GAS (CONVERSION DATE) (Hansard, 13 March 1951)

§ Mr. Speaker
Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.

§ Mr. Mitchison (Kettering)
On a point of order. This is a Prayer relating to the Gas (Conversion Date) (No. 25) Order, 1951, and its only purpose was to fix 5th February, 1951, as the date upon which certain securities were to be converted into Gas Stock under the provisions of the Second Schedule to the Gas Act. That was its only purpose, and it is perfectly clear in, my submission, that the only possible subject for discussion is the date 1491 of the conversion. The date of the conversion was six weeks ago. In those circumstances the annulment of this Order would be completely and entirely inoperative.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and learned Gentleman must not argue about the Order on a point of order. After all, we must hear what the mover and seconder have to say. As far as I am concerned, this Order is in order and is correct. Otherwise, it would not be on the Order Paper. I cannot accept the argument that it is out of order because the hon. and learned Gentleman objects to it or has reasons against it. Let us hear the arguments, and then the hon. and learned Gentleman can make his speech.

§ Mr. Mitchison
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not so arguing. What I am saying is that this Order has done its work. It is completely finished. It operated on a date in February and there is nothing whatever left to annul. That is my point.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is surely a question for a Ruling by the Chair in debate. If the mover or seconder go outside what the Chair considers in order, then they can be pulled up. That is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, surely.

§ Mr. Mitchison
With respect, it is not a question of debate. It is on the face of the Order. It is perfectly clear that the Order fixed a conversion date some time ago. The whole operation of the Order is already passed, and we surely cannot discuss the annulment of something which has already become fully and completely operative.

§ Mr. Speaker
That may be so. There are three Prayers down on the Order Paper tonight. There were seven the other night. I am sorry, but I cannot be expected to know all the details of all the Prayers, and I must have a little opportunity to consider them when they are moved. I do my best; that is all I can say. Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre (New Forest)
I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 31st January, 1951, entitled the Gas (Conversion Date) (No. 25) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, 1492 No. 160), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd February, be annulled. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply. My intention was to have the Prayer down for tomorrow and not for tonight. In view of the point of order raised, I maintain it is in order to refer both to the Second Schedule of the Gas Act and to whatever has been published in the Press as a result of the application of that Second Schedule and this Order. I hope I shall be allowed to speak on that basis. This Order was made on 31st January, laid before Parliament on 2nd February and came into operation on 5th February. The date, so far as it affected the citizens of this country, was 5th February.

§ Mrs. Mann (Coatbridge)
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has said he is going to speak on the effects of the Order. Is that in order?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
I think so. Maybe the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to say that because of its effects, this Order ought not to be approved by the House and ought to be annulled.

§ Mr. George Porter (Leeds, Central)
Before, you took the Chair, Sir, a question was raised with Mr. Speaker in regard to the Order, which has reference only to something that took place on 5th February. Is the hon. and gallant Member entitled to refer to the effects of the Order?

§ Mr. Butcher (Holland-with-Boston)
Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman who wishes to move this Prayer is entitled to show that the damage and injury caused to His Majesty's subjects since the date the Order came into force is so severe that it must be immediately curtailed and that he is entitled to pray against it.

§ Mr. Mitchison
That is just what he is not entitled to do, in my opinion. This is an Order made under the Second Schedule of the Gas Act and its one purpose, in accordance with paragraph I (2) of Part II of that Second Schedule, is to fix the date for the conversion of certain securities. That is the one and only purpose of this Order. The hon. and gallant Member opposite may think it is a good or a bad conversion and that His Majesty's subjects have suffered benefit or 1493 damage by it, but all that has nothing whatever to do with this Order, which is concerned purely with the fixing of the date. More than that, the date was fixed. It was over a month ago. Events to happen at that time have already happened. If this Order were to be annulled tonight, it would not make a penny difference to anybody, because the matter has already been fully operative. The hon. and gallant Member who is moving cannot talk about the effects of the Order. Even if the date were a future one, he could talk only about the date. As it is, he can make no relevant remarks, because this Motion is, in its very nature, a complete absurdity, and nothing he can say can be more absurd that the absurdity of the Motion which he is moving.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. and learned Member to suggest, quite wrongly, that my remarks cannot be relevant? Secondly, as this Order sets out the values of the shares taken over, and which are enumerated——

§ Mr. Mitchison
It does nothing of the sort.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
Surely it is in order to deal with them in this Prayer, otherwise the Prayer has no meaning.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)
Perhaps I may now be permitted to give a Ruling. In my view, the subject matters for debate are questions relating to the conversion date, and nothing more. In regard to the second point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am of opinion that it is competent to annul the Order whether it has come into force Or not, and then if that occurred it might be—and I do not know—for the Government to bring in an Order fixing another date. Therefore, in my view the first contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, and the second point incorrect.

§ Mr. Mitchison
Further to that point of order. I am sorry to press the matter, but surely if this Order is annulled the stock has already been converted into gas stock. It is not merely a question of issuing another Order; the effect of this Order cannot be undone now.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I have given a Ruling, and that we must now proceed with the Debate.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I am sorry to pursue this matter, but if one looks at paragraph I, one will see sums payable under Part II of the Gas Act. If one looks at Part II of the Gas Act, one will see that it is laid down that whether certain shares are not immediately convertible at the rates prevailing on the Stock Exchange, then a separate procedure is to take place. Very largely, the procedure is that the shares shall be valued at the nearest figure to the shares corresponding in Stock Exchange values. I submit that it is perfectly in order under this Order, with that reference, that when one is going to consider the shares-set out in the Schedule, one should be able to make reference to Part II of the Gas Act in order to see whether this particular conversion date, and the terms, set out within it, are correct. I hope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you will allow me to proceed on that basis.
I am sorry that I was interrupted at the first point I wished to make. That point is, that here is an Order which was made on 31st January, laid before Parliament on 2nd February, and brought into operation on 5th February. There was not a single notice in the Press of any nature to show what was the purport of this Order until 5th February. In other words, once again the Ministry had used this method of an Order, blanketed all opposition, made its decision and promulgated it as something which had been already achieved. I think that is very wrong.

§ Mr. Mitchison
Will the hon. and gallant Member give way?

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
No, I shall not.

§ Mr. Mitchison
Is it open to the hon. and gallant Member, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on this Motion, to allege that the Government have not carried out their statutory duty under Part II of the Gas Act, which is to fix a conversion date as soon as conveniently may be after the compensation has been determined?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I did not understand that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was doing that. What he is doing is raising the point of whether adequate time or publicity had been given before the Order came into force. That seems to be perfectly in order.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)
I submit to you, Sir, that this Order does, in fact, only deal with the date. The Act lays down the machinery which shall operate in relation to the conversion prices. That having been done in accordance with the Act, this Order only deals with the date and it is only the date, therefore, that is before the House.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order. There are a number of quite unnecessary points of order being put. I fully understand what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman who is moving the Motion, was on a different point altogether, namely, that adequate time, in his submission to the House, had not been given. That seems to me to be proper for the consideration of the House, and to be relevant to that date.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
If I may be allowed to raise two matters on these points of order, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is satisfied that he is fulfilling the terms of the Gas Act by producing an Order like this, in which there is no differentiation between the time it comes into force and the time it is published in the Press. I want to ask him something else. He produced this Order. Then it is quoted in the Press with all the details of what it entails. I want to put this to you, Sir. It seems quite intolerable for the Parliamentary Secretary to say we can only discuss exactly what is in this Order when he himself uses this Order in the Press to do something quite different. Therefore, I suggest that he must either be prepared to accept that he can only use this Order in the Press as a date, or he must allow us to discuss tonight what he used this Order to do himself. He may say no and you, Sir, may say no.

§ Mr. Robens
A Press announcement is not an Order that is before this House.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
No, that I agree with, but a Press announcement made by virtue of this Order is before this House.

§ Mr. Robens
No, it is not.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
If it is not, then I am going to say this. It seems to 1496 me again another reason why we should look at this matter very carefully. If, in fact, the Minister of Fuel and Power is now able to use the powers taken under an order which apparently refers only to a date, in order to make a great many other decisions, we must look at this Order much more carefully, together with the powers given to the Minister of Fuel and Power.

§ Mr. Robens
The powers given to the Minister of Fuel and Power have been conferred upon him by this House and they are now in the Gas Act. He has conducted his affairs strictly in accordance with the Act and this Order arises from that, not merely from fixing the date.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I entirely disagree. If the Minister will look at the Gas Act—and we had a considerable time arguing that Act on both sides of the House—he will see it lays down that the shares which cannot be taken over at Stock Exchange values have to be settled by reference to Stock Exchange values.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order. That question is certainly not discussable. The only question discussable, apart from the incidental matters mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is the question of the date, but certainly nothing regarding the values of the securities concerned.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
May I suggest to you, Sir, that the companies in the Schedule which are listed as being referred to at this date, are subject to be discussed on this occasion? I think that would be true. I think it would be right to ask the Minister, for instance, when he takes the Bath Company 4 per cent. perpetual debenture stock, why he has fixed the date on whatever the date is. May I ask why he has fixed it and on what basis? How has he arrived at that date? The Bath Company and the Nuneaton Gas Company are both covered in this Order yet with similar stocks he has taken one at 103 per cent. and the other at 135 per cent. How on earth can he justify this differentiation?

§ Mr. Robens
With great respect, I submit that this is entirely out of order in view of the fact that the Gas Act lays down that the prices of these stocks shall be decided between the Minister and the stockholders' representatives. Failing 1497 agreement, it will go to arbitration. All those in this Order have been settled in accordance with the Act and none has gone to arbitration. The prices have been arranged between the Minister and the stockholders' representatives in accordance with the Act, and therefore there can be no discussion in this House on those prices, but only on the date.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I have already indicated to the hon. and gallant Member that it was not permissible to discuss on this Order either the mode of taking over or the prices of these securities, and I must ask him not to proceed on those lines.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
With great respect, I was a member of the Committee which dealt with the Gas Act, and we made it clear that where there were stocks which were not on the Stock Exchange they would be subject to an order of this type, and I submit that here is an Order dealing with these stocks. Unless we are allowed to talk about these matters. I think the whole of the Gas Act in this relation is inoperable, and I ask your guidance.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
My guidance has already been given, namely, that the matter for discussion is the conversion date, and nothing other than that.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
Then may I ask your guidance as to whether we are allowed to ask when the date was fixed and on what basis it was fixed for any particular share? I want to know. Here we have a lot of shares listed for conversion on this date and I want to know on what basis that has been done. I hope it is in order to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power what acceptances he has had from the companies, the stockholders' representatives and so on. To make this Order he must have had acceptances.

§ Mr. Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)
On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. and gallant Member to go on arguing and re-arguing a point of order on which you have already clearly ruled?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I think the Chair must be allowed to exercise its discretion.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
This is only one of many orders we shall have. It is very late in the morning——

§ Mrs. Jean Mann
The hon. and gallant Member should worry about that.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I hope we shall get an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary on when he fixed the date for the conversion and what negotiations he had had which led him to believe that, in the case of the Nuneaton Gas Company, the 5½ per cent. irredeemable debentures should be taken over at this date at a lesser rate than the 4 per cent. redeemable debentures. The hon. Gentleman does not know.

§ Mr. Robens
It is not that I do not know. It has nothing whatever to do with this Order.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
The hon. Gentleman has said time and time again, and his colleagues have supported him, that he fixed this conversion date because he has fulfilled the Gas Act. If he has, fulfilled the Gas Act he knows when these shares were taken over and at what price. But he does not know and does, not care.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I should be obliged if the Minister would be good enough to leave these matters to the Chair. There is no point in his intervening so frequently. I would say to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he cannot go into the details of the price, or anything of that sort, at which these undertakings were taken over. He must confine himself strictly to the date.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I thought I was within your Ruling, Sir. If I am not, I apologise. I thought I was in order in saying that, because this date had been fixed, because these shares had been taken over, the Minister must know why the date was possible. If it is not in order, I confine myself to the simple question, Why was this date fixed? I would tell hon. Members opposite that it is not nearly as easy as that. If the Minister is to be honest he will have to tell us that. But I suppose he will not, because we always find on these Prayers that the Ministry of Fuel and Power will evade an issue if they possibly can.
I am sorry I have been so long but I ask the Minister two simple questions. First, will he say why this Order came into operation before any single interpretation of the Order was published in 1499 the Press? Second, on what basis did these negotiations take place in order to enable him to fix this date? Will he say that in every single case the negotiations which enabled him to fix the date were equitable to the people concerned? If he would give this assurance I should myself be satisfied.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)
I beg to second the Motion.
I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this matter tonight. [Interruption.] An hon. Member asks me to take my hand out of my pocket. I would certainly do so if hon. Members opposite would stop interrupting for five minutes. As I said, I think my hon. and gallant Friend deserves every credit for raising this matter tonight, because the shareholders of these concerns which have been taken over are not great capitalists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] They are small people, and it is right—without ribaldry and laughter and continuous interruption from the other side of the House—that these matters should be considered by this House. This Order has been produced, and we have every right to put down a Prayer for its annulment if we disagree with it—which we do. I do feel that my hon. and gallant Friend should have been given a little more consideration when he was making his case, which obviously the other side do not understand, and do not wish to understand.

§ Mr. Ungoed-Thomas
On a point of order. Are not these remarks a reflection on the Chair and out of order?

§ Mr. Taylor
With those few words, and ignoring that last interruption, I beg to second the Prayer.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)
This is the twenty-fifth Order of this kind which has been laid before the House, each of which has had a schedule covering certain securities. In accordance with the Gas Act, the Minister and the stockholders' representatives agree on prices. Having done so, the Minister then issues an Order and fixes the date. In the case of the undertakings mentioned in the schedule full agreement was reached with the stockholders' repre- 1500 sentatives as to prices, and the date, 5th February, was the most convenient to all concerned.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
The Parliamentary Secretary was allowed to make a big point that the stockholders' representatives have agreed these prices. You, Sir, refused to allow me to say anything about prices at all. In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, am I in order, in exercising my right of reply, to touch on the points he has dealt with?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has the right of reply, but I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary's reference to prices contradicted my Ruling in any way. In general terms he answered the questions addressed to him on the basis, grounds, and reasons on which the date had been fixed.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the stockholders' representatives had agreed with the Ministry the prices for these shares, and that consequently a date had been fixed. Am I in order to talk about prices? If not, may I ask why the Parliamentary Secretary can make a statement that certain prices have been agreed, and I am not allowed to comment on those prices?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has no right to ask me for the grounds on which I give a Ruling of that kind. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary was perfectly in order, and he did not in any form discuss the detailed prices of the stock. He discussed the basis, grounds, and reasons on which a date had been fixed, and that is all.

§ Mr. John Foster (Northwich)
The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt very closely with the point of the Motion.

§ Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)
On a point of order. As the mover of the Prayer has replied, is it in order to continue the discussion?

§ Mr. Foster
The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the price was fixed, and the date was fixed as soon as it was convenient to everyone. The Second Schedule to the Gas Act of 1948, under 1501 which this Order is made, states that the date shall be fixed as conveniently as may be after the compensation payable in respect of those securities has been determined.

§ Mr. Mitchison
The hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted the important words "as soon as conveniently." He should be very careful how he expresses himself at this hour of the night.

§ Mr. Foster
I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. My point is that this date has not been made "as soon as conveniently may be." I submit that the Act envisaged an Order being made for each security. Obviously the date cannot be convenient to a different lot of securities. If you have six securities there is a convenient day which will be a different date for each security.

§ Mr. Mitchison
Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman in that case would explain why the Act used the plural when it could perfectly well have used the singular?

§ Mr. Foster
It uses the plural because it is a distributive plural. Quite obviously it is related to a number of securities when it then says: Such date may be specified as is convenient in respect of those securities. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, first, how he could reconcile one date being the most convenient for a whole number of securities. That obviously cannot be so unless it is by accident. That brings me to the second point—he has not explained why it is the most convenient, and I think he has treated the House a little cavalierly in just coming down here and saying this is the most convenient date. Why is it the most convenient date? [Interruption.]

§ Mr Mitchison
Why not?

§ Mr. Foster
The hon. and learned Member nods and says "Why not?" It is not for the Opposition to know why the date of 5th February is the most convenient date. The statutory duty which is laid on the Minister is to have a date which is "as soon as convenient," and I want him to tell the House why it was "as soon as convenient" on that date, and why was not 4th February or 3rd February just as convenient? He said it was convenient to all concerned. He did not say who was concerned and why it was convenient to them. If it is everybody concerned we want to know to which 1502 of them 5th February was convenient and whether he took the majority view, or whether he decided that the Minister's view should ride rough-shod over the others.
The date has to be "as soon as convenient," and it means in my submission that it is "as soon as convenient" in respect of each of these securities. It probably was due to the fact that this Schedule was not properly discussed in the Gas Act, which was rushed through in Committee. If I remember rightly, the Guillotine fell on it with the result that the Act probably did envisage a separate Order in Council for each of the securities, so that the convenient date could be found for each of them. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why he considers that the date for a number of securities is convenient for each of them, and if he can tell us that could he go on and tell us why the convenience of all persons was met on 5th February.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd (Birmingham, King's Norton)
Could we have a short answer from the Parliamentary Secretary? Would he mind telling us whether it might not have been possible to work out the terms of compensation earlier and made this date earlier than in fact it has been made in the Order, because it is a material point from the point of view of compensation considering that there has been a fall of some 10 per cent. in the value of gas stock during the last year.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I do not think that that question can affect the conversion date.