HC Deb 22 June 1998 vol 314 cc704-5 3.39 pm
Madam Speaker

I have some information that I need to give to the House. On 18 June, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) raised a point of order concerning exchanges between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister on 6 May. His concern was that the text of the Official Report did not accurately reflect what the Prime Minister had said. Later in the day, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and other hon. Members referred in debate to the same issue.

I wish to remind the House that the Official Report is intended to be a full report of proceedings in the House. A full report is defined in "Erskine May" as one which, though not strictly verbatim, is substantially the 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 the speech or illustrates the argument".

The Editor of the Official Report is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the report. He would not entertain any attempt by any hon. Member, however eminent, to alter the substance of what was said. He has confirmed to me that on 6 May neither the Prime Minister nor anyone acting for him or on his behalf made any such attempt. The changes that were made to the Prime Minister's words on 6 May were made by the Editor in fulfilment of his responsibilities. He is of the opinion that the changes in no way altered the sense of what the Prime Minister said. I shall publish the Editor's letter in the Official Report.

It is a well-established rule of the House that the Official Report is the authoritative record of what is said, and that tapes cannot be used for the purposes of casting doubt on the validity of the Official Report. Nevertheless, I have thought it right, in view of the sensitivity of this issue, to listen to the tape and to compare it with the Official Report in order to satisfy myself about the accuracy of the record. I must tell the House that it is clear to me that the Official Report is an entirely accurate account of the substance of the Prime Minister's remarks, and that nothing that added to the meaning was omitted.

Hon. Members may be aware that on Friday my office issued a short factual statement to the press together with the Editor's letter. I thought it right to do so, since my concern is at all times and in every situation for the integrity of this House, its procedures and its status. It would have been wrong for these to be left in doubt a moment longer than was absolutely necessary. That is my ruling.

Following is the text of the Editor's letter: Dear Madam Speaker, Mr Peter Robinson raised a point of order with you this afternoon in respect of our report of the Prime Minister's reply to Mr Hague on 6 May last at column 711 about the release of prisoners in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that certain words were deleted. That deletion was carried out by us. Neither the Prime Minister nor anyone acting for him or on his behalf either requested that deletion or had any hand in making it. The Prime Minister's exact words were: `What is essential is that any agreement must be signed up to in full, as we said, and the answer to his question is yes of course it is the case that, both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and in respect of the early release of prisoners, the only organisations that qualify for that are organisations that have given up violence and given it up for good.' Fully in accordance with the requirement that the House places upon Hansard, and in compliance with Hansard's terms of reference as set out in Erskine May, that sentence of 73 words was edited. That was done in order to make it read better, a task that the House has traditionally entrusted to the Hansard reporters. The change in no way altered the sense of what the Prime Minister said and in my judgment cannot be criticised on that ground. In raising his point of order with you, Mr Robinson repeated the words but not in the way that the Prime Minister uttered them, and that is a crucial difference. If, as Mr Robinson implied, we had left out the sentence 'The answer to his question is yes.', he would indeed have a point of substance. However, those words did not constitute a complete and self-contained sentence; they were a part of a much larger sentence, and they must be read in that fuller context, not removed from it. I know that I do not need to remind you that Hansard is a full report, not a verbatim report. It has a discretion to amend the words as spoken, acting within the authority of its terms of reference, which state that 'though not strictly verbatim, [it] is substantially the 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 the speech or illustrates the argument.' I suggest that the change that was made was completely in conformity with that description. Yours sincerely, Ian Church, Editor.