The Press THURSDAY, JULY 14,1966. M.P. For Nuneaton Or The T.G.W.U.?

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31111, 14 July 1966, Page 14

The Press THURSDAY, JULY 14,1966. M.P. For Nuneaton Or The T.G.W.U.?

Since his resignation last week as Minister of Technology Mr Frank Cousins has resumed his leadership of Britain’s Transport and General Workers’ Union. He intends to resign also as member of Parliament for Nuneaton in Warwickshire, an electorate now facing its fourth parliamentary election in two years. Mr Cousins has agreed with the union that he should relieve himself of his parliamentary duties as soon as possible. The union will pay his salary, and, until he resigns, he will pay most of his parliamentary salary into union funds. The union expects Mr Cousins to continue his opposition to the Prices and Incomes Bill which provoked his resignation from the Cabinet; and Mr Cousins is not expected to leave the House of Commons until the bill has been considered. While he remains in Parliament—at the pleasure of the union if not at the pleasure of the electors of Nuneaton—Mr Cousins assumes a role that at least appears to deny a principle of parliamentary representation. It may, in practice, be one of the fictions that surround much of the parliamentary system; but a member should be no-one’s agent in Parliament. In effect, it seems that Mr Cousins will be the agent of the T.G.W.U. for the life of the Prices and Incomes Bill, paid by the union, representing its opposition to the bill—along, of course with his own—and resigning when his job is done. Members of Parliament commonly inform themselves on the interests of a section of electors. This is useful and proper. Few members of Parliament will not have been lobbied by some group and none would know better than a member how restrictive it would for him to be shackled by outside interests, even when he wishes to take those interests into account. A member of Parliament may not always represent the opinion of the majority of his constituents though he usually will if he wishes to continue to represent them. When he no longer wishes to represent -them he may be open to other pressures. Mr Cousins has decided that he will cease to represent his Nuneaton constituents. This does not give some other group the right to a voice in Parliament. Indeed, Mr Cousins’s voice will continue to be his own, as it should be; for the T.W.G.U. has no more right to a voice in the House than anj’ outside employer of any member. This may seem a fine point to argue when there is no hint of concealment about the union’s arrangement with Mr Cousins, when it cannot be said that there is more than coincidence between the views of Mr Cousins and of the union, and when Mr Cousins will simply add the weight of the union’s opinion to his own, as he might have done in any case. Nevertheless, the incident illustrates the importance of members of Parliament not becoming the agents of this group or the spokesman of that. A Parliament divided along such lines, with members paid to watch the interests of particular people rather than the general good, would soon become a meaningless institution.