| Home Page |
Column 625
Official Report
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker : I have considered the complaint made on Friday last by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the Official Report incorrectly reported part of an answer by the Prime Minister given by him on the previous day. The Prime Minister is reported, when referring to the British Medical Association, as having quoted from the GP Magazine. I have checked the transcript, which shows that what the Prime Minister said was :
"and, only last year, it opposed the GP contracts, yet, in its own magazine, it now says "
It is the normal practice for a Minister's staff to check Hansard, and during this process a sub-editor was given by a member of the Prime Minister's staff the name of the magazine quoted by the Prime Minister. The sub-editor thought that this was the British Medical Association's own magazine and accepted the suggested change. By including the name of the magazine, however, the Official Report inadvertently changed the sense of the Prime Minister's reply. The Editor of Hansard has expressed to me his regret that this should have happened, and a correction will be printed in today's Official Report.
Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : I am grateful for your statement, Mr. Speaker. Of course we accept in good faith the explanation given by the Editor of Hansard. I am quite sure that everybody is clear that no blame attaches to the Editor or his staff for what occurred. However, the fact remains that, although the Prime Minister's staff do not read the court circular, and apparently do not read the British Medical Journal -- [Hon. Members :-- "Cheap."] It is certainly not as cheap as fiddling the record in Hansard. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. It would be helpful to the whole House, in terms of lowering the temperature, if the hon. Gentleman were to rephrase his last comment.
Dr. Cunningham : What emerges from your inquiry, Mr. Speaker, is that a member of the Prime Minister's staff persuaded a Hansard sub-editor to change the record. [Interruption.] That is what happened. The sub -editor was persuaded to change the record in a way that was inaccurate in that it changed the sense of what the Prime Minister had said. Would it not have been better if a correction had been issued from No. 10 Downing street and apologies offered both to the House and to the British Medical Association?
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that anything further arises on that. [Interruption.] Order. I have made my statement and cannot say more than that.
Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : As the hon. Member is always so supportive of the Chair, I will take a helpful comment from him.
Mr. Ewing : I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for pointing out that I am always helpful to the Chair. It is precisely in that vein that I want to put my point of order. We are not dealing here with a trivial matter, and the last
Column 626
thing that I want to see is the Editor of Hansard, to whom no blame attaches, or even a member of the Prime Minister's staff, being incriminated. I want to know whether this was discussed with the Prime Minister and whether the change was made on his authority. Bangladesh (Cyclone Disaster)3.37 pm
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, "the Bangladesh cyclone disaster." [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. It is very important that I hear this application.
Mr. Shore : The whole House was appalled by the news last week that 50,000 men, women and children had perished in the cyclone that swept over the coastal areas and the low-lying islands of the bay of Bengal. Alas, that early estimate of the dead has already been proved to be wrong. More than 125,000 casualties are now reported and there are serious estimates that the total could rise to over 200,000 before the count is over. But even that is not the end of it. Villages throughout the coastal areas are still cut off, most of them without food or drinking water, and the first reports of cholera are coming in-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : I do not need a point of order. I am listening to the application that is being made to me. [Interruption.] Order. It is very unseemly to have these comments. I ask the House please to settle down and let me hear this application.
Mr. Shore : The first reports of cholera are now coming in, and a further still more awful disaster is in the making. Clearly this is a specific and important matter which needs the most urgent consideration. In the very short term there is a great need for food and medicines and, just as important, the means of delivering them. What appear to be most required are helicopters and inflatable power boats.
The Government could tell the House very little last Thursday. I do not blame them for that ; telephone contact with Bangladesh is largely dependent upon satellite communications, and the principal facility in the Chittagong area was damaged by the cyclone and is still out of action. Nevertheless, we have a much clearer picture now than we had last Thursday and it should be possible, in a debate, for the Government to give an informed account of the actions they have taken so far, what is now in train, and what further assistance they propose to give.
This is also the time to consider what this country and other donors can do in the period ahead to assist the Government of Bangladesh to carry through an enhanced programme for building cyclone shelters and strengthening coastal defences against, certainly, future cyclone attacks.
Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world. Apart from loss of human lives, present estimates of the cost of this disaster in terms of cattle, crops and infrastructure are well over $1,000 million. Bangladesh is
Column 627
a member of the Commonwealth. Our ties with that country and its people over the past three decades have been strengthened by the substantial number of people of Bangladeshi origin who have settled here and are now among our fellow citizens.These are strong reasons for an emergency debate, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will grant one.
Mr. Speaker : The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, "the Bangladesh cyclone disaster."
As the House knows, I have to announce my decision without giving reasons. I listened with care and deep concern to what the right hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, I have to decide whether this application comes within the Standing Order, and, if so, whether a debate should be given priority over the business already set down for today or for tomorrow.
I listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I do not in any way underestimate its importance, but I have to say that in this case the matter raised does not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer back to the statement that you made--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I have already dealt with that.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I very much regret that you were unable to accept the application of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). I regret also the rowdy atmosphere in which initially the application had to be made.
The Prime Minister, the Minister for Overseas Development and the Chief Secretary to the Secretary were all present. We understand the plight of the people of Bangladesh which has touched the hearts and, I am glad to say, the hands of the British people who are giving generously and who are concerned at the fact that our Government are being seen as one of the meanest of the richest nations in the world.
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make allegations which I cannot answer. He is raising a point of order.
Mr. Madden : If the Minister for Overseas Development, the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary were to intimate to you, Mr. Speaker, a wish to make a statement at 7 o'clock this evening, would you facilitate such a statement, bearing in mind the great concern of many Bangladeshis who are British citizens and who are worried about the fate of their relatives and friends?
Several Hon. Members rose--
Mr. Speaker : Let me deal with one thing at a time. I in no way underestimate the matter. Like the hon. Member, I also have constituents who have relatives in Bangladesh. We had a long run on it on a private notice question on Thursday. Every hon. Member who is present was called to put a question. I am sure that there will be other
Column 628
opportunities. I have to take into account all kinds of other criteria in making my decision. The House knows that.Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House is here and is listening to the exchanges. I understand your reasons, Mr. Speaker, for not granting an emergency debate, regrettable though that decision is. Given the scale of the tragedy, surely we can prevail upon the Leader of the House to say that he will find an early opportunity for a debate, or discuss through the usual channels the rearrangement of business so that the House may have an opportunity to debate the tragedy and Britain's contribution towards reparation.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be helpful to the House if I say that clearly we would wish to do that and to keep the House fully informed. Communication is obviously a problem in the area, but I can give the assurance that we wish to keep the House fully informed.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : I do not think that anything further on that can be raised with me. The Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, has stated that he will bear the matter in mind. What point of order can arise for me out of that?
Points of Order
Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been briefing the press all morning about the fact that he intends to cap the expenditure of Lothian regional council, a step that may cost hundreds of jobs and will almost certainly put an end to the concessionary bus pass scheme enjoyed by pensioners.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, you have criticised Ministers who have chosen to make statements outside the House rather than to elected Members. Have you received a request for a statement to be made which at the very least would allow us to ask the Secretary of State why poll tax payers in Westminster get a blanket subsidy of £1,000 a head while in Lothian we get £453 a head? The whole thing seems to have the stench of electioneering. The purpose seems to be to save the skin of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who would otherwise face a very unhappy party conference in Perth tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker : Order. That is not a matter for me. I am sure that what has been said will have been heard.
Sir Hugh Rossi (Hornsey and Wood Green) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I may, I should like to revert to the statement that you made earlier about Hansard. It was quite clear from your statement that the name of a book or a magazine was added to the Hansard report by a member of the Prime Minister's office, who had not referred to the Prime Minister and had assumed that that was the magazine to which the Prime Minister had referred. You also made it clear that the Editor of Hansard admitted that in making that alteration his staff had altered the sense of the answer--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I did not say that.
Column 629
Sir Hugh Rossi : The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) accused the Prime Minister of fiddling the report --Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not sure that this is terribly helpful. I asked the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to withdraw his remark, and he did so.
Sir Hugh Rossi : The point is that the hon. Member for Copeland made that statement in the full hearing of the House, which asked him to withdraw. He steadfastly ignored that request. My question to you, Mr. Speaker, is whether it is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw, and will you invite him to do so?
Mr. Speaker : I asked the hon. Member for Copeland to rephrase his remark, and I thought that he had done so--[ Hon. Members :-- "No."] I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to accuse anyone, least of all the Prime Minister, of fiddling. If he would like to make that clear, we can get on--[ Hon. Members :-- "Withdraw."] Order. I ask hon. Members to restrain themselves ; this is very bad behaviour. I shall repeat what I have just said to the hon. Member for Copeland-- [Interruption.] Order. In the exchanges, which were somewhat excited, and amid a great deal of noise, I asked the hon. Member for Copeland to withdraw the charge that the Prime Minister had fiddled Hansard. I thought that he had done so. So that it can be absolutely clear, I ask the hon. Gentleman to do so now.
Dr. Cunningham : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not accuse the Prime Minister of fiddling Hansard --[ Hon. Members :-- "You did."] We must get this absolutely clear. I was making it clear that what had happened was that a member of the Prime Minister's No. 10 staff had secured a change in the record, which changed the sense. Conservative Members started to shout comments at me, including "Cheap", to which I replied, "Not half as cheap as fiddling the record." That is what I said, and I stand by that statement. Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that we had better leave the matter there.
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that this will be a helpful point of order. To avoid the problem occurring again, and as we already have an electronic Hansard --as it is called these days--should not a simple play-back facility be installed in the Hansard office? If a member of the Prime Minister's staff or anyone else then said to the Hansard staff, "We did not mean to say what we actually said"--the right hon. Gentleman is rapidly becoming the Dan Quayle of British politics--would not the simple answer be, as in the case of a disputed penalty, to have an action replay to decide who is right?
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose --
Mr. Skinner : You need a linesman to help you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not need that sort of help.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Column 630
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am on my feet. I am perfectly able to deal with these matters.
It has been consistently ruled by my predecessors that tape recordings are not a check on the Official Report. The Official Report is a full report 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." Reference to that will be found in "Erskine May" on page 211. The change made on Thursday does not fall within the category of acceptable correction. On the other hand, if Hansard was not able to correct our grammar and omit our verbal mistakes, it would, on many occasions, make pretty incomprehensible reading.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : Would you, Mr. Speaker, agree with me-- [Hon. Members :-- "No."]
Mr. Speaker : Not on a point of order that I have not heard.
Mr. Dickens : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hansard has a difficult job. There cannot be an hon. Member in the House who has not had his or her speech tidied up because it was rather ambiguous. That is why we are all sent notes after our speeches and sometimes after our questions. In doing its work, Hansard often has to interpret ambiguous statements so as to make sensible reading for those who follow us. By all this stupidity this afternoon, are we not placing Hansard itself in a stupid position?
Mr. Speaker : The hon. Gentleman has stated in rather more detailed language the point that I was seeking to make.
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to your decision on the application made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) for an emergency debate on the situation in Bangladesh, I realise that it is not acceptable to challenge the reasons behind your decision that the Finance Bill, today and tomorrow, must take precedence over such a debate, but may I say, in the presence of the Leader of the House, that, were reports in this morning's tabloid press to prove accurate and the Leader of the House does intend to announce the early rise of the House on 19 July, two weeks earlier than usual, many people would not understand how your office could be given the impression that Government business was of such urgency that that important debate could not be arranged?
Mr. Speaker : I have not heard that happy piece of news, but the hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Leader of the House said about the matter.
Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises from the Order Paper rather than from the Official Report. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you accept some responsibility for the Order Paper.
Question 260, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who clearly does not represent a Lothian constituency, facilitates an announcement by the Secretary of State which will amount to a savage attack on services provided by Lothian regional
Column 631
council. May we be protected from such behaviour? Is not the Secretary of State prepared to come here and make a statement?Mr. Speaker : I am responsible for the Order Paper. I look carefully at questions, and provided that they are in order they can be tabled, and that question was perfectly in order.
Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : Further to your statement, Mr. Speaker, and the response of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), it is clear that he used the word "fiddling" and, sitting where we were on the Conservative Benches, it was abundantly evident that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were pointed directly at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ; there can be no doubt about that. Taken out of context and read simply in Hansard, his words can mean all kinds of things, but at the time they were directed directly at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Is the hon. Gentleman going to withdraw them?
Mr. Speaker : We have all heard what the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) subsequently said. The point was drawn to my attention by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi). I have dealt with that.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although you have ruled on the application by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), as the Leader of the House is present in the Chamber, may I point out that, although we shall be considering the Finance Bill today and tomorrow, the Bill to be considered on Thursday is of lesser importance. I wonder whether the Leader of the House can find a way of facilitating a debate on Bangladesh on Thursday if an application for one, with the consent of all parties, is made to you tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Would that be in order, and would you accept such an application?
Mr. Speaker : The Opposition and the minority parties have their Opposition days, although there may not be one
Column 632
immediately available for the hon. Member's party. Nevertheless, that question is clearly one for the usual channels to resolve, and right hon. and hon. Members heard what the Leader of the House had to say on that issue.Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) rose --
Mr. Speaker : I will take one final point of order, if it is on the same subject.
Mr. Corbyn : Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is. I do not want to challenge your ruling on the application made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), but I want to convey to Ministers-- through you, Mr. Speaker--the sense of urgency that must be brought to bear on the situation in Bangladesh. Hundreds of thousands of lives are at risk. Many of them could be saved, and a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh could be prevented, if transport equipment, particularly military helicopters, were sent to the affected region from the base at Diego Garcia and from bases in the Gulf. Urgency is the key. If the Minister concerned could be persuaded to make a statement today, or, better still, if helicopters could get to the region quickly, many lives could be saved.
Northern Ireland Committee
Ordered,
That the Proposal for a draft Fair Employment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 published on 28th February 1991, being a Matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee for its consideration.-- [Mr. Wood.]
Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker : With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments. Ordered,
That the Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 1104) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Financial Services Act 1986 (Delegation) (No. 2) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Wood.]
Column 633
Sunday Trading (Video Shops) Bill
3.55 pm
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to exempt video shops from the provisions of the Shops Act 1950.
Some months ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described the Shops Act 1950 as bizarre. The ban on the sale or renting of videos is a particular example of that much more general complaint. The 1950 Act was passed in a quite different era. The 1940s were a time of rationing and not of plenty, and the Shops Act 1950 was passed at a time when cinemas did not open on Sunday, professional sport never took place on Sunday, and most people did not have television--and those who did had the choice of only one channel, which broadcast for only four and a half hours.
The 1950 Act was passed at a time when no one had heard of videos, garden centres, or do-it-yourself superstores. Today, the situation has changed. In 1972, the House passed the Sunday Theatre Bill and Sunday Cinema Bill. Today, cinemas and provincial theatres can, and do, open on Sunday--and only last Sunday the Haymarket theatre opened for a performance of "Talking Heads", which repeated an earlier performance and raised money for charity.
Videos are surely part of the same entertainment industry as the theatre and cinema. Whereas television used to be broadcast for only four and a half hours on Sunday, today one can view 20 hours of BBC1 or BBC2 ; 24 hours of ITV ; or 20 hours of Channel 4. That represents 84 hours of viewing choice on Sunday, compared with four and a half hours in 1950. Furthermore, if one is a subscriber to Sky Television, one can watch 24 hours of movies on either of two of its film channels.
Current law says that it is perfectly moral to see a film at a cinema, but wrong to watch the same film on a video at home. The law says that it is right and moral to watch television all day, but wrong to hire a video to view after church.
A further anomaly is the changing attitude to sport. As I said, in 1950 there was no professional sport on Sunday, but today the most popular games of cricket are those played in the Sunday league. It is not unknown either for the British climate to cause the Wimbledon finals to be played on Sunday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Members of Parliament do not work on Sunday.
Mr. Marshall : Some of us work a seven-day week, even if that is not true of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
The law says that it is perfectly all right to watch golf, cricket, football or tennis on Sunday, but wrong to view a sporting video. Apparently, it is perfectly moral to watch Arsenal playing at Highbury on Sunday, but wrong to watch a video of the 1966 World Cup final. What giants they were--Peters, Hurst, Charlton, Stiles and Banks--yet one cannot enjoy watching them on Sunday in one's own home. That is nonsense.
One of the ironies is that the video industry is more closely regulated than the cinema or the theatre. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984 much stronger standards apply to the video industry than apply to the cinema to take account of the fact that videos are seen in the home,
| Next Section
| Home Page |