HC Deb 08 August 1972 vol 842 cc1513-5
Mr. Douglas

Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek your guidance on a matter on which I have given notice and to seek your ruling regarding the contents of a letter sent to me by Mr. N. J. M. Bennett, Managing Director of Wiggins Teape, as to whether certain words used in this letter constitute a breach of privilege.

On 22nd July, 1972, I issued a statement to the Press asserting that during the period of ownership of Samuel Jones & Co. (Devenvale) Ltd by Wiggins Teape the parent company had transferred funds in excess of £1 million from Tillicoultry. This comment appeared in a number of newspapers.

On Tuesday, 1st August, 1972, after a meeting with officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and others in Glasgow, Mr. Bennett and a Major McCallum of Wiggins Teape sought to question me about my statement of 22nd July. In the light of subsequent events I now see this questioning as an attempt to induce me to elaborate on my Press statement in a manner which might prove actionable.

I told the company's representatives that I stood by my view and urged on them the publication of a report by the University of Stirling's Industrial Projects Division into the company's affairs at Tillicoultry, which I feel will more than substantiate my opinions.

Yesterday I received a letter from Mr. Bennett together with a number of enclosures, specifically a letter from the firm's solicitors dated 3rd August to newspaper editors stating inter alia: A suggestion was made that Wiggins Teape had transferred funds in excess of £1 million from Tillicoultry. This is not only inaccurate but we have advised our clients that it is defamatory and suggesting that a short prepared statement should be published. This statement refuted the transfer of funds and claimed— The facts are otherwise. It is true that dividends totalling £1,127,000 were declared by the Tillicoultry subsidiary in favour of its parent company between 1966 and 1971, but the dividends were never paid, there being no cash available for this purpose. The prepared statement further claimed that Wiggins Teape actually increased its investment at Tillicoultry over the period of ownership.

It would not be in order to pursue the accuracy of this claim, but I am confident that a detailed investigation will show that what the company did was to produce a diminution of fixed assets and an expansion of current assets, mainly stock to suit the exigencies of the Wiggins Teape empire as a whole and not for the benefit of the complex at Tillicoultry. Funds were transferred in the form of dividends—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman appears to be going into the merits of the matter. I would remind him that he is seeking to raise a matter of privilege.

Mr. Douglas

I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I am trying to give the background information on the question of privilege. I have only a few more sentences and I shall conclude. Funds were transferred in the form of dividends arising from profits made at Tillicoultry and the claim that sums were loaned back only substantiates the transfer.

These are matters of public record, and what I am raising with you, Mr. Speaker, is the statement contained in the letter of 4th August, 1972, to the effect: Provided the three newspapers act as we have requested and further reference is not made to this matter publicly, I hope that no further action will be necessary on our part. I seek your view, Mr. Speaker, whether this statement constitutes a breach of privilege in attempting to restrict the freedom of speech of a Member in pursuit of his parliamentary duties.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has raised a matter of privilege, and, in accordance with current practice, I shall rule on it tomorrow.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I wish to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, on the second Motion on the Order Paper relating to the Summer Adjournment. I do not know whether you wish me to raise it now.

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will raise the point when that Motion is dealt with.