§ 28. Mr. RAMSAYasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the inhabitants of St. Kilda received no communications from the mainland from 18th October, 1929, till 16th February, 1930; and whether he made any representations to the Postmaster-General on the question of mails during that period, or did anything to ascertain the requirements of the islanders as regards their food supplies?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston)I am informed that the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, difficulties having arisen in arranging for the despatch of mails from time to time. These difficulties were the subject of some correspondence between the General Post Office and the Scottish Office. No representations were received from the islanders as to their food supplies and there was no reason to suppose that provision had not been made as in previous winters. As indicated in the report of the Department of Health of which I sent a copy to the hon. Member on 12th May, there was a letter from the nurse as recently as 12th February from which it appeared that with few exceptions the supplies of foodstuffs were adequate for the islanders' needs. I may add that in January attempts made to land Dr. Shearer of the Department of Health from the "Hesperus" had to be abandoned owing to the bad weather and sea 1762 conditions. Dr. Shearer was not able to make a landing until the middle of February. In May, the Department of Health chartered a trawler at Leverburgh and another landing was effected on 18th of that month, when the nurse's stores were replenished.
§ Sir B. FALLEWere they not once in wireless communication?
§ Mr. WESTWOODCan the hon. Gentleman say, in connection with all these troubles at St. Kilda, whether any representations have ever been made by the Member of Parliament who represents that island?
§ Mr. RAMSAYWas it possible for any representations to be made when no mails whatever could come from there?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIs it not a fact that the hon. Member who represents St. Kilda in this House visited that island not so long ago?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThat is a fact.
§ Mr. RAMSAYThe hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood) has made disparaging remarks concerning me. May I ask if it is in order for him to make such remarks?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid there was so much noise that I did not hear the remark, but I am sure that if any disparaging remark has been made it will be withdrawn.
§ Mr. WESTWOODI have never made any disparaging remark in connection with any Member of this House. I submit that I am entitled to ask if any representations have been made by the individual directly responsible for representing that island?
§ Dr. HUNTEROn a point of Order. Was an insinuation not made? The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Ramsay) is highly respected by all his colleagues.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am sure the hon. Member for Peebles will withdraw, as be said he did not intend to make any disparaging remark.
§ Mr. WESTWOODI have already said that.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIs it not within the knowledge of the hon. Member who asked the supplementary question, and who is attached to the Scottish Office, that my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles has been unremitting in his attention to that island?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has already said that he did not mean anything disparaging.
§ Mr. RAMSAYMr. Speaker, I have a right to demand a withdrawal.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am sure the hon. Member will withdraw any suggestion or insinuation.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMay I ask whether the hon. Member's question was not put in an insinuating way, and whether it did not carry with it an innuendo that the hon. Member for the Western Isles was not carrying out his duties?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Peebles has already stated that he did not intend to make any insinuation. He cannot say more.
§ Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEIs it not in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member made a distinct insinuation against the hon. Member for the Western Isles and that he has not withdrawn that insinuation or apologised for it? Is it not contrary to the Rules of the House for a Member who makes such insinuations not to apologise?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have often ruled that no hon. Member should make remarks insinuating anything against another hon. Member. The hon. Member for Peebles will, perhaps, say again that he did not 1764 intend any insinuation. If there has been any misunderstanding, I am sure he will withdraw.
§ Sir HERBERT SAMUELThere cannot possibly be any misunderstanding. There can be only one interpretation of the remark made by the hon. Member for Peebles. I am sure he will see that it is the desire of the whole House that he should withdraw it. The only course for him to take is to withdraw it.
§ Mr. WESTWOODI have nothing to add to what I have already said, which will be found recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONIs it not a fact that the hon. Member for Peebles is attached to the Scottish Office and that therefore the innuendo and the insinuation in his question were particularly obnoxious?
§ Mr. THURTLEOn a point of Order!
§ Mr. SPEAKERDoes the hon. Member rise to a point of Order?
§ Mr. THURTLEYes, Sir.
§ Mr. THURTLEI wish to ask whether all this discord is not very damaging to the entente cordiale?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThe question of—
§ Sir B. FALLEWill the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland withdraw on behalf of his colleague?
§ Mr. SPEAKERMr. Macpherson.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI beg leave to refuse to put any question until the hon. Member for Peebles has withdrawn his observation.
Miss LEEOn a point of Order. May I know whether my question has been 1765 answered or not? I could not hear. I think many Scottish Members opposite will realise that it is an important question.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI understood the hon. Member for Peebles to say that he did not intend to make any insinuation.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf there is any misunderstanding the hon. Member for Peebles should say definitely that he did not intend any insinuation or, if what he said was misunderstood to mean an insinuation, that he withdraws it.
§ Sir K. WOODWhere is the Leader of the House?
§ Mr. WESTWOODI have made it quite clear that there was no insinuation of any kind against the hon. Member, and I have made it perfectly clear that I have a right to ask in this House if Members representing constituencies have themselves made representations on behalf of their constituencies.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe hon. Member has merely repeated what he said. No Member of the House attached to the Scottish Office, as the hon. Member is, is entitled to make that insinuation.
§ Mr. SKELTONMay I ask whether hon. Members are entitled, by putting purely fishing questions, to make insinuations against other hon. Members? It is clear from his withdrawal that the hon. Member confesses he knew nothing about it. Is it not entirely out of order to put fishing questions to the detriment of another hon. Member?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have ruled on numberless occasions that any insinuations are out of order.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member, to avoid any further remarks, would be much better advised, if he made any insinuations, to withdraw them.
§ Mr. WESTWOODIf there may have been read into what I said any insinuations, then I willingly withdraw, but again I repeat I made no insinuations.