Bank of England (Hansard, 19 December 1957)

§ 11. Mr. Swingler
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to make it a condition of membership of the Court of Governors of the Bank of England that other directorships and appointments must be relinquished.

§ 17 and 27. Mr. Shinwell
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will take steps to abolish the posts of part-time directors of the Bank of England;
(2) what inquiries have been made into the volume of gilt edge transactions on the occasion of previous increases in the Bank Rate during the period of office of the present Government.

§ Mr. Birch
I will, with permission, answer Question No. 11 and Questions No. 17 and 27 together.
I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 12th December.

§ Mr. Shinwell
On a point of order. Question No. 27 has nothing to do with the other two Questions. It is a quite different Question. Why is it answered with the others?

§ Mr. Birch
The Answer is relevant to it, too.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Further to that point of order. The mere fact that the Economic Secretary thinks that it is relevant is no reason why it should be answered with the other Questions, which are quite distinctive.

§ Mr. Speaker
Perhaps we may hear a supplementary question on the matter.

§ Mr. Nabarro
On a point of order. Is it in order for right hon. and hon. Members on either side to put down Questions about matters which are sub judice at the present time in the context of the Tribunal which is still continuing its bearings this day?

§ Mr. Speaker
The Question on the Paper is in order because it does not directly concern the proceedings of the Tribunal, but I can foresee that supplementary questions could invade that sphere. I hope they will not. I am waiting to see what happens.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Questions Nos. 11 and 17 by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) and me refer to the appointment of part-time directors of the Bank of England, but Question No. 27 refers to a quite different matter. If you will look at the Question, Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree. It has nothing to do with the two previous Questions.

§ Mr. Speaker
If time permits I will call the right hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary question.

§ Mr. Willey
Is it in order for a Minister to answer several Questions together when a Member concerned has not given his consent to his Question being answered with another?

§ Mr. Speaker
The Answer which the Economic Secretary gave referred to a previous Answer. As I do not recollect it, I cannot say whether it is in order or not.

§ Mr. Shinwell
On Question No. 17 I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the Economic Secretary whether it is in any way sub judice. It is a question for Parliament to decide. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that overwhelming opinion in the country, and Parliamentary opinion, should be tested on whether men should be put in a position where there is a clear conflict between their public duties and their commercial activities? Cannot we have an answer from the Government on that question, which is sub judice only in Parliament itself?

§ Mr. Birch
The system under which the Bank of England now works was that 586 brought in by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they nationalised the Bank of England. It is the system which they laid down. I think very careful consideration needs to be given before it is altered. There can be no discussion of its merits until we have the Report of the Tribunal.

§ Mr. Shinwell
On Question No. 17—I am reserving my right to put a supplementary on Question No. 27, which is a different Question—may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not agree that to have directors associated with the Court of Governors whose firms are engaged regularly in gilt-edged transactions is bound to prove a source of embarrassment to the Bank of England and the firms concerned?

§ Mr. Birch
This system has continued since 1685, not altogether without success.

§ Mr. Osborne
Will my right hon. Friend resist suggestions for the introduction of legislation until we have the full Report and do nothing in panic even then?

§ Mr. Birch
That is what I said.

§ Mr. Jay
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was 1694? Will he look at this question seriously, because, whatever its merits, it is obvious that strong opinions are held about it?

§ Mr. Birch
Of course the question will be considered seriously.

§ Mr. Shinwell
May I put a supplementary question to the Economic Secretary on Question No. 27? Is he aware that Lord Justice Parker, in opening the proceedings of the Tribunal this morning, himself referred to the desirability of obtaining further information about gilt-edged transactions conducted by certain firms in the City of London previous to 1957, and that he mentioned the year 1951? In view of his Lordship's request for information, is it not desirable that the Government—

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
On a point of order. Have you not previously ruled on this matter, Mr. Speaker, that no reference can be made at Question Time or in debate in the House to the current inquiry procedings at Church House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that previous questions were in order. They could be 587 considered without reference to the Tribunal, though I think that the right hon. Member for Easington. (Mr. Shinwell), if he reflects, will understand the disadvantage of quoting in the middle of a case the sayings of a judge when the case has not yet been decided. We ought to wait until we have the full Report.

§ Mr. Shinwell
I put a Question on the Order Paper asking whether the Government would institute an inquiry. His Lordship, in opening the proceedings of the Tribunal this morning—and this is reported in the Press this afternoon—requested information on this precise subject. Therefore, am I not entitled to follow the statement made by his Lordship by asking a supplementary question in order to ascertain the Government's views?

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask that, but this is getting very dangerous and I do not know where further questions may lead us. It is a fact that this whole troublesome episode has been sent by the House to the Tribunal to hear and inquire into, and I think that on general principles it is best to avoid anything until the Tribunal has had an opportunity to hear all the evidence and express a final opinion. I think that would be the wisest course.

§ Mr. Shinwell
May I ask the Economic Secretary, in reply to my original Question No. 27, whether the Government will institute an inquiry into this matter?

§ Mr. Birch
The Government will supply any figures which the Tribunal thinks are relevant, and they have already supplied them. It seems to me that it really is not up to us or to the right hon. Gentleman to instruct the Tribunal on what is relevant.

§ Mr. Paget
On a point of order. Are we not in the difficulty that under this rather peculiar procedure the Government are the accused and have the conduct of the proceedings against themselves? Surely, therefore, cannot we as an Opposition require the Government in their capacity as the people who have the conduct of the proceedings to bring certain evidence to the notice of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not think that the form of the inquiry or the Resolution passed by the House puts anybody in the position of being accused. The Tribunal has been asked to make an inquiry into the whole matter. Anyhow, if the Government were the accused in this matter, which I do not admit, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) knows that when a man is accused he is entitled to receive a fair trial, without any intervention by the House which might prejudice it. I hope, therefore, that he will let this matter go.

§ Mr. Paget
But is that so when the accused are also conducting the prosecution?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not a prosecution at all. It is an inquiry.