HC Deb 12 July 1917 vol 95 cc2098-100
50. Mr. S. MacNEILL

asked the Prime Minister whether there is any and, if so, what precedent for the appointment of Lord Hardinge of Penshurst, a Member of a House of Parliament, to the position in the permanent Civil Service of the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; whether he is aware that the holding of a peerage with a seat in the House of Lords is regarded as incompatible with the holding of a position in the permanent Civil Service, and that Lord Tenterden and the Earl of Iddesleigh on succeeding to peerages did not apply for writs of succession to the House of Lords, on the ground that a seat in that Assembly would disqualify Lord Tenterden for the position of Permanent Under- Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Earl of Iddesleigh for the position of Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, of which they were respectively holders; what is the reason in Lord Hardinge's case for the rupture of a hitherto unbroken constitutional usage, that a Member of either House of Parliament should not be a member of the permanent Civil Service; and whether, having regard to the fact that the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission is likely to shake public confidence in Lord Hardinge's administrative ingenuity and the withholding of information from the public of foreign affairs, and the lack of effective control by Parliament of foreign policy, he will consider the desirability of removing Lord Hardinge from the Foreign Office in the public interest?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I am not aware of any Statute or Regulation forbidding the holding by Members of the House of Lords of posts in the permanent Civil Service. There are a number of precedents. Under the most recent practice peers who are also Civil servants are allowed to take their seats in the House of Lords and to vote—provided that this does not interfere with their official duties—but not to take any further part in the business of the House. If individual peers have decided not to apply for writs of succession during their tenure of Civil offices, that is within their discretion as a matter of private judgment. In my opinion it is clearly open to the Government to allow a Civil servant who is a peer to make a statement in the House of Lords on a particular occasion, provided that this course does not conflict with the duties of the office which he holds for the time being. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MacNEILL

Do I understand that Lord Hardinge is still to be retained in his office as Permanent Under-Secretary, having regard to what has happened? Is that the answer?

Mr. BONAR LAW

No. That is not the answer, as the hon. Gentleman will see. I think this is a matter which had better be dealt with in the discussion this afternoon.

Mr. HOGGE

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the same facilities to ordinary soldiers, sailors, and Civil servants so that they shall have the same freedom in making their defence as Lord Hardinge had in making his defence in the House of Lords?

Mr. BONAR LAW

I think there is some misapprehension about this. It would clearly be wrong for Lord Hardinge to take any public action in connection with the office he holds. It does not seem to me fair that you should apply that principle to an entirely different question which has no connection with his present office.

Mr. MacNEILL

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question whether he will consider the desirability of removing Lord Hardinge from the Foreign Office in the public interest.

Mr. BONAR LAW

I have replied to that. The answer to that is in the negative. It does not follow that the other question put by the hon. Gentleman applies.

Mr. JOHN O'CONNOR

Have the Government considered the impropriety of all these questions and answers and Debates in this House on a subject that is sub judice?

Mr. MacNEILL

The Government themselves have made it sub judice.

Sir J. D. REES

Does the right hon. Gentleman confirm what Lord Curzon said in the House of Lords, that any Member is at liberty this afternoon to deal with the conduct of any individual censured by the Commission?

Mr. BONAR LAW

That is clearly not a question for me at all. I have no authority in any way to limit the Debate.