—
§ Sir H. BETTERTONDo I understand the right hon. Gentleman now to say that he does not know whether he received a report from the Conservative Members of the Committee or not?
§ Mr. SNOWDENI really do not know to what the hon. Gentleman refers. There were a great many minutes of the proceedings of the Committee, and suggestions have been made, but I should hardly call them a report.
§ Mr. LAWRIEOn a point of Order. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) was justified in reading a part of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and leaving out a further paragraph which contains the summarised statement of the newspapers?
§ Major ELLIOTI am willing to read the full report, but I did not desire to take up the time of the House. If anyone wishes me to read the whole of the report—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe whole question at issue depends on two or three words.
§ Mr. LAWRIEMy point to you is that the OFFICIAL REPORT does contain the summarised statement which the hon. and gallant Member read from the newspaper. I understand the hon. and gallant Member's statement to be that the OFFICIAL REPORT did not contain that statement. I am suggesting that it does.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI am sorry to trouble the House even for a moment with a matter of another newspaper inaccuracy. Five minutes ago there was put in my hand a copy of an edition of to-day's "Daily Sketch," and under the heading of "Our Lobby Correspondent," there is this comment:
Mr. Snowden also made it clear that the dole is to be drastically reduced and that the 400,000 workers who are receiving transitional benefit will be transferred to the Poor Law.I am sure that every Member of the House who heard my speech will know that that is wholly incorrect. I made 604 no reference to the reduction of the dole at all, and I never said a word about the Poor Law. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I may, seeing that this is written by a journalist who, I suppose, is a privileged journalist in this House, whether it is within your power to take any action to prevent such gross misrepresentation?
§ Mr. SPEAKERAs the Chancellor of of the Exchequer knows, my present duties are very onerous and varied, and I should be very sorry to have to edit all the newspaper reports from this House. I am afraid it is far beyond my duties.
§ Mr. SNOWDENI certainly had no intention of handing on to you an added responsibility such as that, but may I put it like this, that when such an instance of the abuse of the privilege which this journalist enjoys is brought to your notice, whether it is not in your power to take action in the matter?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe only thing that I can promise to do is to look into the present incident which has been brought, to my notice.