HC Deb 05 November 1970 vol 805 cc1272-4
Mr. Speaker

I have received a statement from the Editor of HANSARD about the matter raised in the House yesterday, reported in C. 1111 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for today, which I undertook to look into. In his note to me, the Editor says: In his point of order, the hon. Member for Bolsover said that he had been up to HANSARD and while there heard representations being made by the Government side to the Deputy Editor of HANSARD with regard to this question". That was the matter of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Editor goes on to say: In fact what he heard was a telephone conversation between the Deputy Editor and the Speaker's Secretary concerning a passage in the HANSARD report of something that happened in the House on another day. No approaches or representations were made to HANSARD by the Government side or by any of the Chancellor's officials. When the hon. Member for Bolsover asked for permission to see the typescript report of the Chancellor's speech he was told that it was for the Editor to decide whether it could be shown to him but unfortunately the Editor was not immediately available. (The rule is that hon. Members may not see the typescript report of another Member's speech.)

Mr. Skinner

I trust that it is clear from your statement, Mr. Speaker, that what I said yesterday was said in good faith, but I realise that it was based on a misapprehension. Therefore, I would wish to withdraw any statement I made yesterday which could be taken as casting any imputations on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his assistants.

Mr. Latham

On a point of order. I apologise for not having advised you, Mr. Speaker, of this point of order in advance and for not acquainting the Government Front Bench with my intention to raise it, but I hope that it is appreciated that it has emerged only very recently. I emphasise that my point of order is not intended to be related in any way to the statement just made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the events which led to the statement.

I wish to draw attention to c. 1101 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday's debate in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported as having made the following statement: The result of the new system of exemptions, remissions and refunds—I come to the sort of case raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)—is that a typical family with two children, with an income of right up to£1,000 a year—the hon. Member mentioned£1,000 a year—will not have to pay any of the increased charges for school meals, prescription charges or health charges which I announced last week". The report of the spech concludes with a further reference to this matter which reads: He"— that is, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale— wants to go back to Ebbw Vale and to tell his people that it is all terrible for everybody with an income of under£1,000 a year, but that is not true."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 1101.] My point of order is this. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is present, does not agree that that was what he intended to say, that that report of his remarks is correct, or does not agree on reflection that that statement, taken literally, is true and concludes that, unwittingly or inadvertently, he may have misled the House, would it be possible for him either to amend and correct that statement in HANSARD, or would you permit him, Mr. Speaker, during and before the conclusion of the debate which is to follow, to make a statement to correct what he said or justify it to the House?

Mr. Speaker

With respect, that was not very much like a point of order.

First, now that the other part of the business is over, I take this opportunity of expressing on behalf of all of us our admiration for the work of the HANSARD reporters and of the jealousy with which they stick to their independent position, independent of both sides of the House. The Editor is an independent officer of the House responsible only to Mr. Speaker.

On the issue which the hon. Gentleman has raised, the hon. Gentleman simply disagrees with part of the statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made yesterday. I am trying hard to get to the debate in which Members may make such points as the hon. Member sought to make as a point of order. It is not a point of order.