A MINISTER’S SHARES

Otago Witness, Issue 3775, 20 July 1926, Page 32

A MINISTER’S SHARES

DEBATE IN THE COMMONS. LONDON, July 12. In the House of Commons Mr Arthur Heuderson (Labour) moved the appointment of a Select Committee to consider how far a Minister may be associated with a public or private company which «s in contractual relations with the Government. Referring to Mr Neville Chamberlain’s directorship in Messrs Hoskins and Sens he said that when the question was raised in 1906 the defence of Mr Joseph Chamberlain and the smallness of bis investment in the concern. Such a defence could not be made to-day. Somerset House returns showed that Mr Neville Chamberlain held «5490 of a total of 5000 shares in Messrs llcskiiis and Sons, to which firm seen Government contracts had been given during the life of the present Government. During the eight months of the Labour administration the firm had received only one. Moreover, the Elliott Metal Company of which Mr Neville Chamberlain was the largest shareholder, has received 14 Government contracts. He added in fairness to Mr Neville Chamberlain that the latter had resigned his directorship when he accepted a post in a former Conservative Government and also in the present Government. The position was unsatisfactory and anomalous and required to be clarified. He disclaimed any intention of imputing personal corruption or censuring anyone. Mr ualdwin said the question reallv was whether, the practice of 20 years should be modified or whether a Minister holding private interests should sell out. 'Either course presented fresh difficulties. He had come to the conclusion that the safest thing would be to lend one's money to the Soviet Government. The only course open to a Prime Minister seeking for Ministers was to advertise—“ Wanted, foundling without relations and penniless.’' In view of the attack upon his colleague he intended to vote for the amendment. Lord Hugh Cecil had previously moved to the effect that while the House was will, ing to inquire into the established rules governing the subject, which all the present Ministers had always strictly observed, it declined to accept an inquiry as a con :es sion to an organised campaign or calumny and insinuation which the facts did not justify After further debate in which the Labourites urged the need of an inquiry and the Ministerialists denounced the alleged campaign of calumny, Mr Henderson’s motion was rejected b,v 341 votes to 90, and Lord Hugh Cecil’s amendment was adopted by 341 votes to 98.