MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL. (Hansard, 28 April 1937)

§ Mr. Lees-Smith
In view of the fact that no Minister who is responsible for this Bill is present, may I move "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again"?

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson)
Let me explain that it was thought that the Motion which has just been taken would last a few minutes longer. Ministers will be here.

§ Mr. Charles Williams
Is there any truth in the rumour that none of the Government Members are going to vote on this Bill?

§ Mr. Mander
On a point of Order. I beg to ask your Ruling, Sir Dennis, on a matter of which I have given you Private Notice? Will you indicate how far Members of the Government are entitled to vote in any Divisions on Amendments to this Bill which may directly or indirectly affect their salaries?

§ The Chairman
I thank the hon. Member for having given me notice yesterday that he intended to raise this question. That has enabled me to look up the authorities, which I have done, to such effect that I have discovered that the hon. Member himself raised a similar point before. In 1931, I think it was, he himself was perturbed and doubtful as to whether he ought to vote on a matter in which he considered he was perhaps interested. On that occasion Mr. Speaker gave him absolution and allowed him to do so, and I think there is no doubt that I shall be able to take a similar course in regard to Ministers voting to-day. The case which the hon. Member raised was not entirely on all fours with the case under this Bill, because the type of interest was a little bit different, but there are at least three authorities to which I may refer which, I think, go quite directly to the question which has been raised now, as to whether Ministers can properly vote upon this Bill or on any Amend- 364 ment in regard thereto. First of all, in 1896, this matter was the subject of a reference to a Select Committee, and that Select Committee reported: It has always been held that members of the Government might vote on Motions for a reduction of their salaries made in order to censure their conduct, because the question of general and public policy involved would override the personal and pecuniary interest. The same argument would doubtless apply to Motions for a general or individual reduction of Ministers' salaries on the ground of economy. Then, in 1898, Mr. Speaker Gully gave a Ruling, in which he used these words: To prevent a Member voting, there must be a direct pecuniary interest of a private and particular, and not of a public and general, nature, and when the question before the House is of a public and general nature and incidentally involves the pecuniary interest of a class which includes Members of the House, they are not prevented by the Rules of the House from voting. Then again, in 1911, the question came up on the discussion of the proposal for the payment of Members, and the then Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Emmott, ruled that any Member of the House was entitled to vote in favour of a Motion for the payment of salaries to Members of the House, including himself. I think these particular authorities are quite sufficient—at any rate, they are quite sufficient in my opinion—for me to rule that in this case there is no reason why Ministers should not vote, the reason being that the question is one of payment to a Minister of the Crown, as such, by virtue of his office, and not to a particular Member who happens to be holding office at that particular moment. All Members, of course, will realise that the holder of any particular Ministerial office at the present moment may no longer be the holder of that office in three or four weeks' time, and indeed he may cease to hold that office even before the present Bill, if it should successfully run its course, becomes law. But it seems to me quite clear that in this case, the proposal being for the payment of certain salaries to the holders of certain offices, there is, to use words which have already been referred to. a question of general and public policy involved, which far overrides any question of personal or pecuniary interest arising.