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.

Order. That is not a matter for me. I am sure that what has been said will have been heard.

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 —

Order. I did not say that.

The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) accused the Prime Minister of fiddling the report——

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.

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?

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.

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——

Order. I think that we had better leave the matter there.

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?

rose——

No.

You need a linesman to help you, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I do not need that sort of help.

Several Hon. Members:

rose ——

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.

Would you, Mr. Speaker, agree with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]

Not on a point of order that I have not heard.

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?

The hon. Gentleman has stated in rather more detailed language the point that I was seeking to make.

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?

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.

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 council. May we be protected from such behaviour? Is not the Secretary of State prepared to come here and make a statement?

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.

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?

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.

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?

The Opposition and the minority parties have their Opposition Days, although there may not be one 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.

rose ——

I will take one final point of order, if it is on the same subject.

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.