Paper from the Editor of the Official
Report and the Principal Clerk, Table Office, House of Commons
(P24)
THE INCLUSION OF CORRECTIONS IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORT
BACKGROUND
1. The Leader of the House wrote to the
Chairman of the Procedure Committee on 26 January outlining a
proposal to establish a separate section of the Official Report
to publish corrections by ministers to written answers and statements,
and possibly oral answers. The Committee asked the Clerk of the
House and the Editor to set out how such a proposal might operate
in both practical and procedural terms.
CURRENT PRACTICE
2. There are five ways in which written
corrections can be made to written answers:
(a) The Department sends a letter to the
Editor pointing out an error (normally, but not exclusively, an
error made by the Official Report) and requesting a correction
for the Bound Volume. As long as the correction sought does not
alter the meaning of the answer originally printed, the Official
Report makes that correction in the Bound Volume, which is printed
some months later. The version on the website is changed when
the bound volume is printed. The PIMS (Library) record is also
amended to show the correct information. It is clear from the
Library that some Departments also write to the Members concerned
to let them know that a correction has been sought.
(b) The Department asks the Table Office
for endorsement of a "pursuant" answer to a previously
tabled and answered question. The Table Office considers whether
the pursuant answer conforms with the House's policy— that
it is a correction of relatively inconsequential matters of fact
(figures and dates) and not a reversal of sense, or an attempt
to offer new information or continue debate. The Official Report
prints the original question and the new answer in the Daily Part,
prefixed by the phrase "pursuant to the answer of [date]".
It is not always obvious that a pursuant answer is a "correction".
No link is made between the original question and answer and the
pursuant in the Bound Volume or on the website. The PIMS record
contains both the updated information and the original question
and answer, with a link between the two. The Table Office advises
Departments to write to Members if they intend to make a pursuant
answer.
(c) The Minister can "inspire"
a Question seeking clarification of an answer previously given
or statement previously made.
(d) The Minister makes a written ministerial
statement to correct a previous written answer or statement—the
most recent example of this, from the Leader of the House, can
be seen at col 62WS on 22 February. That statement is printed
in the Daily Part. No link is made between the original answer
or statement and the correcting statement either in the Bound
Volume or on the website. The PIMS record contains the written
ministerial statement.
(e) The Minister writes directly to the Member
who asked the original question pointing out that an error was
made and giving the correct information. A copy of the letter
is sent to the Deposited Papers Clerk in the Library. It is classified
within the main deposited papers series, and a record is added
on PIMS, although no electronic copy is available and the details
of the correction are not given in the record. The record for
the original question is amended to add a link to the deposited
paper. There is no record of this correction in the Official Report.
3. Making a correction to a ministerial
answer given orally in the House, at Question Time, or following
a statement or Urgent Question, or a ministerial remark in the
course of debate, cannot be done by a written pursuant answer.
It can be done by an inspired question, by a written ministerial
statement or by a letter to the Member concerned, with a copy
placed in the Library.
ISSUES FOR
THE COMMITTEE
TO CONSIDER
Scope
4. The prospect of a corrections section
in Hansard offers the opportunity for clarity as to the scope
of material open for such correction. It is suggested that the
proposed new section include only ministerial answers and
statements, and answers made in an official capacity by those
non-ministerial Members who answer on behalf of various statutory
bodies—for example, the Church Commissioners and the House
of Commons Commission; and that it should cover written and oral
answers, including those given in response to statements and urgent
questions, written ministerial statements, and anything said by
a Minister in that capacity in the Chamber or Westminster Hall.
The Committee is invited to agree that corrections
can be made in the proposed new Corrections section to any Ministerial
answers or statements made in their capacity as Ministers in the
House or Westminster Hall.
Publication
5. A corrections section in the Daily Part
would have a distinctive suffix for reference purposes—for
example, Official Report, 1 April 2007, c 123C. The creation
of a corrections section would require some weeks to develop the
software for both the production of the Daily Part and processing
through the Library's PIMS indexing system, and some continuing
additional staff time to manage. Hyperlinks would be inserted
between the original text where it originally appeared and the
corrections section: TSO, which hosts Hansard output on the internet,
makes a small charge per item for this service. There will also
be additional printing costs although, if the volume of corrections
is maintained at its present level, those are likely to be small.
Does the Committee agree to holding back
publication of corrections to a specific daily part—for
example, Monday—so that corrections can be seen on a predictable
day?
Content
6. Each correction could reproduce the texts
of the original question and answer, or the original passage from
debate, followed by the text of a correcting letter. It would
be essential to establish a reasonably common format and content
for such letters, to be inserted into guidance given to Departments
and to be enforced by the House authorities. This might require
corrections to be made on explicit ministerial authority and not
by officials (three of the 30 correcting letters received by the
Library in 2006 were from officials, not Ministers). Such guidance
might also cover the extent to which explanations of the correction,
or other information not in the original answer, should be included.
But ultimately it would be up to Ministers to decide on the content
of corrections, as is the case with written ministerial statements.
Has the Committee a view on what should and
should not be included in the text of a correction?
7. If the Committee wished to continue the
option of issuing pursuant answers, it would be possible to provide
a link between the original question and answer and the pursuant
answer on the website, so long as departments included the unique
identifying number of the original question with the pursuant
answer. But if a separate corrections section is agreed, it is
assumed that this would become the principal if not the only avenue
for corrections.
Does the Committee agree that the written
Correction section should become the principal means of correction,
and in particular that pursuants would no longer be admitted?
March 2007
|
