MINISTERS (PRIVATE INTERESTS) (Hansard, 4 May 1955)

§ 45. Mr. Ness Edwards
asked the Prime Minister what are the Regulations relating to the holding by Ministers of directorships of companies.

§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank)
I have been asked to reply.
The general principles governing these matters have been well known for many years. They were last formulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in this House on 25th February, 1952.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
Do I understand from that reply that the system laid down by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George that no Cabinet Minister should have a direct or indirect influence upon contracts with the Government of which he is a part has been abandoned? If it has not been abandoned, how can the right hon. Gentleman explain that the I.T.A. has given a contract to a Cabinet Minister who holds nearly 5,000 shares in a holding company, a subsidiary of which has got one of the four contracts in London?

Hon. Members
Oh.

Mr. Speaker
I am troubled by the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. It is a rule of the House that no Question can be asked—and the rule applies to supplementary questions as to others—which reflects upon the character or conduct of a Member of either House. The right hon. Gentleman said that this concerned a Minister. If he is a Member of either House the right hon. Gentleman should put down a substantive Motion to enable the matter to be debated. It is not permissible to raise it by way of a Question.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I make no personal charge. I am asking for information. May I further ask, on the rules of Cabinet procedure, whether it is not a fact that a Cabinet Minister has to make a disclosure of his interests and that, in the piloting of the commercial television Bill in this House, a Cabinet Minister was involved? We have had no disclosure at all. Can the Leader of the House explain it?

§ Mr. Crookshank
Really, I have no knowledge of this accusation at all. The Question on the Paper asked what was the practice with regard to the holding of directorships, and, quite apart from any dictum of Mr. Asquith or Mr. Lloyd George, there is a very long reply which summarises the existing practice which, so far as I know, has been the practice for many years past by Governments of all shades of opinion. If the right hon. Gentleman starts making wild accusations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why wild?"] I said if he does—then he must take other ways of doing it, but certainly not arising out of a Question of a very specific nature, much of which information has been before the House for the last three years.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I was not making personal accusations today. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did the right hon. Gentleman do, then?"] I am anxious to know whether the old procedure of Cabinet conduct still applies, and if it does apply I should like to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman—he has not given an answer at all—whether or not a Cabinet Minister can have an interest in a company which now has a contract with a body set up by this House with Government money. Nor did he say anything about an ex-Minister now becoming a director of that company.

§ Mr. Crookshank
I do not know quite where we are, because the right hon. Gentleman first says "Minister," and now he says "ex-Minister." If he will kindly look at what was said in February, 1952, he will find a long paragraph on the position of Ministers and their shareholdings. I think he can take it that all Ministers in this Administration have acted with the utmost propriety.

§ Sir F. Medlicott
Arising out of this Question, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that the group of companies referred to in this Question—in which I must disclose a personal interest as legal adviser—was, at all material times, opposed to the principle of alternative or commercial television, and only entered—

Mr. Speaker
Order. This Question only asks what are the regulations relating to the holding of directorships, but it now seems to be developing into—

§ Mr. H. Morrison
On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker
I am myself talking on a point of order at the moment—into a species of aspersion of some sort. I must hold to the rule that that must be done on a Motion, so as to enable both sides to be heard and the matter to be debated by the House.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
If my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) takes the view that there has been a breach of the traditional Government rules about this matter, would it be in order for him or for somebody else to put a Private Notice Question tomorrow, asking a specific question about a specific person and what he has done?

Mr. Speaker
A very old practice of this House, which has been framed by the experience of our predecessors for the protection of hon. Members, is that any reflection on an hon. Member of this House or the other House should be put down in the form of a substantive Motion so that the House can debate it and reach a conclusion. It is not in order to make these reflections, by Question, supplementary question or by Question by Private Notice. We had better pass on. Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Air Commodore Harvey
On a point of order. The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) has made a very serious suggestion on the eve of the Election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There will be very little time to clear this matter up. The right hon. Gentleman is a Privy Councillor. He knows perfectly well the procedure, but he deliberately made a suggestion that a Minister is involved in this matter. Ought he not to withdraw or follow the normal procedure by putting down a substantive Motion?

Mr. Speaker
There is no point of order in that. I have dealt with the point of order.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
As there is a personal matter involved, surely I am entitled to make a statement?

Mr. Speaker
I have stated the rule, and if hon. Members will reflect upon it they will see how essential it is to preserve it in the interests of every hon. Member of this House. They will see how necessary it is that any charge made against an hon. Member should be put down in the form of a Motion so that the House can decide the matter after full debate, which is not possible at Question Time. Mr. Ness Edwards—a personal statement.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I look on this matter very responsibly. I am not doing this wildly at all. I regard it as my public duty to bring this matter to the attention of the House at the earliest possible moment and I make no apology at all, because there is an Election, for doing what I think to be my public duty.

§ Mr. H. Fraser
Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is a Privy Counsellor and is one interested in television. He has known of this fact, if it be a fact, long before he has raised it now, and he makes use of the rules of order to avoid a clearance of the person involved.

Mr. Speaker
We can have no more of this. The House on both sides is now going into the matter in the way which I have already indicated is contrary to our practice in this matter. We must pass on.