§ 26. Mr. Allaunasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will require all public limited companies to state separately in their accounts expenditure for political purposes.
§ Sir D. EcclesNo, Sir. This is not the type of information which the Companies Act envisages as necessary for the protection of shareholders and potential shareholders.
§ Mr. AllaunAre not the public entitled to know the growing extent of this undemocratic practice? For instance, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one company, Stewart & Lloyds Limited, has spent recently £13,050 on one advertisement in nine Sunday newspapers attacking public ownership? In addition, without a separate statement, how is it possible to prevent these companies avoiding tax?
§ Sir D. EcclesIf I were able to make the regulation for which the hon. Gentleman asks, I am not sure that it would achieve his object. It is so clearly in the interests of a public company to protect 551 itself against nationalisation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that the publication of a few subscriptions might stimulate many others.
§ Mr. J. GriffithsSince this House has placed upon trade unions a statutory obligation to prepare and submit separately their political accounts setting out every penny which is spent on political purposes, why does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be unjust to compel companies to do exactly what the Government are compelling the trade unions to do? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
§ Sir D. EcclesThe Companies Act does not envisage in paragraph 12 of the Eighth Schedule this kind of expense as one for which special provision should be made.
§ Mr. GriffithsMy question was: Why is it unfair to compel companies to do this when this House compels trade unions to do exactly the same thing?
§ Sir D. EcclesThe subscription which one takes from members who do not want to give it and hands to a political party differs from an expense which the shareholders can perfectly well inquire into if they wish.
Mr. H. WilsonIs it not a fact that every trade union subscription is subject to opting out, whereas in the large public companies shareholders have no effective control over this expenditure? In view of the Government's appeal to trade unions to show restraint in wage claims, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether they think the knowledge that this money is being spent so lavishly on political purposes is the best way to secure wage restraint? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman say how much of this money would be spent if the Chancellor were not paying for three-quarters of it?
§ Sir D. EcclesI cannot accept the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I think it is generally agreed that it is in the interests of a public company to take action to protect its own business, and a company that is threatened with nationalisation is perfectly right in taking protective action.
§ Mr. MawbyIs my right hon. Friend aware that most of the trade union 552 magazines, the accounts of which do not appear in the political levy, use that opportunity to put forward political views?
Mr. H. WilsonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this advertising is not confined to firms who think that they have a direct interest, from the firm's point of view, in nationalisation, but large subscriptions are going, for instance, to the Federation of British Industries, to the Aims of Industry, and to many other institutions which are running political propaganda against the Labour Party?
§ Sir D. EcclesFirms have an interest in the economic system of which they are a member.
§ Mr. AllaunIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on Adjournment.