HC Deb 09 May 1939 vol 347 cc287-90
46. Mr. J. Morgan

asked the Prime Minister what duties have been allotted to the Lord President of the Council; who is performing such duties at the present time; and when it may be expected that the Lord President of the Council will be resuming those duties?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain)

In reply to the first two parts of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question on 23rd February last. In answer to the last part of the question, the Lord President of the Council is expected to resume his duties on Saturday week.

Mr. Morgan

May I ask whether the particulars which are being circulated set out duties which require the cancellation of business appointments in order that the duties can be carried through satisfactorily?

The Prime Minister

I do not understand what the hon. Member means by "business appointments."

Mr. Morgan

Directorships in connection with railway and shipping companies, and so on.

The Prime Minister

The rule about directorships and members of the Cabinet is well known.

Mr. Morgan

Has it been observed in the case of the Lord President of the Council?

The Prime Minister

There is another question on the Paper about that.

48. Mr. Parker

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Lord President of the Council is described in the current report and accounts of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company as a director on leave of absence, in the official return made on 24th November, 1938, to the Registrar of Companies by the Moor Line, Limited, as a director, and in the official returns of Runciman (London), Limited, and Runciman Shipping Company, Limited, dated April, 1938, and December, 1938, respectively, as a director of these companies; and whether he will require the Lord President of the Council to resign these directorships?

The Prime Minister

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, as my Noble Friend informed me of his position in regard to these directorships before he accepted my invitation to him to join His Majesty's Government. In reply to the second part of the question, Runciman (London), Limited, and Runciman Shipping Company, Limited, are private companies. As regards the Moor Line, Limited, my Noble Friend is only technically a director because under a legal instrument the President of the Runciman Shipping Company, Limited, is ex officio on the board of the Moor Line, Limited. In the case of the London Midland and Scottish Railway, my Noble Friend, though nominally still recorded as a director, has, since he took office entirely ceased to have any part in the direction of the company, nor has he received any emoluments as a director.

Mr. Parker

Surely it is time that a clear statement was made whether a Minister was a director or not so as to make it clear as far as everyone is concerned?

Mr. Shinwell

Does the Prime Minister regard it as desirable that the Lord President of the Council should remain even technically a director of the Moor Line in view of the contemplated legislation which will provide subsidies to shipping firms of that kind?

The Prime Minister

As a matter of fact, I understand that the Moor Line is not applying for any subsidy.

Mr. Shinwell

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the last tramp shipping subsidy it did obtain a subsidy and will be expected to receive a subsidy under the new legislation?

Mr. H. G. Williams

Is it not a fact that in 1929 hon. Members who were officials of trade unions and became Ministers of the Crown received leave of absence from their unions?

Mr. Pritt

Does not the right hon. Gentleman know well that under modern company arrangements a private company is very often a very big company indeed, and will he consider at his leisure the general question of whether a Cabinet Minister ought to be a director of any company, public or private?

The Prime Minister

I do not think that there is any reason, so far as I know, why the rule, which has been in operation for many years, should be altered, but I have ascertained that my Noble Friend has not since he accepted office taken any part in the direction of any of these companies, whether public or private.

Mr. Pritt

I am not worrying about a personal point, but is not the reason why the rule should be altered that since the rule was formed private companies have fundamentally altered and that many of them are no longer little private companies but that some of the biggest trusts in the country are private companies?

The Prime Minister

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will send me a note on the subject and I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. Barnes

Is the Prime Minister aware that in similar circumstances I had to resign by position as a member of the Labour Government on this very issue?

The Prime Minister

I should doubt whether the circumstances could be accurately described as similar.