HC Deb 20 January 1943 vol 386 cc217-9
Mr. Simmonds

I desire to raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, which arises from a Question that I addressed yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production, to whom I have given such notice as in the circumstances has been possible. I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would confirm the assurance that he gave the House in previous circumstances, before Christmas, that the Minister of National Service will not remove from essential war work men and women for transfer unless the Supply Department interested in the production of the undertaking concerned has been consulted and has confirmed the view that the change is in the national interest. I believe it will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that my right hon. Friend replied: Certainly, I can give that assurance. It was an assurance which the House welcomed from all sides, as it naturally would do. The correspondent of "The Times" also correctly heard the answer which my right hon. Friend gave. My attention has been drawn by a number of my hon. Friends to the fact that in the OFFICIAL REPORT my right hon. Friend is reported as saying, not: Certainly, I can give that assurance, but: Certainly, I can give the assurance that the Supply Departments will be consulted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1943; Vol. 386, cols. 40–41.] But I asked two things: first, that the Supply Department would be consulted, and, secondly, that no men and women would be removed from vital industry until the Supply Department had confirmed the view that the change was in the national interest. I have consulted the Editors of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I have in my hand the typewritten transcript of the reporter's notes, and there are in the typescript the words: Mr. LYTTELTON: Certainly, I can give that assurance. There are also additionally in the manuscript these words: Certainly, I can give the assurance that the Supply Departments will be consulted. I understand from the Editors of the OFFICIAL REPORT that a representative of the Minister visited the office of the Editors and asked that that alteration should be made. Let me at this stage say that I think I must completely exonerate the Official Reporters when any hon. Member states that he has been misheard or misconstrued, and I understand that it is a well understood custom of the House that where an hon. Member desires slightly to modify the weight or the grammar of any of his questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not the weight."]—that it is permissible; but, certainly, it is news to me that any hon. Member or right hon. Member may withdraw an assurance or modify the substance of an answer that he has given. Indeed, this was a vital question to war industry and not one which could be trifled with lightly. I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I feel it is my duty to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will be good enough to instruct the Editors of the OFFICIAL REPORT that a suitable alteration should be made in an approved way so that the assurance that the Minister gave should be reported in his own words. I think I ought also to ask whether you will give your powerful support in preventing any recurrence of this type of alteration, which I would respectfully submit is neither in the public interest nor in accordance with the best traditions of the House.

Mr. Speaker

As the House is aware, there is a Rule that Ministers and other Members cannot alter substantially the meaning of anything which they have said in this House. They can merely make verbal alterations, perhaps to improve the grammar of what has been said or to make clearer what they have intended. In this particular case the Minister was wrong in authorising any alterations in or additions to what he had said, if he did do so. I think, however, it was quite innocent. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Obviously he intended to say, "I can give an assurance that this should be so," and he thought the answer as revised put it more clearly than the answer which he gave. I think he intended to clarify what he had said. I may be wrong, but that is the impression which it gives to me. As I say, however, I think he was wrong in doing so and in making this alteration, simply because it might have been open to misinterpretation, as it has been.

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton)

I apologise for this mistake, which I acknowledge has been made. I am afraid that my answer was inaudible, and therefore I asked that the reply which I had given should be looked at, and I say quite definitely, that, as it appears now, it is not what I said. I am very sorry that this mistake, for which I am responsible, should have occurred. On the other hand, the reply which I did give was not that which my hon. Friend meant. I said I could give a general assurance. I think hon. Members will remember that. If I may take this opportunity of clearing up the mistake, I would say that the reason I said "general assurance" is that, of course, it is the duty of the Supply Departments to represent to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour whether a large general withdrawal of skilled labour from a particular industry or section of industry is going to affect production, but it is not possible in particular cases for those representations to be made. That is only to try to clear up what I meant. What I said was "general assurance." I apologise for this mistake, and I completely acknowledge that the answer as given does not represent what I said.