Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates

House of Commons, Westminster

July 4, 1907

THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to Inquire and Report as to the Cost and Method of Reporting and Publishing the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament; - Have agreed to the following REPORT: -

1. The subject of the Reporting of Parliamentary Debates was last inquired into in the year 1893 by a Select Committee of the House of Commons

That Committee recommended that a full report, which they defined as a 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" - should be given in the first person of all speeches alike. They recommended further that the reports should be issued in the first instance in daily parts as before; that the daily parts should be available for Members asking for them at the Vote Office not later than 4 p.m. of the day following that to which they relate, and should be finally issued to Members desiring them on the morning following with Votes and Proceedings.

They expressed an opinion in favour of a reporter being placed on the floor of the House of Commons without definitely recommending such a course, and failing that they recommended that two additional seats should be granted in the gallery to the "official" reporters in addition to the one then available.

They recommended that revision of their speeches by Members should cease with these two exceptions - that, if a Member on any afternoon noticed an obvious blunder in a speech delivered by him the day before, he should be allowed before 8 p.m. to suggest a correction to the editor in charge of the reporting arrangements, and that the Speaker and Chairman of Committees should in all cases have the right to correct proofs of their rulings.

That Committee further recommended that the reports should be obtained by the Stationery Office by contract after tender; that the printing contract should be separated from the reporting contract; that the lowest tender should not necessarily be accepted; that the contracts should be for three years with powers of extension from year to year and power to determine at any time; that some person should be appointed by the Treasury Office to overlook the carrying out of the contract, and that a general supervision of the whole should be placed in the hands of a Committee of the House of Commons to be set up for the purpose.

2. These recommendations were carried out only to a very limited extent.

No Supervising Committee has ever been appointed, but the Controller of the Stationery Department has in recent years been instructed to control carefully the payments made to the contractors. His powers of general control over the reporting are, however, practically non-existent, and no other control exists. The printing and reporting contracts were not separated. In 1898, when the last contract was entered into, the lowest tender was not accepted.

Revision of speeches by Members was continued and exists at the present time.

One extra seat after 5.45 p.m. in another part of the gallery has been granted to the contractor's reporters.

A full report of all speeches alike was not adopted, nor was the recommendation as to the acceleration of the delivery of the daily parts.

3. Contractors followed one another in quick succession, until in 1898 Messrs. Wyman took over the end of a contract which lapsed owing to the bankruptcy of the previous contractors.

4. Since that date Messrs. Wyman have had the contract both for printing and reporting the Debates. In 1902 the Stationery Office entered into a new contract with Messrs. Wyman which is the contract which exists at the present time.

The following are its leading provisions: (1) The contract is for five years subject to certain rights of notice by the Controller of the Stationery Department and to the usual provisions as to bankruptcy on the part of the contractor. (2) The length of the reports to be given is at the discretion of the contractor, subject to the conditions that all questions to Ministers and their answers shall be reported in full, and that Debates in Committee of either House and on private Bills shall be reported as fully as Debates in the House itself, and that in no case shall a speech be reported at less than one-third of its length. (3) The contractor shall have accommodation for his reporters in the two Houses, at the discretion of the authorities of the two Houses. He shall always have a reporter present, but subject to this he may obtain his reports as and how he likes and from any available source. (4) The contractor must deliver to Members who have spoken two proofs of the speech delivered and of all oral questions and answers of Ministers within two days; he must allow two days for corrections, place an asterisk against all speeches corrected by Members, and print and deliver at the Vote Office all speeches, including those not corrected, within six days. (5) The contractor must upon payment deliver such extracts from the reports as the Controller may require. (6) The contractor is allowed to sell the daily parts or bound volumes at such prices as he pleases within certain limits. (7) Each volume shall contain 60 sheets, or 960 pages, and on the completion of each such volume the contractor shall receive a subsidy of £220.

5. The daily parts and bound volumes are bought by the Stationery Office and are delivered free of cost to such Members of the Houses of Lords and Commons as desire them. The average price of the daily parts is one shilling each, and the average price of the bound volumes is 13s. 6d.

6. The following is a table of the number of daily parts and sets of volumes supplied during the last six years, the number of volumes in each set per Session, and the total amounts, including subsidy paid to the contractors in round figures: -

It will be noted that there has been a considerable increase in the demand for the daily parts and the volumes during the last few years. This increase the Controller believes to be permanent.

There were, of course, autumn Sessions in 1902 and 1906.

7. Your Committee are convinced that great dissatisfaction exists amongst Members of the House of Commons as to the present reporting of Debates, and that this dissatisfaction is justified. They are of opinion that the system of obtaining reports of Debates in the House of Commons by contract has not been a success for the following reasons: - (1) No system can be good under which it is to the interest of the contractor to lengthen or shorten his reports according to the terms he has received. Under the system of granting a subsidy of so much per volume it is to the advantage of the contractor to lengthen his reports and expand the printing if the terms he has received are good, and to shorten them if he has miscalculated and they are unremunerative. (2) It is unfair to Members that a contractor's reporter should be the judge - subject, of course, to the one-third limit of the contract - as to the length at which speeches should be reported, and such a system deprives the reported speeches of much of their historical value. (3) The contract system must tend to the employment of too few reporters, and has in fact had that effect, with the result that the present staff has been seriously overworked, and their work has naturally suffered. In the opinion of your Committee this overwork has been persistent, and in some cases very excessive, as, for example, this Session, when during the Debate on the Army Annual Bill the staff were on duty for more than 20 consecutive hours. (4) A contract like the present one, which permits the contractor to obtain his reports from any source, provided he has a reporter always present in the House, leads largely to the use of newspaper cuttings in the making up of the reports, and, even although the contractor's reporters check these cuttings with their own notes, must tend to destroy the independence of the final version of speeches.

8. Your Committee therefore condemn the system of obtaining the reports by contract and recommend that the House of Commons should set up a reporting staff of its own.

9.In addition to the above reasons against contracting they desire to point out that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is almost the only Legislature in the world which has not its own staff.

They consider that there should be no great difficulty in organising such a staf, and that once established it would very largely work itself.

They consider that such a staff might be placed under the authority of a Sessional Committee working in consultation with Mr. Speaker and the Clerk of the House of Commons. They recommend that a full report as defined above should be given in the first person of all speeches alike, and that the Daily Report should be delivered to Members on the morning following a Debate. Should this suggestion be adopted your Committee consider it might well be a subject of inquiry whether certain papers, for example, Votes and Proceedings, Division Lists, answers to non-oral questions, and the weekly list of public bills, might not be incorporated in the Daily Report with convenience and economy. This acceleration of the delivery of the daily parts must of course prevent Members' corrections appearing in the Daily Report, but your Committee believe that in practice this will not be found to be a disadvantage, because (1) as the speeches will be fully reported there will be less chance of misunderstanding than now, when speeches are condensed, and (2) correction for the volumes can easily be arranged. The volumes should be delivered to Members desiring them as at present.

10.Your Committee consider that to obtain a good full report improved accommodation for the official reporters will be necessary.

In view of the evidence they are not prepared to advocate the presence of a reporter on the floor of the House, though they believe that that system would give the best result, but they consider that it is essential that the official reporters should have three good central seats in the gallery adjacent to one another, and that, for the convenience of all note takers, silence, so far as possible, should be maintained in the gallery.

11. Your Committee have carefully gone into the finance of the proposal they lay before the House, and believe that a full Daily Report, such as they suggest, can be delivered to Members by Ten o'clock in the morning of the day after a Debate or earlier at little, if any, greater expense than is entailed by the delivery of the present condensed report, six days late, and they desire to call attention to the second and third schemes presented to them by the Controller of the Stationery Department, which appear in the Appendix.

In the second scheme submitted by the Controller, which provides for a full report of speeches by an official staff to be issued next morning, the printing being done by the Stationery Department, it will be noted that the estimated total expense for a normal sessional output of twelve volumes is £10,090. The last year when the output was twelve volumes, and therefore the last year with which the estimate can be compared, was 1904, when the total amount paid to the contractor was £9,621, which gives, if we ignore the fact that the estimate is for a full report, and therefore a largely increased staff of reporters as against a condensed report, an apparent difference of £469 in favour of the contracting system. But this advantage is only apparent. In 1904 only 657 sets of volumes were bought by the Stationery Department for Members of the two Houses. In 1906 the number taken was 805. On this basis £1,275 must be added to the total paid in 1904 making it £10,896 (for 805 sets), or a difference in favour of the Controller's scheme of £806.

If, however, as your Committee desire, a free copy of the Daily Report is to be delivered to all Members the morning after a Debate, £1,000 must be added to the estimate in the Controller's second scheme. Even so the estimated expenditure for a full report delivered next morning is only £194 more than the expense at present incurred for a condensed report issued six days late; and in making these calculations no account has been taken of a possible diminution of the number of bound volumes supplied to Members, by which the expenses would be reduced, nor of any possible sale at a profit of the Daily Reports and bound volumes to the general public.

The above estimate includes the publication of special volumes of extracts for Departments and for the Irish Debates which it is desirable to continue.

In the schemes submitted by the Controller it will be noted that he provides for engaging reporters sessionally. Your Committee think that the House might well consider whether, in view of the fact that reporters unconnected with newspapers are at a distinct disadvantage in seeking outside employment during the recess, some longer term of engagement, subject, of course, to competence and good behaviour, might not be entertained.

12. To obtain the financial results they desire, your Committee are of opinion that it will be necessary to keep the number of volumes issued in a normal Session to twelve.

This they consider perfectly feasible - (1) By curtailing the table of contents and retaining a full index; and (2) by omitting a good deal of matter which has crept in of late years, both of which plans were suggested by the Controller in his evidence given on May 30th.

13. With regard to the printing of the reports your Committee understand that the Select Committee on Official Publications has reported in favour of the establishment of a Government printing office. Should such an office be established, which your Committee hope may be the case, they consider that the printing of the Debates should be amongst the earliest work to be undertaken.

14. Should no such printing office be established, your Committee have, of course, no suggestion to make other than that the printing be given out to contract as before under the supervision of the Controller of the Stationery Department.

15. Your Committee believe that the system of reporting adopted in the House of Lords, which is totally different from that prevailing in the House of Commons, is satisfactory to their Lordships, and they make no recommendation with regard to it. It could be undertaken by the proposed official staff on its present lines, and provision is made in the schemes for considerable assistance when necessary.

16. Your Committee have carefully considered the French system of supplying an analytical report of Debates for the use of newspapers as well as Members. They believe that such a report might be extremely useful to future historians, but they do not believe that it would be extensively made use of by newspapers, and in any case the expense incurred in its preparation and expeditious publication would be so great that they do not feel justified in recommending its adoption.

17. Your Committee feel that, in recommending that the House of Commons should set up a reporting staff of its own for the purpose of recording the Debates in the House itself, they should not omit all reference to the question of recording the proceedings of the Standing Committees upstairs, which have recently been doubled in number and to which Bills of great importance are now referred. Though it might not be necessary to give a full report of all the speeches delivered, your Committee, having considered the subject, desire to point out that a small addition would be all that would be necessary to enable the proposed staff of Reporters to supply a full summary of the proceedings of Standing Committees.

18. Finally your Committee would like to suggest that in any new arrangements that may be made such consideration may be shown to the present staff of reporters as may be consistent with efficiency and economy.

4 July1907.

Transcript of proceedings
Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates
House of Commons, Westminster
May 9, 1907

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Charles Allen.
Mr. Lehmann.
Mr. Barran.
Mr. William Redmond.
Mr. Bowerman.
Mr. Toulmin.

CHARLES ALLEN, Esq.,in the Chair.

Mr. Arthur H. Lee (A Member of the House), called in; and Examined.

Chairman.

1607. You are Member for the Fareham Division of Hampshire? - Yes.

1608. And for some years you were Military Attaché in the United States? - Yes.

1609.And you are quite familiar with the way in which the Official Reports of the Debates in the Legislature of the United States are made? - I am very familiar with the results. I cannot say I am familiar with the methods of producing the reports or of the cost, although that information can very easily be obtained. I am more familiar with the method of producing the Parliamentary Debates in Canada, and I may say that the results in Canada are even more satisfactory and more remarkable than those obtained in the case of the United States Congress. I may say, perhaps, that I also spent five years in an official position in Canada, and I therefore had fuller opportunities of learning what is done in Ottawa.

1610.You can give the Committee some valuable information, with regard to Canada more especially? - Yes. Perhaps before I do that I may say, what no doubt has been said by many witnesses before this Committee, that I consider the present system of reporting our debates, at any rate the results, are quite unworthy of the Imperial Parliament; that for practical purposes they are not only inefficient but useless, except for historical purposes, and even then they are very incomplete. They come eight to ten days late; and I imagine that the chief practical use of a record of the debates is for the purpose of answering speeches which were made in debate on the previous day; and of course our present record is quite useless for that purpose. I should also like to express my opinion as to the extraordinary inaccuracy of the reports as made; personal revision on an extended scale is nearly always necessary, in fact it is essential, if the Member speaking happens to be in office and his words, therefore, have some responsibility attaching to them. And I suppose all members have suffered under that very unedifying and wearisome labour of going through inaccurate proofs of their own speeches; but, in saying that, I should like to add that I do not suppose for a moment that it is the fault of the contractors. I am quite sure it must be very difficult for them to hear in many cases, and I understand that - although no doubt it is a matter which the Committee are well acquainted with - the amount of subsidy paid is really insufficient to enable them to engage the highest class of reporters; at least, that excuse has been given to me when I have complained.

Mr. William Redmond.

1611.Who gave it, might I ask? - I do not know whether I am justified in saying.

1612.That is the first we have heard of that statement. It has not been made here? - It was a representative of the Hansard Contractors who told me that; but it was in private conversation. I do not know whether any great importance should be attached to it. In my opinion also, the reports, if they are taken at all, should be verbatim. It is very invidious to place it in the hands of a private firm to discriminate between the importance of the utterances of the Members of this House; and in any case préciswriting is, I am informed, a very peculiar and rare accomplishment. I understand that the House of Lord's debates are reported verbatim; I believe there's no discrimination there. But these, of course, are only my personal opinions.

Chairman.

1613.Perhaps it would be just as well to tell you that we have adopted, for our own convenience in this Committee, three kinds of report when we speak of them. You will see them in the last paragraph but one on page iii. of the Report of the Committee of 1893, "The first kind is the strictly verbatim Report in which every word uttered is recorded, and which may perhaps be concisely described as a phonographic Report; the second is the 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; the third is the condensed form of the Report." It is the second of those, I understand, that the Members of the Front Benches get now. We call it a full, not a verbatim report, that is all? - Is it in the first person?

1614.Yes, it is in the first person? - I think that only applies to the leading Members of the Front Benches.

1615.Perhaps I should have said that? - To the Leader of the Opposition, to the Leader of the House and few others possibly. It does not apply to the Under Secretaries, even though they should be in charge of an important branch of the Estimates.

1616.All I meant was that when you are speaking of a verbatim report, you are really speaking of what we call a full report? - I am not sure that I am, because I think that if you introduce any element of judgment or discrimination, in the first instant you are apt to get inaccuracy and to lead, though perhaps in a less degree, to this necessity for revision.

1617.We are assured, and the last Committee were also assured, that the first kind, the strictly verbatim report, does not really exist anywhere? - I should rather doubt that fact. I think I can bring forward evidence to show that that is not the case.

1618.It will be very interesting? - I would not go so far as to say that if a man obviously repeats the same sentence twice running, perhaps owing to an interruption, the reporter would not use his judgment and strike it out the second time; but I think in the case both of the House of Commons in Ottawa and in the House of Representatives in Washington the reports are absolutely verbatim.

1619.Now we understand clearly what you mean? - I remember discussing this matter once with the Public Printer in Washington, who raised that very point, that to get a true report you must eliminate any exercise of judgment on the part of the man who is reporting, that he should not be authorised to correct the grammar or to judge whether the person speaking is possibly repeating his argument, except in the extreme case which I suggested just now. Perhaps, if I may, I will commence with the Canadian system, because I believe that is the best in existence; it is greatly superior to the American system, and I believe it is the best in the world. It has often been suggested that the duties there are less, that the hours, and so forth, are easier for the reporters. That is certainly not the case in Canada. The House of Commons at Ottawa meets at 11 o'clock a.m., and almost invariably sits till midnight. I have here a volume, which I borrowed at random without looking at the date, from the High Commissioners' Office, of the bound up Debates which covers a week, and I see on the date, August 3rd, the House sat till 1.20 a.m.; on August 4th till 2.35 a.m.; on August 8th to 1 a.m., and August 10th to 4.50 a.m., which is rather like good old times in the House of Commons here.

Mr. Lehmann.

1620.Beginning at eleven o'clock in the morning? - Beginning at eleven in the morning; but in spite of that the Debates, which curiously enough they call Hansard, although there has never been any Hansard in Canada (it shows a sort of sentimental preservation of British institutions) -

Mr. Bowerman.

1621.Would those hours represent the sittings at the close of the Session? - In some cases, but I think you will find in all cases that midnight is the regular hour of adjournment.

1622.Throughout the Session? - Yes, at least so I understand. In any case I think the hours are longer a good deal and later than the present hours in the House of Commons. In spite of the fact that the first edition of the Canadian Hansard has to be ready between 9 and 10 o'clock the next morning. That is the unrevised edition, equivalent to a newspaper report. There are various other editions, but this daily unrevised edition is issued every morning between 9 and 10 o'clock, however late the House sits; of course, assuming that the House does not sit all night. Secondly, there is the daily revised edition, which is got out day by day and sheet by sheet as produced, and which is corrected and ultimately bound.

Mr. Lehmann.

1623.Corrected by the Members who have spoken, do you mean? - Not necessarily, but in which obvious mistakes are corrected by the responsible authority, the King's Printer.

1624.By the Printer's reader? - Yes, I imagine by an official who is similar to our "Times" proof reader. There is a peculiar complication in Canada, too, which makes it more difficult, which is, that they have a French edition as well; that is issued a little later in the day. I am not quite sure whether they translate the English speeches into French, but certainly it reports the French speeches in full. Those are the three editions daily for the House of Commons. There are also five daily editions for the Senate; but I do not think there is any special point in that; they are more leisurely in the Senate, as they are here in the House of Lords, and there is no great question of urgency as a rule. The whole work of producing the Canadian Hansard goes on through the night without the intervention of anybody outside the Government Printing Bureau. There is an undivided responsibility; and the result is evident in the perfection with which these debates are produced. I have here a volume, which perhaps I may just hand in; I have only been able to borrow it. It will be seen that the style of the Canadian Hansard is almost exactly the same as our own, and that all the speeches are in the first person, and so far as I know are verbatim. This, of course, is the corrected bound edition; but owing to the satisfactory method of reporting I think the amount of revision required in most cases is very small. (Handing in the volume.) I should say that each day's volume is considerably greater than that of each day's volume here, because the sitting is longer and the reports are much fuller.

Chairman.

1625.Do you happen to know what is the average number of volumes for the Session in Canada? - No, I have no idea at all.

Mr. Lehmann.

1626.Sixteen lines in this volume occupy the same space as ten narrower lines in our Hansard? - I think it is quite legible though.

Chairman.

1627.It is perfectly legible? - Then no doubt the question of cost is of great interest to this Committee, and unfortunately through the rather short notice I have not been able to get absolutely conclusive and authentic information, but I have examined the Canadian Estimates for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1906, and so far as I can make out from an examination of the items, the cost of producing the Debates in the House of Commons averages $60,000, say £12,000, per annum, and the cost of producing the Debates in the Senate averages $15,000, say £3,000, making £15,000 a year altogether for the cost of producing the Debates. But I think those figures may not be quite complete, and if the Committee wish to base any opinion on them, I should recommend that they should make definite enquiries through the Canadian Office, because I think possibly some expenses of the King's Printer's Office may not be included.

Mr. William Redmond.

1628.Does not the reporter sit on the floor of the House? - In Ottawa, as far as I remember, the reporter has a seat on the floor of the House, very similar to that which the reporter in the House of Lords has here. That is not the case in Washington; but I will come to that later.

Mr. Bowerman.

1629.Does the volume represent a week's sitting? - Not necessarily. I do not know what principle they are produced on there, but the volumes in Canada vary very much in size. I may say that I selected that particular one because it was thin and easy to carry about.

Chairman.

1630.I suppose you do not know the number of reporters that are required to produce the Canadian Report? - I do not; but in the official report of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery of the Canadian Government for the year 1901 there is a very full and minute description of the method of producing the report of the Parliamentary Debates, and there is a great deal of information which I should think would be of considerable interest to the Committee. Unfortunately I have no control over this volume; I borrowed it on the distinct understanding that I should return it in the course of the day; but I have no doubt whatever that this Committee, if they are not concluding their labours almost at once, could easily procure copies from Canada, and they would find a great deal of information there which I do not think I had better weary the Committee with now.

1631.We might obtain it from the High Commissioner? - Yes, and any information, such as how many reporters are employed, I am sure they will be most happy to give. I remember once going into the question, and they gave me every kind of information that I asked for even as a private Member of this House. Then with regard to reporting the debates of Congress in Washington, the circumstances there are peculiar and in no way so closely analogous to the circumstances of this House as are those of the Canadian House of Commons to which I have just referred. In the first place the size of the House of Representatives and the noise that is always going on, make reporting from the Gallery a physical impossibility. As no doubt, many Members of this Committee are aware, the public are freely admitted into very large open galleries in the House of Representatives in Washington. Even applause is put down in a very perfunctory manner, and it is quite the fashion for people to applaud and even to encourage their representatives on the floor of the House. In addition to that, although the membership of the Chamber is less than ours, every member has a desk, and as a result the floor space is enormous. Then members are allowed to read, to write, and to transact all their business in the Chamber; they are continually calling for messenger boys, who stand round what are called the steps of the Speaker's dias; and even certain privileged Press representatives of the Associated Press and other Press Associations, are allowed on the floor of the House, and the result is a good deal more like the Stock Exchange than our idea of a Legislative Chamber. I only state that to emphasise the fact that it is impossible for any method of reporting from the Gallery to be adopted there; they even find it impossible to report by giving the reporter a fixed seat on the floor of the Chamber; and they have a more remarkable system, which I certainly should not advocate for this House, but which does not materially add to the prevailing confusion; the reporter being given the free run of the floor of the House, establishes himself either sitting on the floor or in a vacant chair if there is one, as near as he can get to the individual member who is speaking; and, as it is frequently the custom in the American debates for the speaker to roam about up and down the gangways during the remarks, the reporter is often to be seen in close pursuit, and his success depends a good deal upon his ability to stick to the orator of the moment. Then the form in which the American debates are reported is somewhat different; it does not resemble our Hansard in the same close manner that the Canadian report does. This is the form; this I can hand to the members of the Committee; it does not need to be returned. I think it will be seen again that these reports are absolutely verbatim. They are also issued soon after 9 o'clock in the morning; I remember that in Washington one always had the Congressional Record on one's breakfast table with the daily papers. The hours of sitting there are often not as long (certainly in the case of the Senate) as those of the House of Commons here, but as a general rule the House sits from 11 o'clock in the morning till 11 o'clock in the evening (of course, the important consideration is the hour up to which the House sits; the hour at which it commences is of little consequence) and the production of the records, both in case of Canada and that of the United States goes on continuously through the day; the copy is transmitted to the Printer exactly as in the case of a newspaper, and probably by three or four in the afternoon the earliest speeches are already printed.

Mr. Toulmin.

1632.Do you mean printed for use - obtainable? - No, but obtainable for the purpose of correction if Members desire it. I have not got the information here, but I know there is a certain hour, I think up to six or seven in the evening, up to which corrections can be made in the speeches in proof, for incorporation in the following morning's Record; and I believe after that hour they are not received. But, again, there is a revised edition for purposes of permanent record, and there are many curious devices by which Members are allowed to record their remarks in the case of the "Congressional Record." There is one which I do not advocate, but which certainly has one enormous advantage which is now trying to be arrived at by different methods, that is, saving the time of the House, namely, that a Member is allowed, if he so chooses, not to deliver his speech in the House, but to get what is called unanimous leave to print; and I believe there is never a case in which the permission to withhold his remarks is not granted by a unanimous consent. In such cases the timid Member or the inefficient orator may have an absolutely verbatim report of the speech which he would have delivered, which he can polish to any extent, and which he is allowed to season to taste with "applause," and so forth - "loud and prolonged applause" is a very frequent interpellation in the speeches. They are printed in the "Congressional Record," but they always come first. If Members will look at the ordinary example of the "Congressional Record" they will see it. (Handing in the same.)

Mr. Lehmann.

1633.Is that "Congressional Record" the revised edition? - I should imagine that it is the edition as issued in the morning. If the Member has his remarks ready in time to hand them in before the hour at which the "Record" is closed, those remarks which were not delivered can appear the next morning. But they do not appear in the actual record of the debate; they appear as a sort of hors d'oeuvresat the commencement. The object, of course, is two-fold: one is to save the time of the House, and the second is to enable an honourable Member to show his constituents what a fine speech he has made in Congress; and the constituents, being as a rule ignorant of Parliamentary rules and institutions, do not know the difference. To give greater encouragement to that method each Senator is entitled to 88 copies of the "Congressional Record" free every morning, and each Member of the House of Representatives to 60. (I do not know why there should be a discrimination), so that they can, of course, distribute those copies to their constituents, and, having franking privileges, there is no cost whatever to the Member in question. If they prefer them in another form, they can get them bound in half-Russia in volume form. In addition to that, any Member who wishes his speech to be reproduced in large quantities for distribution can have it extracted from the reports and done at cost price, which is extraordinarily small; and that privilege is largely availed of. There is one point, I think, that is of some practical interest: the pairs of the day are printed in the Record. I think there is some value in that; it is a very small addition to the bulk of the volume - just the small list that you see there; and I think it has some value, particularly when, as we know very often is the case in the debate here, as an ingenious method of retort, the division list is looked up of four or five years before and a Member is charged with having not voted or voted. The pair system, I think, is a perfectly legitimate system, and I think it is as legitimate that the stand which a Member has taken upon any particular point by pairing should be recorded almost equally with the stand which he obviously takes when he votes. At any rate, I would draw the attention of the Committee to that small point. Whilst I have not the information, unfortunately, I have no doubt whatever that the cost of producing the "Congressional Record" is enormous; but then all Government printing in the United States is conducted on the most lavish lines - there is no limit; every department has official reports of enormous bulk, frequently illustrated with half-toned plates and containing almost every kind of information that any human being could gather from any source, and those are distributed practically free to everybody and anybody. Therefore I do not think there would be any useful lesson for this Committee to derive from the actual cost of producing the "Congressional Record" even if I knew it; it must be evident at once that the enormous scale upon which the free distribution is carried out must be very expensive.

Chairman.

1634.I think as a matter of fact we have it; I think Mr. Lough gave it? - Then I will not press that point, but I will say this: that there is no cost to individual Members, but the cost to a member of the outside public who wishes for a copy of any day's debate is far more reasonable than it is here, and it is still more reasonable in Canada. The daily Hansard in Ottawa is a volume of considerable larger bulk than the average daily Hansard in this House, but the maximum cost to an outsider is 4 1/2 cents, that is only a little over 2d. - 2 1/4 d.; and frequently it is only three cents. In Washington the daily cost averages about 7 1/2 d. a copy of 125 pages, comprising, I suppose, three or four times the bulk of the daily Hansard here, whereas, as honourable Members know of course, the cost of an individual copy here is very considerable, varying from 1s. to 2s., and the free distribution to Members is on an exceedingly restrained scale.

Mr. Lehmann.

1635.Mr. Lough gave the cost in the United States as £41,000? - I have no doubt. I do not think there is any attempt made to produce this record in an economical way. But that remark does not apply to the Canadian Debates, which are, I believe, produced in the most economical manner and even more efficiently than the American ones.

Mr. William Redmond.

1636.To get a comparison of the cost, could you give us the cost in the United States and compare it with ours? - I understand it has been given here at £41,000 a year. The figures I have extracted from the Canadian Estimates total £15,000 a year.

1637.For much less work, of course? - No, I think not.

1638.Is the output of the Canadian Parliament for reporting as much as for Washington? - Of course they do not allow undelivered speeches to be printed; and I should also say that certainly in the American Congress there is no restriction upon reading; I have frequently seen members of either House there, in order to occupy time, reading perhaps 20 or 30 pages from a book.

Mr.Lehmann.

1639.During their speech? - Yes, during their speech. I have even heard whole chapters of the Bible read, and the whole of it, every single word in it, either read or uttered, appears in this "Congressional Record." I think honourable Members will see, if they open this anywhere, on almost every page that the extracts which are read are enormous - they are in small type. I open it herefor example. That is all a read quotation (pointing out the same). You will also see some parts "Revised"; that is, where the Member is allowed to instruct the authorities of the Record not to print his speech until he has revised it; and you will see in the body of the debates frequently, "Mr. So and So addressed the House; his remarks will appear hereafter;" that is where he evidently prefers a corrected version of his speech to the one he actually delivered.

Chairman.

1640.I notice here, for instance, "I ask unanimous consent to insert the letter and documents showing the agreement as to cases pending in the Court of Claims. (The Speaker.) Is there objection? (after a pause) The Chair hears none"? - That is the form of words which is adopted when a man wishes to get leave to print or to have anything printed in the Record. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that, supposing I was now addressing the House of Representatives, I might say, "I do not wish to read the whole of this Blue Book unless Members wish me to do so, but I ask unanimous leave to have it printed in the Record," it would be granted.

Mr. Redmond

1641.Is not that to some extent accounted for by the fact that each Member gets, not one set of Hansard, as we do, but a very large number - some 88 we were told. That would account for the expense largely? - Yes, very largely; and also for the very extravagant scale on which the whole business is conducted. I do not wish to make invidious comparisons, but the methods by which appointments are made naturally lead to over-staffing and over-paying.

Mr. Toulmin.

1642.How many Members are there in Congress? - I think the House of Representatives consists now of about 380; it varies continually, of course, according to the growth of the population.

Mr. Bowerman.

1643.According to this volume there are two adjournments during the day of two hours duration each? - Yes.

Chairman

1644.Is there any further information that you can give to the Committee on the subject? - I do not know that I have very much more to say, except in answer to questions; but from what I have observed in these other Legislatures, I might be permitted, perhaps, to make some suggestion as to how, putting aside all questions of cost or anything else, the method of taking the reports here might be improved.

1645.If you please? - I believe that it is quite impossible for reporters, however expert, to give an adequate report of our proceedings from the position in which they are at present placed. I believe that is the experience of even the most expert men; and indeed we know how difficult it is for individual Members of the House on the floor occasionally to hear Members at the other end. It seems to me that there are only two possible ways, in view of our peculiar institutions, of obtaining an adequate report. The first would be to have the reporter on the floor of the House, as in the House of Lords; I hesitate to suggest exactly where he had best be placed, because obviously we do not want to interfere with the present arrangements of the House more than is necessary. I think there might be objections to his being placed opposite the Mace, which would be far and away the most advantageous position for him. But I think there are two other possible places on the floor of the House: One would be in a seat corresponding to that of the Serjeant-at-Arms on the opposite side of the House, where he would be near the door and could go in and out without causing any interruption; the other possible place, although I should imagine it would not be so good, would involve a slight structural alteration; the table of the House would have to be moved two or three feet further forward, and he might be accommodated with a small desk and seat between the Speaker's chair and the clerks at the table, where there is at present a considerable space. I do not believe that that would be as good a position, but I think it is worth considering. But supposing there were sentimental objections to having the reporter at all on the floor of the House, I think a much better result than at present might be obtained, and I cannot see any real objection to it if the official reporting staff were given the free run of the side galleries, which are very seldom occupied to any extent by Members. I suppose that now there is more than one reporter engaged at a time taking the official report.

Mr. Toulmin.]They have only one seat up to 5.45 p.m.

Mr. Lehmann.

1646.They have quarter-hour turns? - I believe the "Times" has two seats.

Chairman.

1647.The "Times" has three seats - two for reporters, and one for the summary writer? - Yes, three seats. I am assuming that two reporters would be always present at the same time, as they certainly are in the case of the "Times," that is in any case essential to efficiency, and then if one was on each side of the Gallery and was able to move about the whole length of the House, he would nearly always be able to get easily within range of any Member who was speaking on the floor, on whichever side he was speaking. I have no doubt that Members who have listened to important debates from the Gallery find that they hear very much better if they are opposite the speaker rather than behind him, and in that way I should have thought it would be possible to cover the whole of the ground with, anyhow, greatly increased efficiency, without having the reporter on the floor of the House at all. But, unless something of that kind is done, I do not believe that by any expenditure you will get a really accurate report of what takes place. The very essence of the Canadian and the American systems is, that the reporter must have proper facilities. Of course I know that the "Times" does wonders under existing conditions; but it does not report speeches in full, except very important speeches, and when a very important speech is being made, the House is very quiet. In the next place, I feel strongly that the reporting of our debates is a matter which ought to be undertaken by the House of Commons or by the Government itself: that to farm it out to an outside contractor, and to give that outside contractor actual discretion to judge of the respective merits of speeches of Members of this House, I think is derogatory to the dignity of the House and most invidious; and I think that, once the ancient contention, that it was undesirable to report the debates of this House at all, is abandoned, there should be no half-way house between that and reporting the Debates thoroughly and fully. I cannot believe that the cost can be so serious, that this Imperial Parliament cannot afford to carry out that elementary condition of obtaining a record of its Proceedings, when a comparatively poor country like Canada can do it so efficiently. I have no personal feeling, I have always been most kindly treated by the Hansard reporting staff; but I do not think it is a question in which there should be any discrimination. I think that the dullest bore, I was going to say, but I am afraid that is not a proper remark to apply to a Member of the House, but the less responsible speakers should, I think, be entitled to have a record of their remarks as long as they are Members of this Imperial Parliament; and I cannot believe that the expense can be prohibitive; but on that point I should strongly advise the Committee to ascertain definitely and accurately what is the cost in Canada. I will only say in conclusion that I think it is the Canadian precedent which they should examine closely; that the American precedent, while interesting and peculiar in many ways, will not give them the same valuable information.

1648.I do not know whether it is a fair question to ask you, but do you think that you, as a Member of the Front Bench, would object to having a reporter either in front of the Speaker or by the Mace? - I should object no more than I object to the presence of the reporter at this table. Once one has got over the horrors of speaking in public, I do not think the presence of a reporter at the Table is likely to make any difference.

1649.There are confidential communications, and things of that kind, passing occasionally: might not there be an objection on that ground? - I do not think so. My brief experience of confidential communications that pass on the Front Bench is that they must be overheard by a great many people.

Mr. William Redmond.

1650.Members? - Yes, by Members behind them. I certainly should feel that the official reporter of the House of Commons was not a stranger in the sense that the general public are. He would b a sworn official, I should imagine, or at least he could easily be made a sworn official, and would understand that anything he heard accidentally was privileged.

1651.Then we may take it that personally - of course you can only speak for yourself - you see no objection it? - Personally I see no objection. If there was any, I think it would be met by placing the reporter in one or other of the positions which I have suggested.

1652.With regard to a seat between the Bar and the Table, or a seat opposite the Serjeant-at-Arms, have you taken into consideration the way in which Members stand at the Bar and talk? - I think there would be great difficulty from that point of view, and I know that nothing is more difficult than to in any way infringe upon the privileges of Members in those respects. Might I say, with regard to the first point, that I am not aware that there is any objection raised in the House of Lords with regard to the presence of the reporter on the floor of the House, it does not appear to affect the confidential communications which no doubt go on on the Benches there.

1653.I did not quite follow whether you would object to the publication next morning of a daily number of Hansard without correction? - I advocate it always assuming that proper facilities are given for obtaining an accurate report. I would not advocate it if the reports had to be taken from the Gallery in the present position, because obviously the reporters are unable to hear.

1654.You would not object to Members' corrections for the monthly volume or fortnightly volume? - No, I should advocate the Canadian systems, which is to issue the unrevised edition

[ History ] [ U.K. 1907 transcipt ] [ Archives ]