HC Deb 22 November 1962 vol 667 cc1405-8
Mr. Loughlin

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter of incorrect reporting in today's HANSARD, c. 1303, in the fourth paragraph. The hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) last night made certain charges against me concerning the performance of my duties as a Member of this House—or, rather, my failure to carry out those duties. But I find that in today's HANSARD the context of what he said has been altered so as to withdraw the charges. There has, in fact, been a complete alteration in the sense of what he said. I think that the charges ought to be withdrawn properly and not in this fashion.

Mr. Speaker

What I am concerned with is the accuracy of HANSARD. Because the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) came to see me, I have ascertained that the text has been altered. I regret that error, because it is an alteration that ought not to have been passed.

Mr. Hale

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not making complaint about corrections, for I have used this procedure myself and I think that it is a very good one, but I understand that these serious allegations against an hon. Member of lack of duty towards his constituency—incidentally, my hon. Friend is one of the most regular attenders at the House and was here until midnight on Tuesday—have been reported in the Press. Is it not appropriate that the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) should make a formal withdrawal of the specific statement he made attacking my hon. Friend in the exercise of his duty?

Mr. Speaker

What I am dealing with at the moment is the accuracy of HANSARD, which is my responsibility. I do not think that what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) says is a matter for me. I do not see the hon. Member for Market Harborough present at the moment. I ought to have said, when speaking to the House before, that, of course, I have directed that an erratum notice will appear in tomorrow's HANSARD.

Mr. C. Pannell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that this is one for you. May I ask who altered the OFFICIAL REPORT? I have always understood that the practice of HANSARD is that no one can tamper with a report except the one who made it. Did anyone except the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) alter this report?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that I am required to tell the House more than this at the moment. Our rule about corrections is on page 270 of Erskine May. They are permitted, in practice, if they do not alter substantially the meaning of anything that was said in the House. It is because it did alter the meaning that this correction should not have been passed.

Mr. Gaitskell

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we really leave the matter like this? This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and if the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) were here perhaps he would be prepared to withdraw the allegation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was he told?"] I do not know.

Hon. Members

He should be here.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is saying. I would be obliged if hon. Members would allow me to do so.

Mr. Gaitskell

There seem to be two aspects to this matter. First, there is the question of the allegation itself, and, secondly, the fact that HANSARD was altered and is now to be corrected. Somebody must have done this. You, Mr. Speaker, quite properly said that you did not want to say more at the moment, but it is not satisfactory to leave the position like that. If a point of substance of this degree of importance has been altered, it should not have been altered and, therefore, it is surely right and proper that if an hon. Member were responsible he should apologise and possibly withdraw the original statement.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that that is a matter for me. I am fairly loath to say any more because, although I endeavoured to get hold of the hon. Member for Market Harborough today, I was unable to do so; thus he has not had any information about the report I have received from HANSARD. In these circumstances, I do not think it right or fair for me to say more today.

Mr. Paget

Since this is an unsatisfactory way to leave the matter, Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that an alteration of HANSARD in a manner not allowed by the rules is a breach of Privilege?

Mr. Speaker

If that is raised as a complaint I will take 24 hours to consider it.

Mr. Hale

What is the position, Mr. Speaker, of a newspaper which, in good faith, reports an observation made under the protection of Privilege, when an action for libel is brought by the hon. Member concerned against it in respect of a publication which is not substantiated by the report of what took place?

Mr. Speaker

If and when my duty should require me to consider such a problem I shall do so with great intellectual pleasure.

Sir T. Moore

Would it be proper to ask if the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) warned my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) that he intended to raise this subject today?

Mr. Speaker

It is no good asking me. I do not know.

Mr. Hoy

In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) the House should know that the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr), having made this charge, did not even do the courtesy to the House of hearing the winding-up speeches yesterday, when he could have had an opportunity of withdrawing.

Mr. Speaker

There is no possible ground for raising a matter like that at this time.

Mr. Loughlin

I would like to make it clear to the House, Sir, that I raised this question with the hon. Member for Market Harborough last night, and that I have been considering it today, as you know. When I decided to ask you for permission to raise it on a point of order, I was unable to get in touch with the hon. Member. I must point out that after today there would have been no opportunity for me to raise this matter in the House.