The crucial question whether British government ministers took specific decisions on the arrest operation launched by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday arose at the inquiry yesterday, when it heard of an alteration made in 1972 to a passage in Hansard, the official record of proceedings in the Houses of Parliament.
Counsel to the tribunal, Mr Christopher Clarke QC, referred to the debate in the House of Commons on February 1st, 1972, after the British Prime Minister, Mr Ted Heath, announced the setting up of the Widgery Inquiry.
He said that in the course of the debate the Minister of State for Defence, Lord Balniel, had spoken, in effect, on behalf of the British army and had put forward its version of events.
Mr Clarke commented: "His speech would be regarded by some as perfectly justified in the light of the charges made and widely publicised against the army, of massacre, and by others as an attempt to get the official line (into) the public eye before the inquiry began, just in time to avoid the restrictions imposed by the law of contempt." Counsel pointed out that, according to the words that appeared in the daily version of Hansard, Lord Balniel said in the course of his statement: "The honourable member for Leeds South asked about the responsibility for the decision to arrest. The arrest operation was discussed by the Joint Security Council. Further decisions had been taken by ministers here." However, in a briefing note prepared internally for the Ministry of Defence to deal with press inquiries subsequent to Lord Widgery's report, a different version was suggested.
Under the heading "Was arrest operation approved by ministers?" the answer that was to be given was: "Ministers approved the general concept of the operation (Note: Lord Balniel said on 1st February that `The arrest operation was discussed by the Joint Security Committee before decisions had been taken by ministers here'. Daily Hansard is inaccurate; Lord Balniel has asked that the change should be made in the bound volume)."
Mr Clarke remarked: "What this is saying is that what he actually said, and should have been reported as saying, is: `The arrest operation was discussed by the Joint Security Committee after decisions had been made by ministers here.' " Counsel said that the Daily Hansard version suggested that the sequence of events had been: Joint Security meeting followed by further decisions by ministers.
Mr Clarke added: "The words that, according to the briefing note, he said and wished to have Hansard corrected as to record, do appear to reflect what the documents appear to show, namely that no ministerial decisions were made in relation to the march after the Joint Security Council meeting."
Counsel went on to point out that the minutes of the joint Security Committee meeting held on Thursday, January 27th, recorded only that the plan was to block the routes into William Street and to stop the march there - "at least according to the minutes, there is no specific record of an arrest operation".
He then adverted to the statement that has been provided to the present inquiry by Lord Crawford (the title by which Lord Balniel is now known).
In this statement Lord Crawford says that the most likely explanation for the discrepancy between the two reports of his Commons speech is that in the daily version "further" was used in error instead of "after", thus altering the meaning of what was said." He adds: "The alteration in Hansard was not made by myself and I do not know who did it. Furthermore, I am not able to explain to what decisions I was referring, as I cannot remember."
(The Joint Security Committee referred to included Ministers of both the Northern Ireland (Stormont) and British governments as well as security advisers and army chiefs.)