§ 37. Mr. Bowlesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency pressed for the dismissal or resignation of three directors of the Staveley Iron and Chemical Company.
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe Question would appear to refer to a matter of day-to-day management which would be for the Agency, and about which the Treasury would not normally be informed. I understand, however, that in this case the resignations were tendered on the initiative of the three directors concerned, and that their retirement from the board of the Staveley Iron and Chemical Company was at their own definite wish.
§ Mr. BowlesIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it says in "The Times" that the resignations were made by arrangement with the Agency, and that it was clearly stated in the "Daily Express" last Monday week that Mr. McKenna was quite able to do without the steel shares and that the Staveley Company was now quite prepared to do without him? Is it not quite clear that if the terms of the offer under denationalisation were not sufficiently attractive, the Agency has power to call for the resignation of these directors?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe last part of the supplementary question is, of course, quite a different question. The resignation of these gentlemen is as I have stated.
§ Mr. G. R. StraussDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean that there was no dispute or quarrel about the selling of these shares that prompted the resignation of the directors concerned?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThat is, of course, a totally different question.
§ Mr. BowlesNo.
§ Mr. Jack JonesIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible that these three wise men from the North acted in the national interest, rather than in the interests of vested interests, hence the trouble at Staveley?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI have no doubt that these directors, like a great many other directors, acted in the national interest. I am glad to have that from the hon. Gentleman.