FINANCE (No. 2) BILL (Hansard, 21 June 1967)

§ Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)
On a point of Order, Sir Eric. I wish to refer to a disagreement between myself and the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 12th June, 1967. This was a disagreement about the rate of Capital Gains Tax as applied to Surtax payers. The hon. Gentleman then said: What I shall read first is the green carbon unedited copy of the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, to make certain that nothing has been corrected. I know the tricks much better than the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne does."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 150.] I was not much troubled about the hon. Gentleman's lack of understanding of the alternative basic charge for Capital Gains Tax, nor was I much concerned about his general behaviour, nor with the looseness of his tongue which I thought the Committee would well understand. What concerned me was that on the following Sunday, in the Sunday Times of 18th June, in an article by Mr. Milner, there appeared this statement: Sir Gerald announced his intention of referring to the 'green carbon unedited copy' of Sheldon's speech to discover whether there had been any 'verbal corrections'. If the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne did say exactly what HANSARD recorded, however, then Sir Gerald would have to agree with him. This I consider to be of some importance. If what is stated in the House is subsequently to be contested by any hon. Member, so contesting the OFFICIAL REPORT, we shall cease to have any certain proof of what was said. I raise this point of order to establish this.

§ Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)
Further to that point of order, Sir Eric. Is it not a rule of the House that an hon. Member who wishes to raise a point of order referring to the records should do so at the earliest possible moment? It appears that this comment was made in the Press on 12th June. Today is 21st June. Is it not an abuse of the time of 1750 the House to raise this point after all this time has elapsed? How can the matter be checked? How can we check the rights or wrongs of it? Is it not a fact that the Official Reporters are quite capable of looking after themselves without having this point raised nine days later?

§ The Chairman
I gave the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) permission to make this statement, this being the first occasion on which the Committee has sat since the publication of the Sunday Times, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The matter, thus having been explained, does not admit of debate.
The next new Clause is—

§ Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)
On a point of order, Sir Eric. Are you ruling, then, that the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is a bogus point of order? Is that your ruling, because surely we should pay no regard, other than on a matter of privilege, to an opinion expressed in a newspaper?

§ The Chairman
That is not my ruling. I gave the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne permission to make that statement by way of personal explanation arising out of something that occurred at the last meeting of the Committee and which was subsequently reported in the Press. I must also rule that it does not admit of debate.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
On a point of order, Sir Eric. You have just referred to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) having made a statement. I distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman raise a point of order. Is it not the fact that, if the hon. Gentleman is given permission to make a statement, I should be given permission to answer, for I violently disagree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, which is wholly fallacious and not a little dishonest?

§ The Chairman
We cannot pursue this. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, rising on a point of order, made, with my permission, a statement by way of personal explanation in order to put something on record which now has appeared on record. We must now proceed.

§ Mr. Joel Barnett (Heywood and Royton)
Further to that point of order, Sir Eric. Although it is what one normally expects from the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) when he makes false accusations, as he did when, on 12th June, he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) of "misleading the Committee"—I direct attention to column 149 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 12th June—would it be in order for the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South now to apologise and to withdraw the very false accusation he then made?

§ Sir G. Nabarro
Further to that point of order—

§ The Chairman
I have been asked to rule on a point of order, and I must rule that the statement which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has made does not admit of further debate. We must proceed to new Clause—

§ Mr. Barnett
Further to that point of of order. There is a very important point here. A newspaper has called in doubt a statement made in Committe of the whole House. It said, "If the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made a particular speech". That speech was reported in HANSARD, presumably correctly. The newspaper called it in doubt by saying, "if he said it". If newspapers are to be able to call in doubt statements which are officially recorded in HANSARD, I suggest that it is a very serious matter. I would like your ruling, Sir Eric.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
Further to that point of order, Sir Eric.

§ The Chairman
I can rule on only one point of order at a time.
My ruling is that the statement in the Sunday Times, to which the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has referred, arose out of something which was said in this Committee on a previous occasion, doubting, or perhaps throwing some doubt on, the veracity of a report in HANSARD. I thought that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was entitled to give, by way of personal explanation, his version of what had occurred. The hon. Gentleman has done so, and I must confirm my ruling that, he having done so, it does not admit of further debate.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
On a point of order, Sir Eric. The reference in the newspaper statement to which you alluded was to a "punch-up" between hon. Members. In a "punch-up", we expect there to be a referee. As you have allowed the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne to make what purported to be a statement under the guise of a point of order, is it not now in order for me to make application to the Chair that I also be allowed to make a statement under the guise of a point of order—

§ Mr. Barnett
Apologise.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
Certainly not—giving my interpretation of the position? Is it not somewhat improper in a "punch up" that the referee should take one side and not the other?

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ The Chairman
In so far as, by that observation, the hon. Gentleman has thrown any reflection on the Chair, I must ask him to withdraw it.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
It is no reflection whatever on the Chair, Sir Eric. I am quoted from a newspaper article which referred to a "punch-up". As one side of the "punch-up" has been heard in a statement which you authorised, under the guise of a point of order, I now ask you, Sir Eric, on a point of order, whether it would not be equitable for the other side of the affair to be put to the Committee as well. Why should one side be heard and not the other?

§ The Chairman
No. We cannot pursue this. It has for a long time been recognised that statements by way of personal explanation are permitted only provided that they do not lead to controversy.
We must now proceed to the business of the Committee.
The next new Clause selected is No. 37.