“Correcting” Hansard

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31109, 12 July 1966, Page 16

“Correcting” Hansard

It is a convention, to be preserved by the members and officers of Parliament, that the proofs of Hansard reports should not be materially altered. It is a convention rather than a rule, for not even the House of Commons has an exact instruction on what may and what may not be done by a member to correct or amend the Hansard report of his speech. A few days ago in the House of Commons the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Callaghan) was accused of removing from the record of his speech a slur on farmers. Newspaper accounts of what he had said and other members’ recollections of what he had said did not tally with the official record. Mr Callaghan admitted his fault and the omission was repaired. Supporting Mr Callaghan’s apology and commenting on the adjustment of the report, Mr Emanuel Shinwell said: “We all know it has been “ done frequently, even by Ministers. , .

In the New Zealand House of Representatives last session Mr W. W. Freer said much the same thing. Over the years some “very blatant adjust- “ ments ” had been made to Hansard reports, he said. Very true; but to the credit of Parliament, they have often provoked strong protest. These alterations are not just matters of improving grammar or punctuation, of correcting ah obvious error that was probably recognised by others even as it was uttered, or of removing unnecessary repetitions. This sort of minor correction is acceptable for the sake of clarity; it does not add to the content or alter the meaning. Hansard must be a reliable report of what members have heard, what radio listeners have heard, and what has been accurately reported in newspapers. The convention forbidding material amendments is one to be strictly guarded.

When Mr Freer spoke he was arguing in favour of the publication of a daily Hansard, as is produced for the House of Commons. At present, members of the House of Representatives may examine typed transcripts of their own speeches a few hours after they have delivered them. The printed version which other members and the public may read is not published until several weeks later. Mr Freer’s proposal would impose an additional burden on the Government Printer—unless another printer were engaged to do the type-setting—especially if the setting of more than 40,000 words were to be done overnight, four nights a week, during the session. The opportunity for members to correct proofs would be restricted and they might be induced to sneak with greater precision, although the editor of Hansard is kind enough to disentangle their most tortuous sentences and make sense out of the most obscure constructions. Hansard must be faithful if not always a verbatim report of what members say. Its early publication would be valuable to members and public alike.