§ 51. Mr. GARRO-JONESasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade is by the Statute creating his office required to discharge the functions of an Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; that while under that. Statute this Minister is absolved from in- capacity to sit and vote in this House, the six remaining Under-Secretaries are protected by no such provision; that, there- fore, the Minister above first mentioned, being classified as an Under-Secretary, brings the number of Under-Secretaries sitting in this House to seven, of whom six come within the penal provisions of the House of Commons (Vacation of Seats) Act, 18434; and whether, in the light of these statutory provisions, he will take conference with the Law Officers of the Crown.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am advised that the hon. Member is mistaken in the interpretation which he seeks to put upon the Statute in question. The Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade is not an Under-Secretary of State, though he discharges certain of the functions of an Under-Secretary of State.
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESIs it not a fact that he discharges the functions of an Under-Secretary of State by Statute, and that he receives, in part, his pay from the Foreign Office; and is the whole object of this legislation to be nullified by merely giving him an additional description?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo. I am always anxious to help an honest seeker after truth, but I think the hon. Member is really mistaken. If he will look at the Under-Secretaries of State Act, 1929, I think it will be quite clear to him that the Minister in question never was intended to be, and never was in fact, an Under-Secretary of State.
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESIn view of the fact that a question of Privilege arises, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether I shall not be prevented from raising this matter as a point of Privilege by reason of my giving the Prime Minister's answer time to be investigated? May I say that I have studied this matter with all the Statutes, and wish to make a statement upon it from the point of view of Privi- 998 lege? Can I have leave to raise it, if thought fit, to-morrow?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not quite see how the hon. Member can raise a question of Privilege when a question of Privilege does not arise.
§ Mr. GARRO-JONESMay I point out that this merely turns on a question of interpretation, namely, whether a certain Minister is an Under-Secretary of State or not; and, in view of the fact that there is a considerable body of argument to show that he is an Under-Secretary of State, may I have, at any rate, time to confer with the Law Officers on this point, and so not have my Motion on a point of Privilege invalidated by reason of delay?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think the hon. Member had better confer with me.
§ Mr. DALTONHas the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that this Minister is described in the Foreign Office List as an Additional Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? In view of the Prime Minister's answer, does he hold that description to be inaccurate?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI can only answer a question of this kind, which is not an easy question, on the advice I get. The advice I have is the reply which I have given to the House, and I am advised that the Act passed by this House in 1929 makes it quite clear that my contention is right. Of course, undoubtedly, if the matter were debated on the Floor of the House, it would have to be debated by someone far more con versant with the technicalities of the legal point than I am.
§ Mr. ATTLEECan the Prime Minister say whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken on this point?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not think I have asked for that formally; I am perfectly willing to do so.