John Stonehouse's House of Commons speech in full - what he actually said in dramatic statement

John Stonehouse's dramatic personal statement in the House of Commons is played out during the third episode of the drama about his spectacular downfall.

The Walsall North MP made his speech on October 20, 1975, two months after being released from prison on bail while he awaited trial for fraud, deception and theft - charges he was later found guilty of, leading to a seven-year prison sentence.

Stonehouse had by this point faked his own death by disappearing off the coast of Miami, Florida, before surfacing in Melbourne, Australia, under the name of a dead constituent.

He was rumbled when he was suspected of being Lord Lucan, a British peer who vanished while being suspected of murdering the nanny of his children and attempting to murder his wife.

Despite being arrested and detained in Australia for six months before returned to the UK where he was promptly imprisoned for another two months until bail was granted, Stonehouse refused to resign as an MP. It wasn't until August 27, 1976, three weeks after his conviction, that he eventually quit the House of Commons.

ITV's drama shows an impassioned speech, during which Stonehouse constantly clashed with the Speaker, as he branded the Commons as a place that was "riddled with deceit, corruption and hypocrisy", saying MPs are not acting in the best interest of their constituents and are "no better than robots...voting on issues they don't understand after debates which they don't listen to", words which enrage his colleagues.

He also addressed is own mental state.

But how much of the speech shown in the drama is true?

While the constant interventions with the frustrated Speaker over the wording of his statement are true, comments about robots and describing the House of Commons as "riddled with deceit, corruption and hypocrisy" do not appear in the official Hansard transcript. He also used his statement to deny allegations of being a Czech spy.

Below is the full transcript of the text from Hansard, the official report of all Parliamentary debate.

John Stonehouse's speech

Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) to make a personal statement I want to make one or two matters clear.

Responsibility for the decision to allow the right hon. Member to make a statement is mine. If the House wishes to introduce a new Standing Order dealing with personal statements I am sure that any occupant of the Chair would be grateful. I certainly have not found this an easy matter to decide. The right hon. Gentleman's affairs and absence have frequently been referred to in the House. A Select Committee was set up and has reported. I am of the opinion that in those circumstances I should allow the right hon. Member to make a statement about his absence.

47As to the precise contents of the statement, the task of the Chair in this case has been to ensure that nothing should be said in it concerning matters which are sub judice and that it does not involve attacks upon other Members.

The convention of this House is that a personal statement should be listened to in silence.

Mr. John Stonehouse (Walsall, North): I think I should first explain that the fact that I am speaking from the benches on the Opposition side of the House has no party political significance whatsoever. I am standing here because this is the place that I occupied for most of my time in the House in the last nearly 19 years, and indeed it was from this bench that I made a personal statement when I returned from Rhodesia some 16 years ago on 13th March 1959.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The rules are very, very strict. The right hon. Gentleman must say only what has been passed by me.

Mr. Stonehouse: I simply wanted to say that as there were some inquiries as to why I was at this bench, in particular from some hon. Members who were already sitting here, I felt that I should explain why I chose to speak from this side of the House.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your agreement to my request to make a statement. It is not easy for me; nor is it easy for the House. The events surrounding my disappearance last November, and since, have created tremendous Press publicity, and everyone's consideration of my experience has been coloured and influenced by that media treatment. There have been incredible allegations made against me—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be very careful. He is not now reading from the text which has been agreed with me.

Mr. Stonehouse: I have made a few textual changes.

Mr. Speaker: Let there be no misunderstanding about this. The right hon. Member is entitled to say only what I have passed.

Mr. Stonehouse: In particular—you will see this in the text, Mr. Speaker—I deny the allegation that I was an agent for the CIA. I deny the allegations that I was a spy for the Czechs. I can only regret that the original stories were printed. The purpose of this statement is to explain, as best I can within the traditions of the House, why I was absent from the House for such a lengthy period.

The explanation for the extraordinary and bizarre conduct in the second half of last year is found in the progressions towards the complete mental breakdown which I suffered. This breakdown was analysed by an eminent psychiatrist in Australia and was described by him as psychiatric suicide. It took the form of the repudiation of the life of Stonehouse because that life had become absolutely intolerable to him. A new parallel personality took over—separate and apart from the original man, who was resented and despised by the parallel personality for the ugly humbug and sham of the recent years of his public life. The parallel personality was uncluttered by the awesome tensions and stresses suffered by the original man, and he felt, as an ordinary person, a tremendous relief in not carrying the load of anguish which had burdened the public figure.

The collapse and destruction of the original man came about because his idealism in his political life had been utterly frustrated and finally destroyed by the pattern of events, beyond his control, which had finally overwhelmed him. Those events which caused the death of an idealist are too complex to describe in detail here, but in the interests of clarity as well as brevity I refer to them as follows.

Uganda was a country in which I worked for two years in the development of the co-operative movement. I was active also in developing political progress and became, for instance, a character witness for one of the accused in the Jomo Kenyatta Mau Mau trial in Kenya.

Later, as a back-bench Member of Parliament, I campaigned vigorously for African independence and became vice-chairman of the Movement for Colonial Freedom. Much of my back-bench activities at that time—conducted, incidentally, from this bench—were concerned with advancing this cause. I believed in it sincerely and passionately. But those ideals were shattered in the late 1960s and the 1970s as Uganda and some other countries I had helped towards independence moved from democracy to military dictatorship and despair.

The co-operative movement in Britain had been a great ideal for me from an early age. Co-operation was almost a religion for me. It was not only a way to run a business; it was a way of life from which selfishness, greed and exploitation were completely excluded. I became a director and later President of the London Co-operative Society, the largest retail co-operative society in the world, in active pursuit of those ideals. I did not do it for money. The honorarium was £20 per year.

But I was pursued by the Communists in that position during that period. I was bitterly attacked, and at that time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must say only what I have passed.

Mr. Stonehouse: That time was a most traumatic one for me and wounded my soul deeply. It had become cruelly clear that my co-operative ideals were too ambitious, for, in truth, they could not be achieved, given human motivations. I felt as though my religion had been exposed as a pagan rite.

Bangladesh is a country which I helped to create, and, with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann), I was one of the first in the House to take up the cause of self-determination for East Pakistan following the terrible events of the military crack-down in March 1971, when 10 million people had to flee for their lives to the safety of India. I became deeply involved as a result of first-hand experience in Bengal during the struggle for freedom. I sponsored several early-day motions concerned with Bangladesh, including one which attracted over 100 signatories, calling for the recognition of an independent and sovereign Bangladesh. That motion, in July 1971, was most significant in the progression of events towards the independence which finally came in December of that year.

Bangladesh made me a citizen in recognition of my identification with the cause. I was enthused at that time with hope, but the hopes turned to tears as the conditions in that country deteriorated. Another of my ideals had collapsed.

After the Labour defeat of 1970, I became active in export businesses, a field in which I had been successful as a Minister and one in which I felt I could make a contribution in assisting British exports. I had hoped to establish personal financial security after a few years and then to return to full-time political activity. My enterprises were successful.

However, early in 1972, I was approached by Bengalis residing in this country who wanted me to assist the establishment of a bank to cement relationships between Britain and Bangladesh. This involved me in very great problems, which could have ruined my career and public standing, and I was left a broken man as a result of the nervous tension I suffered throughout that period. That experience contributed heavily to my breakdown.

In 1974, with the collapse of many secondary banks and the problems of the British economy, the strains became even worse. There seemed no escape from the awesome pressures which were squeezing the will to live from the original man. Everything he had lived for and worked for seemed to be damned.

In this House itself, I felt a big weight bearing down on me. It was physically painful for me to be in the Chamber because it was such a reminder of my lost ideals. I was suffocated with the anguish of it all. The original man had become a burden to himself, to his family and to his friends. He could no longer take the strain and had to go. Hence, the emergence of the parallel personality, the disappearance and the long absence during the period of recovery.

That recovery took time, and in the early stages the psychiatrist in Australia advised that I should not return to England until I had recovered, as a premature return would inevitably do further harm to my health. At the time of the disappearance, no criminal charges were laid or anticipated; they did not come till four months later.

In view of the facts, I hope that the House will agree that the right hon. Member for Walsall, North had no intention of removing himself from the processes of justice as established by Parliament.

I am not allowed by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, to refer to what you consider to be controversial subjects, and of course I accept your judgment; but I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that one man's meat—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is again departing from the text.

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am simply explaining that I accept your judgment entirely, but a personal statement is a personal statement, and I must advise the House that half of my original statement was deleted by you. However, I fully appreciate your position, and I am deeply indebted to you for your sympathy, understanding and forbearance in the difficult circumstances which I have involuntarily created for you and the House during these past 11 months. I am very grateful to those hon. Members who have extended understanding in my turmoil—especially to my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden and for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller), the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and the hon. Members for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) and for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell). I express thanks also to the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) and the then Foreign Secretary who both helped me through a terrible crisis in 1973. I thank the Clerks at the Table and their assistants, who have been exceptionally helpful in recent months.

Find out more

If you want to learn more about the story of John Stonehouse, and other incredible scarcely believable criminal stories from the Black Country, then sign up to our new True Crime series on Express & Star +.

There, you can find a collection of in-depth articles written exclusively for members. To read the rest or listen to the podcast join us for a 30-day trial: https://www.expressandstar.com/series/