§ 54. Lieut.-Commander Fletcherasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Runciman (London), Limited, are the managers of the Anchor Line; whether he will take this kind of case into account when considering the question of extending the rule against Cabinet Ministers holding directorships to include those of private companies and consider extending the ban on directorships to cover passive, as well as active, directorships?
§ The Prime MinisterThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. For the rest, I am awaiting the note on the subject of directorships of private companies from the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) which I promised to consider on Tuesday last.
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that Runciman (London), Limited, of which the Lord President of the Council is a director, are not only the managers of the Anchor Line, but have the largest number of shares in the Anchor Line; and is it not in his capacity as director of 984 Runciman (London), Limited, that the Lord President of the Council is taking a share in controlling and directing the affairs of a public company, the Anchor Line?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that is not the case. I am informed that the relations between Runciman (London), Limited, and the Anchor Line is that Runciman (London), Limited, are employed by Anchor Line, which is entirely independent of Runciman (London), Limited, to manage their fleet. Runciman (London), Limited, do not control the Anchor Line; the connection between the companies is that of employer and employed, the employer being the Anchor Line and the employé being Runciman (London), Limited. Runciman (London), Limited, receive a fixed annual payment from the Anchor Line, and a director of Runciman (London), Limited, is not necessarily also a director of the Anchor Line.
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the number of shares held by Runciman (London), Limited, in the Anchor Line?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, I am not aware of that, and I do not think it is relevant. It is a question of directorship and not of shareholding.
§ Mr. AttleeIs it not desirable that the rule as regards directorships should be strictly dealt with in the spirit as well as the letter?
§ The Prime MinisterThe question had better remain there until I have the note from my hon. and learned Friend to which I referred. As soon as I have that note I will consider the matter afresh.
§ Mr. MacquistenShould not the same doctrine be applied to trade union secretaries and directors of the co-operatives?