§ Mrs. Winifred EwingI wish to raise a complaint of privilege, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you due notice, arising out of a letter to the Northern Scot, a very important newspaper, of Saturday 28th February, which appears on page 8 of that newspaper.
This is the earliest opportunity at which I can raise this matter. I have given notice, in accordance with the courtesies of the House, to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), under whose hand the letter is written.
I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but if you wish I shall read the letter. Is that in accordance with your wishes, Mr. Speaker?
§ Mr. William HamiltonYes, please.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Perhaps the hon. Lady would care to give the digest.
§ Mr. William HamiltonNo, no. Let the hon. Lady read it, please.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I need advice from only one source.
§ Mrs. EwingIn accordance with your advice, Mr. Speaker, I shall follow the procedure that occurred when I was once 919 the victim of a breach of privilege and a digest of a letter only was given, in the interests of brevity.
The letter is certainly defamatory of me, but that is a matter for another place and will follow in due course. However, in my view it interferes with the proper execution of my duties as a Member and, therefore, falls within the umbrella of the Committee of Privileges, for the following reasons.
There is an allegation that I failed to participate in a debate on the fishing industry of the EEC. It is known that I have taken part in every other one and it was known where I was at the time of this particular debate. We all know that Members cannot be in two places at once and that Members of Parliament, particularly of parties of one, cannot man a Bench for 24 hours a day. However, apart from that first matter, the innuendo about which I complain is that
This gross dereliction of duty by Mrs. Ewing becomes all the more indefensible taken in conjunction with the fact that on that same day she had spoken in defence of her own profession—the lawyers.Then, later in the letter,She is not paid handsomely to be absent—nor, I submit, to represent the views of lawyers rather than fishermen.It is a matter of record—and I have with me the official record of the debate in the EEC Parliament—that I made no speech whatsoever in the defence of lawyers. If Hansard is impugned in its accuracy, while allowing for political poetic licence, to which we are all very accustomed as seasoned Members, nevertheless to be involved in a defamatory remark about a non-existent speech which has not even taken place seems to me to go beyond the bounds of protection of a Member's public record.The second point of privilege in the letter is the reference to handsome payment, both to the hon. Member for Fife, Central and to myself. I would point out that this, again, is a misstatement of the public record because it is a fact that we are not paid a salary at all—as the hon. Member for Fife, Central well knows—but we are allowed to claim expenses—which we have just been duly warned by the Inland Revenue have to be entirely justified. They are, therefore, expenses which are claimable and have to be justified. Once again, therefore, the 920 public nature of my office has been brought into disrepute, and inaccurately.
I have a legal hurdle to overcome, which I shall put briefly to the House. It is this. I am suggesting that as nominees of this House, which the United Kingdom delegation at present is, we were hired by this House—we could be fired by this House—and our nominations all had to be approved by the House. Until the day of direct elections to the EEC comes, I am suggesting that the writ of the Committee of Privileges should extend to such breaches of conduct between one Member of the United Kingdom delegation and another in the course of their duties as nominees.
That may be the first time that that point has been put, but I put it without hesitation because the rules of privilege of this House are elderly and I am certain that both English and Scots law are adaptable enough to bring them up to terms with the new situation. We do not have a proper set of rules to protect us in the EEC Parliament. By a strange irony of fate we are waiting until the chairman newly appointed for this purpose advises—and the name of the chairman is that of the hon. Member for Fife, Central. Until he has set up rules to protect me against such contempt, I must surely look to this House for some protection.
The fact is that I have been accused in an inaccurate record relating to, I would suggest, an extension of responsibility, which affects me as a nominee of this House.
There must surely be some protection against such damaging statements which prevent delegates from properly exercising their duties.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am dealing with a point of order under privilege, and I have been asked to rule. Perhaps the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) will bring the newspaper to the Table.
Newspaper handed in.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice that she was going to raise this matter. I did not know the contents of her complaint. I shall 921 consider it carefully and rule on the matter tomorrow.
§ Mr. William HamiltonOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will give very sympathetic consideration to this matter. I should very much like it to be taken to the Committee of Privileges, because there is a very interesting story to tell here and it is important to get it—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It may well be interesting but that I shall find out. I shall be ruling on the matter tomorrow.
§ Mr. Maxwell-HyslopWill the copy of the letter which has not been read out to the House, but to which the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) has referred, be placed on the Table, Mr. Speaker, so that hon. Members may see it? I do not recollect a previous case in which the letter complained of has not been read out to the House. As it is, the hon. Lady has put forward her comments on a letter by another Member without hon. Members being put in a position of knowing what was in the letter. I find this very distasteful. Therefore, as the hon. Lady has not specifically placed a copy of the letter on the Table, as opposed to giving you a copy, Mr. Speaker, would you please order that she lays a copy of the letter on the Table—and the full letter and not a summarised version—concerning which she has thought it right to complain, bearing in mind that she has commented at such length on a document which is not available to all hon. Members?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a master of procedure in the House. The fault was mine. I should have allowed the hon. Lady to go 922 on and to read the whole of the letter. I shall now ask the Clerk of the House to read the letter.
§ Mr. William HamiltonThank you, Mr. Speaker.
§
The Clerk of the House read the letter, which was as follows:
For a long time Mrs. W. Ewing has publicly criticised the fisheries policy of both the United Kingdom and the EEC. Recently she criticised the European Commissioner responsible for these matters—in the House of Commons.
Yet on Thursday, February 12, when there was a long debate in the European Parliament on the fishing industry, Mrs. Ewing was absent from it. The only Scottish MPs who spoke were Mr. Alex Fletcher, the Tory Member for Edinburgh North, and myself.
This gross dereliction of duty by Mrs. Ewing becomes all the more indefensible taken in conjunction with the fact that on that same day she had spoken in defence of her own profession—the lawyers.
Like me, Mrs. Ewing is very well paid to look after Scottish affairs in Europe—even though her own Party was vehement in opposing British membership of the Common Market.
She is not paid handsomely to be absent—nor, I submit, to represent the views of lawyers rather than fishermen. There was a grave dereliction of duty by Mrs. Ewing which should not go unnoticed in Moray and Nairn.—Yours etc.,
§ W. W. HAMILTON,
§ MP for Central Fife."
§ Mr. SpeakerI shall give my ruling tomorrow.