§ Lord Malcolm Douglas-HamiltonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance on a matter which I feel is of importance to the entire House?
I was formerly associated with the Inverness-shire Unionist Association, but recently severed my connection with that body because of flagrant lack of co-operation on the part of its current management and their attempt to separate me from my constituents. The chairman of this body was reported in yesterday's edition of "The Scotsman" as stating at a public meeting on Wednesday that so far as he knew the present Member was to continue in office until the end of the present Parliament. He then said that in the meantime the association would continue to handle all matters raised by constituents and the personal attention in the House of Commons of a Scottish M.P. would also willingly be given.
I do not know what is meant by the words
continue to handle all matters raised by constituentsas that is the responsibility which the electorate have vested in me, and which I daily fulfil.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Is the hon. Member raising this as a matter of Privilege?
§ Lord Malcolm Douglas-HamiltonI am, Sir.
Nor do I know which, if any, hon. Member has willingly given his consent to usurp my duties. I submit, however, that in making such an announcement, this body is unconstitutionally attempting to interfere with correspondence between 2502 myself and my constituents and the work I am doing on their behalf.
Does not such action constitute a threat, not only to the lawful channels of communication between a sitting Member and his constituents, but to the whole idea of democratic electoral representation? If the assumption is allowed that a caucus can interfere and take over Parliamentary correspondence in this way, and arbitrarily arrogate to itself the duties of the Member, as well as the suggestion that the caucus can, behind the back of the Member, invite another M.P. to deal with his constituency matters, does it not make a monstrous mockery of the entire Parliamentary process?
I have learned this morning that a group of my constituents, outraged by this autocratic attempt to mislead the electorate and side-track legal and official correspondence, last night formed another body to provide me with necessary local contacts. But I have taken the liberty of bringing this incident to the attention of the whole House as I believe it involves an important ethical principle; and that if this bald attempt to interfere with the customary line of communications between a sitting Member and the voters is allowed to pass unchallenged it will create a dangerous precedent which might well jeopardise any Member. This statement is patently an affront to Parliamentary etiquette, but does it not further constitute a prima facie case of breach of Privilege?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member has referred to a newspaper. Has he a copy of the newspaper?
§ Lord Malcolm Douglas-HamiltonI have the newspaper here.
§ Mr. SpeakerI will ask the Clerk to read the passage complained of.
§
Copy of newspaper handed in and read as follows:
Inverness Unionist Association yesterday adopted Mr. Neil Loudon Desmond MacLean, D.S.O., as their prospective candidate. In December they were told by Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton, M.P., that he did not intend to seek re-adoption. A fortnight ago he intimated that he was dissociating himself from the association as at present managed.
Questioned as to what the position would be if Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton stayed on until the next election, Mr. John Mitchell,
2503
chairman of the association replied that as far as they knew the present Member was to continue until the end of the present Parliament. In the meantime the association would continue to handle all matters raised by constituents and the personal attention in the House of Commons of a Scottish Member of Parliament would also be willingly given. Mr. Mitchell added that since Lord Malcolm had announced his separation from the association only 27 members out of practically 3,000 had resigned and there were 31 new members.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is from the "Scotsman" of 30th April. I am not sure when this paper is delivered in London. I have to satisfy myself that the hon. Member has raised this matter at the earliest opportunity. The hon. Member mentioned this matter to me yesterday evening on the telephone.
§ Lord Douglas-HamiltonYes, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have looked at this passage and I cannot find anything in the words to which my attention is directed which is an affront against the House. It must always be borne in mind that the Privilege is that of the House. Breaches of Privilege are breaches of the Privilege of the House as a whole and do not necessarily include all statements about hon. Members. It seems to me that all that is contained in this passage describes some dispute between the hon. Member and his constituents or a branch of them. I do not think that I can rule that there is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege of the House, though it is open to the hon. Member to put down a Motion to that effect.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesHas not this organisation, the Unionist Association, tried to usurp the duties of a Member of this House? I belong to a different political party from the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton), but I know that he has been assiduous in certain respects in his attention to his duties in the Highlands. I would associate myself with him in a perfectly genuine protest. I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if this Association has a right to step in and assume that it can take over the duties of a Member of Parliament.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am not Ruling that there is not a breach of Privilege here. That is never my duty. My first duty is to say whether there is a prima facie case sufficient to give this matter priority over the Orders of the Day. It is for the House to decide in the long run whether or not a breach of Privilege has been committed. My Ruling is that there is not such a prima facie case established by these words as to enable me to give the matter priority over the Orders of the Day. It is for the hon. Member, if he desires to pursue the matter further, to put down a Motion for the consideration of the House, and for the House, on consideration of that Motion, to rule whether or not there is a breach of Privilege.
§ Mr. BowlesMay I ask your advice, Mr. Speaker? If it is established that one hon. Member is now having directed to him the noble Lord's correspondence from his constituency, can you say whether or not the Member who is receiving that correspondence not addressed to him is placing himself in a very unfortunate position, and that possibly he may deserve some reprimand from you?
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot comment on that. I do not know the facts. That is purely hypothetical at the moment.
§ Mr. BennAt present the only evidence the noble Lord has been able to bring in support of his allegation is the newspaper cutting which presents very little evidence. Suppose further evidence is forthcoming of the action which the Unionist Association has taken, would it be possible to allow the urgency of this matter to be held over until that further evidence came forward so that it would still be open to you, Mr. Speaker, subsequently to rule that a prima facie case has occurred?
§ Mr. SpeakerI would point out to the House that when an hon. Member complains of statements in a newspaper, it is not a newspaper cutting that he should bring but the whole newspaper. In answer to the second part of the question, I would say that it seems to me that new facts might establish a new case; but on the facts before me I must adhere to the Ruling I have given.