Jim's speech in parliament on Reuters' reputation

One late January night 23 years ago, Mary Ellen Fullam and I were working the World Desk overnight shift at 85 Fleet Street. As we were both involved with the NUJ, we planned to go on at the end of the shift to parliament, which was the next morning debating a Private Members Bill on the flotation of Reuters. At around 1:00 am Jim ambled across the fourth floor and handed me a typed text, which appeared to be a speech.

It was a grand piece of work.

“Employees of Reuters - we must remember that the success of the organisation owes a great deal not to financial manipulation but to the quality, skill and integrity of the journalists who have been employed by it over the years - have told me that they have never anywhere in the world had to apologise for the fact that they work for Reuters or have had to try to compromise their standards to do their job. What a splendid testimony that is to Reuters and to the men and women who serve it. It is that reputation that is at risk,” it said.

“That’s great, Jim,” I said. “Who’s going to give it?”

“Someone who owes me a favour,” the great man replied and disappeared off into the night.

At the House of Commons the next morning there were more people in the Strangers' Gallery than on the floor. The debate was led by Austin Mitchell MP, a former journalist and member of the Union. But he had few supporters on the opposition benches on a Friday.

After an hour or so, Sir Bernard Braine, a right-wing Conservative who was soon to become Father of the House, got up to speak.

Declaring that “someone has to speak up for that admirable band of journalists, which has built up the reputation of Reuters over many years,” the Tory grandee gave a speech which criticised the management’s handling of the flotation and seemed more at home on the other side of the chamber. It was Jim’s. ■