MARCONI COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 16 June 1913)

§ Mr. GULLAND
I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

§ Mr. OLIVER LOCKER - LAMPSON
Some days ago I put down a question to the Prime Minister, in which I asked him whether he would inquire as to whether any Members of the Marconi Committee had ever dealt in Marconi shares. That. question was ruled out of order, and I was. referred by you, Sir, either to the Committee itself or to the House. I addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on the point, and I have up to now had no reply. I, therefore, raise it on this occasion. I see in the Report of the Marconi Committee that every Unionist Member signed a declaration to-the effect that he had never had any dealings in Marconi shares at any time and the two Nationalist Members have signed a similar declaration having an exactly similar effect. I would ask whether this would not be a favourable opportunity, before the Report is discussed on Wednesday and Thursday, for those members of the Committee who did not sign the declaration, to do so, and if they cannot, then to give some adequate explanation why they were not able to do so. [An HON. MEMBER "Why?"] I venture to ask that in the interests of the Committee itself, in the interests of the Report, and in order to restore public confidence in the credentials of the Committee as a whole.

§ Sir ALBERT SPICER
With reference to what the hon. Member has said, it may be well that I should inform you what has transpired in the Committee on the matter. There have been some references to it in the House. On 18th January the Noble Lord the Member for the Hitchin Division (Lord Robert Cecil) moved the following Motion: — That each member of the Committee should have an opportunity to make a declaration of disinterestedness in a-form to be approved by the Committee. That was supported by twelve Members of the Committee. The only dissentient was the hon. Member for the Chertsey Division (Mr. Macmaster), and I may say that the only Member absent was the hon. Member for Newry. The hon. Member for Chertsey on the same day addressed the following letter to me:— I desire that my reason should he recorded in the minutes for voting against the proposal that each of the members of the Committee should voluntarily take an oath that he had no interest in the matters under investigation. 177 I need not say that I declared when the matter was under discussion, and do now declare, that I have no interest, either directly or indirectly, in any of these matters, or in the shares of any of the companies referred to in the investigation, and never have had, and I make the same declaration in respect of, and on behalf of, each and all the members of my family. But I object to the taking of a voluntary oath, because no oath is required from a Member of Parliament in order to qualify him to sit as a member of a Select Committee and discharge his duties in connection therewith; and, moreover, I have serious doubts as to whether members of the Committee are justified in taking an oath that, in my opinion, is not warranted by law, or founded in precedent, and for the utterly insufficient reason (in my opinion) that some person has offensively suggested that such an oath should be taken. That letter was signed by the hon. Member for Chertsey. The hon. Member for Newry (Mr. Mooney), who was absent, on his return to England, also addressed the following letter to me, dated 30th January: — I desire that ray reason for not making a declaration on oath that I have not had at any time any interest whatever in the Marconi Company, should he entered upon our minutes. I have no hesitation in stating that I have no interest, either directly or indirectly, in any of these matters, or in the shares of any of the companies referred to in the investigations, and never have had, but I object to the taking of a voluntary oath, because no oath is required from a Member of Parliament, in order to qualify him to sit as a member of a Select Committee, and discharge Ids duties therewith, and I have a strong objection to establishing a precedent of this kind merely because sonic person, on grounds not disclosed, suggested that such an oath should be taken, In my opinion, the settled practice of Parliamentary Select Committees should not be altered to meet vague suggestions made by irresponsible individuals. These reasons had great weight with the Committee, but at a subsequent date, 28th May, I received letters from the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. W. Redmond) and the Noble Lord the Member for the Hitchin Division, to the following effect: — In view of various statements which have appeared in the Press to: he effect that some Members of the Committee are, or have been interested in Marconi shares. I desire to place on record that I have not now, nor have I ever had, either directly or indirectly, personally, or through any relation or friend, any interest of any kind in ally Marconi, Poulsen, or other wireless company, syndicate, or undertaking in this canary or abroad. On the same day I also received this letter: — In view of various statements which have appeared in the Press to the effect that sonic Members of this Committee are, or have been interested in Marconi shares, we desire to place it on record that there is none of us has now, or ever had, either directly or indirectly, personally, or through any relation or friend, any interest of any kind in any Marconi, Poulsen, or other wireless company, syndicate, or undertaking in this country or abroad. This letter was signed by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. G. Faber), the Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), the Junior Member for the City of London 178 (Sir F. Banbury), the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Amery), and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher). There the matter remains at present. All I say is I have never had any interest in any Marconi company.

Mr. PARKER
Two sentences will satisfy me. As regards these Debates, I take it that neither myself nor any Member of this party would have taken a seat on that Committee if he had had any per: serial interest in these companies, and. would have regarded it as an insult on the part of those who wanted him to do so.

§ Mr. BOOTH
The hon. Member who. introduced this has forgotten one or two important things. He made no disclaimer himself. He also forgot that the two Conservative Members who sat upon the Committee for some considerable time did not sign that. letter. Therefore I would recommend the hon. Member in a matter like this to be exceedingly careful. I say suite frankly I do not believe that the two Conservative Members who retired from the Committee were interested in any way with any of these companies which came under review. I do not believe that any single one of the Members who remain upon the Committee is in that position either.

§ Sir F. BANBURY
May I point out to-the hon. Member who has just spoken that my hon. Friend is not a Member of this Committee, and that whether he has or has not at any time held Marconi shares. does not apply to this question? It is quite true that, as far as I know, there never has been any Member of a Select Committee making a, declaration that he is not interested in a subject such as that Committee has been appointed to consider, but I would venture to refer to the vital importance of the questions which this Committee was appointed to consider. I would also point out that all Private Bill Committees make a declaration to the same effect. This Committee were in the position of being judge and jury, and therefore it was absolutely necessary, in my opinion, not that the members should go into the box and take the oath, but that they should make some declaration to the effect that they themselves were not interested in the subject on which they had to decide. No judge in a Court of Law would take a seat on the bench to try a case in which he had a direct or indirect interest, and no, 179 justice of the peace would do the same. As a justice of the peace who attends regularly when not in this House, I have never known a justice to adjudicate in a case in which he had any direct or indirect interest. My belief is that such a thing is not done, but if it is done, it is for Members of this House to set an example. I venture to say that the statement of the hon. Member opposite that he regarded this request as an insult is altogether absurd. Surely he should have felt, as I should have felt, that it was a personal duty to come forward in the circumstances and make a declaration. I am sure I cannot conceive how any member of the Committee can have refused to sign such a very simple letter. As to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Committee, and in regard to the objection of the hon. Member for Chertsey, I believe that objection was on entirely technical and legal grounds. I am no lawyer, and do not know whether he was right or wrong, but I would point out that the signing of the letter was agreed to by the Unionist Members, and, I think, also by the Irish Members.

§ Mr. FALCONER
I have no desire to discuss the general question as to whether or not this form should have been signed by members of the Committee, at the same time I am absolutely indifferent as to whether I sign that statement or I do not, as I have had no share in any company, either this or otherwise. I do think that we ought, if there is to be any statement of that kind signed, to have a rule laid down by the House, or by you, Sir. I think that this Committee or some of its members have presented a somewhat lamentable spectacle. I will explain why I say so. It almost seemed to me that if a paragraph appeared in any newspaper, immediately the Committee was supposed to take some notice of it, or do something with respect to it, instead of going on with the business in the usual way and arriving at an independent decision, and guiding their policy accordingly. This is an illustration of it. As I say. 180 I can see a good many reasons for which it might be desirable for a Member to say he was disinterested, and I can see reasons to the contrary, although they do not weigh much with me. But I would respectfully ask, Sir —I do not know whether it is in your power—to give a ruling or indication whether you think this is a declaration which should be made, in which case I should do it with the greatest pleasure; but, on the other hand, I do think, having regard to the settled practice of the House, that Members should be establishing precedents in Committee with no authority for doing it, but merely because some person has made some reflections upon some member of the Committee, not named, is not desirable. That is the position. I should be glad if you would be good enough, Sir, to give some guidance to one who has not been long a Member of the House and who is willing to take either course which may be decided upon.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
There is no rule relating to Select Committees which compels Members to make any such declaration as that which has been referred to. There is a rule in the case of Private Bill Committees, but there is no rule governing Select Committees.

§ Mr. FALCONER
May I ask, would you regard with favour this procedure introduced whereby a voluntary statement or declaration is made?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I do not regard with favour any novel procedure.

Sir HERBERT ROBERTS
Before the House adjourns I wish to say that although I generally agree with the hon. Baronet opposite on questions of procedure, I could not agree with him on this point. I have been a member of a good many Select Committees and it has always been the invariable practice not to ask for a declaration of this kind, and certainly I would never join a Committee if I had the slightest or remotest interest in the matter before it.