NOTICE OF SHAREHOLDERS' MEETINGS (Hansard, 27 January 1959)

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE)
My Lords, I must reject the implication to which the noble Lord refers that Her Majesty's Government regard the cotton and jute industries as expendable, and I am not aware of any statements by Her Majesty's Ministers which could be given this interpretation. A take-over bid which is to be discussed at a meeting of shareholders would normally necessitate the calling of an ad hoc meeting and the 792 passage of a special resolution. For such a meeting the statutory period of notice has been twenty-one days since the Companies Act of 1929. It is doubtless this period of notice which the noble Lord wishes to see reduced. Although their Report was written before the development of take-over bids, the Cohen Committee on Company Law Amendment, in recommending a longer period of notice for certain classes of meeting, and endorsing the period of twenty-one days for meetings called for the passage of a special resolution, did emphasise the importance of an adequate period of notice being given to shareholders. Moreover the statutory period of notice cannot be departed from by means of any special permission and any change would require legislation.

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his reply, I would ask him whether it is correct that in the early period it was seven days' notice for extraordinary general meetings and not the twenty-one days which are now required. His reply does not give any encouragement that Her Majesty's Government intend to change it. May I ask, with regard to the earlier part of his reply, in which he denied the suggestion that the Ministers' replies about those industries suggested that they were expendable, how he reconciles that with the reply given by the Minister to the mover of a Motion in your Lordships' House in July of last year, which certainly conveyed that impression and which will be well within the noble Earl's recollection.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
I do not know whether the noble Lord is referring to jute or to cotton.

§ LORD BARNBY
To jute.

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, the reply on jute did not give me the impression that the Government regarded that industry as expendable. I was the mover of the Motion on the subject. The Government are affording the jute industry a unique kind of protection by the present system of purchase by the Jute Board from India.

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH
My Lords, do I understand that the jute industry are satisfied with that protection as being in a special class?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
I think that they are satisfied that they are not regarded as being expendable.

§ LORD BARNBY
My Lords, does the noble Earl feel that the reply which he gave was trying to reconcile the acceptance by himself of the answers which he received on another occasion with the reply given in another place to a debate on cotton which once more emphasised the impression that in present circumstances the Government do regard the cotton industry as expendable?

§ THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I think that that is an extremely unwarranted inference to draw from anything that has been said in your Lordships' House or in another place. I do not know whether we can really have a debate on the cotton industry or the jute industry at Question Time, but I do not think that any observations by any Minister could possibly justify an inference of that kind. The Minister concerned has expressed his anxiety to help the cotton industry in bringing about a balanced and efficient structure. I do not think that that is the same thing as telling it that it is expendable.

LORD SALTOUN
My Lords, might I ask Her Majesty's Government whether, strictly speaking, the form of the Question was not itself out of order?