HC Deb 27 June 1966 vol 730 cc1240-9
Mr. Iain Macleod

I wish to raise a point of order of which I have given you, Mr. Speaker, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, notice.

Winding up last Thursday's debate on Second Reading of the Selective Employment Payments Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted an illustration of a farmer whose turnover was £60,000, and, he said, for him the tax would cost £100 a quarter, and then, according to HANSARD, he went on with these words: Many people spend as much as that on an afternoon at Ascot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1044.] The recollection of the Press, of the B.B.C. and of this House is that he said something very different indeed. There are many examples of this in the Press. Perhaps I could quote from the Daily Express of Saturday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is headed: Ascot Row. Farmers Demand Callaghan Apology. The Chancellor knows that he received a telegram from the President of the National Farmers' Union, protesting.

The discrepancy is quite easily explained. The HANSARD official note was altered by a Treasury official. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That note read: Many people of this kind", That will be within the recollection of the House, and those words are similar to those which appeared in many reports in the Press. The Chancellor's official struck out the words "of this kind" and, therefore, turned it into a general gibe and not one directed at the farmers, as the House heard from the Chancellor last Thursday.

It then goes further than that—and again I quote— A Treasury spokesman tried to protect the Chancellor and claimed in a statement on Friday night that reports of Mr. Callaghan's speech on Thursday were inaccurate. He quoted a sentence from HANSARD, a sentence which was altered by the official from the Treasury, and went on to say: I can see no implication at all that he is referring to farmers. Nor, indeed, could I, if that had been what the Chancellor said.

Mr. William Hamilton

This is corny.

Mr. Macleod

I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this Treasury spokesman who tried to protect him.

Mr. William Hamilton

Kaldor?

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are on a serious issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—even if it has political undertones. Mr. Macleod.

Mr. Iain Macleod

The alteration of the OFFICIAL REPORT is a serious matter, and it has always been treated as such. Naturally, the Chancellor will understand that the Press who report our proceedings naturally resent what has happened, because the implication would be that their reports, which are, in fact, now known to be accurate, were incompetent.

The farmers, as the Chancellor knows, were bitterly angry at what they thought he said, and they now know that, in fact, he did say.

So, having made it quite clear that the OFFICIAL REPORT was altered in a material particular, and that the alteration should not have been asked for by a responsible Minister of the Crown, I ask that an appropriate correction should be made and I invite the Chancellor to apologise to the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan)

Further to the point of order which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. HANSARD quotes my sentence as being: Many people spend as much as that on an afternoon at Ascot."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1044.] That sentence is incomplete. This has nothing to do with a Treasury official. The correction was made on my instructions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I resent very much the right hon. Gentleman bringing a Treasury official into this. This is my responsibility and no one else's.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] In reply to that, I would use the old Biblical aphorism, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

As far as I can make out, there are at least three versions of what I said on that afternoon, in the middle of a very hot debate. The Daily Telegraph has one, the Daily Express has another, and the B.B.C. has a third, I understand; but the facts are that I said, as HANSARD itself originally reported: Many people of this kind spend as much as that on an afternoon at Ascot. I cut out the words "of this kind" because it seemed to me a slur on the farmers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—and having made it in the heat of that debate I did not wish to immortalise it in the prose of HANSARD.

However, the right hon. Gentleman has got his way: the words will now appear; the slur on the farmers will be there—[HON. MEMBERS: "Whose fault?"]—because I may not take them back. I readily accept that I made the alteration. It will be within the judgment of the House whether they think that is a serious matter or not—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] Of course, it is wrong to alter HANSARD. We all know this. We all know it is never done—[Laughter.]—and I only say, if it has given deep offence to the party opposite, that I deeply regret that I struck those words out of HANSARD, and that I hope they get as much satisfaction as they can out of it.

Mr. Iain Macleod

Does the Chancellor realise he has made this matter much more serious by the statement he has made? He has admitted, first of all—this was my first point—that this was a slur. He has gone on to say that he himself asked that these words, spoken within the hearing of the Press and of the OFFICIAL REPORT, should be struck out. It is not within the competence of any Minister or any Member of this House to do such a thing—[Interruption.] No. It is not. HANSARD may not be altered in a material particular. This has been established for a very long time indeed, and the right hon. Gentleman now admits that he did this himself—instead of what I thought was the much more likely explanation, that an official, correcting the speech, had altered it—that he himself had given instructions to strike out what he admits to be a slur on the farming industry. That is a matter which we on this side of the House will have to consider very seriously indeed.

Mr. Sandys

On a point of order.

Mr. Shinwell

Further to the point of order. I am not raising the question of making a change in the HANSARD report. Of course, we all know it has been done frequently, even by Ministers and Prime Ministers—and if the House wants chapter and verse I will give it—[HON. MEMBERS: "DO."] Oh, no. I know a little more about these things than you do. My point of order is this——

Mr. Speaker

For the record, by "you" the right hon. Gentleman means the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman was not referring to me.

Mr. Shinwell

The point of order that I am raising is this, and it will be on the record in HANSARD tomorrow morning—unless it is altered. The statement by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is as clear as can be that a Treasury official altered the statement in HANSARD. What I am asking is: is that not a very serious accusation against—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will hear each other.

Mr. Shinwell

Is that not a serious accusation against a civil servant, and an unspecified accusation, which makes it very much worse, for which the right hon. Gentleman has made himself responsible, and should he not be called upon to withdraw at once?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question whether a right hon. or hon. Gentleman makes a charge against a civil servant is not a point of order for me. It is a matter for an hon. Member's judgment and discretion.

Mr. Iain Macleod

Further to that point of order——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I would like to go further and deal with the general point of order which the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has raised. I would remind the House—speaking of this like Agag, walking delicately, because I sinned myself once—that HANSARD is a full report in the first person which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially a verbatim report, with repetitions and redundancies omitted and with obvious mistakes corrected, but which, on the other hand, leaves out nothing that adds to the meaning of a speech or illustrates an argument.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for doing me the courtesy of giving me notice this morning that he intended to raise this point. That has enabled me to make inquiries. I have examined the original transcript, and it is quite clear that the passage, as reported, read: Many people of this kind spend as much as that on an afternoon at Ascot". As the House has observed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made exactly the same statement as to what was originally in the text. I understand that an alteration was suggested, leaving out the words "of this kind". That was accepted by the reporters, but, after discussion with the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT, both he and I are satisfied that it ought not to have been accepted by the reporters; and the passage, in its original purity, will appear in its original form in the Bound Volume.

Mr. Sandys

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this not really a very serious matter, and is it not unfortunate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should try and make it a laughing matter—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. C. Pannell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am dealing with this one. I was not aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made it a laughing matter.

Mr. Pannell

Mr. Speaker, you yourself have said that you have sinned in this matter in the past, I think for the very honourable reason that you were betrayed improperly into a solecism which you would not wish to stand on the record to the hurt of someone. There are plenty of precedents for what the Chancellor has done. What there is not an admission of is the degree of humbug from the other side in raising this matter.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

Mr. Speaker, to put it in plain English, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted faking the record. What protection do hon. Members or the public have from Ministers of the Crown who fake the record?

Mr. Callaghan

If I may give an answer, when a Minister of the Crown is accused of faking the record he immediately accepts responsibility for the words that were struck out. That is the best protection of the House, and that is what I have done. I did it for a good reason.

Mr. William Hamilton

Mr. Speaker, could you make it quite clear to the House that when a right hon. or hon. Member goes to the OFFICIAL REPORT and requests that something should be struck out, the decision whether or not to strike it out rests with HANSARD and not with the Member concerned? Do I get your explanation clear, Sir, that, in fact, the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT originally accepted my right hon. Friend's suggestion that these words be omitted? Could you say what further circumstances caused him to alter that original decision?

Mr. Speaker

No. I will not add anything more to what I have said actually happened. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), on reflection, will agree with me and I hope that the House will agree with me, that, in the matter which is being raised, or, indeed, any other matter which is raised on the Floor of the House, we do not seek to criticise in any way the Parliamentary reporters who serve us so magnificently upstairs.

Mr. Iain Macleod

I would like to respond to the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) straight away. I am not sure whether I have this right. The account that I gave to the House has been borne out exactly by what Mr. Speaker has said of his discussions with the Editor of HANSARD. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, in every respect. If the Chancellor went upstairs himself, and altered it, which I am bound to say I find incredible, then, of course, I will amend my original statement to that; but I find it incredible. I had assumed that a Treasury official had altered it. Will the Chancellor tell us whether he went upstairs himself and altered it?

Mr. Callaghan

I see no reason for any secrecy about this. I asked the Treasury official to make the alteration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Treasury official—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I want to hear the Chancellor.

Mr. Callaghan

The Treasury official concerned did it under my instructions, and I take full responsibility for it. What I objected to in the first place was the line taken that the Treasury official had tried to make these alterations. Anything done by him, or by anyone trying to protect me on the following day from the Press, I take full responsibility for. I would be glad if Treasury officials could be left out of it.

Mr. Evelyn King

As I understand, Sir, the Chancellor has offered one apology. May I ask him whether he will generously offer another for his preceding words, in which he refers to a farmer, whom he takes to be typical, with a turnover of £60,000 a year? Would he accept that the income——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot debate last Thursday's debate again now.

Mr. Evelyn King

Mr. Speaker, you have already ruled as being in order one apology from the Chancellor in respect of these words. I would have thought that it was in order to ask him to further that apology. May I ask him whether he will accept that the majority of farmers work seven days a week and have never been within miles of Ascot in their lives, because they resent such statements?

Mr. Speaker

Order. As I suspected, we are now getting into the realms of political argument. It has nothing to do with this at the moment.

Mr. Sandys

Mr. Speaker, I would like your guidance. Immediately after the intervention that I made or the point of order that I raised a moment ago, the Prime Minister shouted across to me, and I took down his words—[Interruption.].

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I say, first, that I deprecate very much appealing to the Chair about words which are flung across the Chamber and which the Chair has been fortunate enough not to hear? But, in case there should be any misunderstanding, the right hon. Gentleman may tell me now.

Mr. Sandys

This is what the Prime Minister shouted across to me. [Laughter.] This is very serious, and other hon. Members heard it. He said, "You be careful what you say. We know too much." He then pointed to my right hon. Friends and myself. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the way to behave and that the Prime Minister should not attempt to intimidate my right hon. and hon. Friends.

The Prune Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

Further to that point of order. I should not, if the right hon. Gentleman got me down right, have said, "You should watch it", or whatever the words were, because I was not addressing myself to the Chair, as perhaps I should have been, when it would have been more correct to say, "The right hon. Gentleman should watch it". We certainly do not know too much.

I think that it has always been a matter for concern in the House when HANSARD has been altered in the sense as opposed to mere questions of grammar, punctuation, or anything that is not essential. This has always been a matter of concern.

In view of the concern which has been expressed this afternoon, and remembering, as I do, the action of the then Leader of the Opposition in altering HANSARD in a fundamental sense on what he had said about sanctions against Rhodesia, and the fact that the corrected version in HANSARD which the House was not even told about was very different from the Press reports at the time, and was of fundamental importance, I should like now to consider with my right hon. Friends what action the House as a whole ought to take on this whole subject, including the question whether it should now be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure so that we can get clear Rulings on the changes that can be made in HANSARD, some of them without any opportunity of the House, whatever its recollection, or whatever the Press recollection, having a chance afterwards of querying the corrections made, as in the case to which I have referred.

Mr. Speaker

May I deal, first, with the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). In the words which he heard across the Floor there was nothing unparliamentary except the use of the second person pronoun.

Mr. Heath

Whereas my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) gave notice to you and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would raise this subject at the earliest opportunity, the Prime Minister has now taken it on himself to raise another issue. I do not know to what he is referring, but he said, "the then Leader of the Opposition ", which is obviously a period many months old, without giving any notice to anybody who is supposed to be concerned with the matter.

Is it not the case that this is not in accordance with our Parliamentary traditions? Would it not be better to return to the matter which has been raised by my right hon. Friend, namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer instructed the record to be altered? The right hon. Gentleman said that this was the case, and he has given the reason why he did it, which was to remove a slur on the farmers of this country. He thereby admits that he made the slur in his speech, and ought not the matter to be finally closed by a complete apology from the Chancellor for so doing?

Mr. Speaker

The last point is not a matter for the Chair, but for the Chancellor. I think that we might now consider this matter closed, for today at any rate.

With regard to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed, before I made my statement, the statement that I was going to make.

Mr. C. Pannell

Listen with mother.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have said that the record is to be corrected. We have the Finance Bill ahead of us, and I think that we might now proceed to it.