§ 27. Sir J. D. REESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Custodis, Limited, and Alphons Custodis, chimney construction company, are practically identical in interest, that this firm is still constructing chimneys in Britain with the help of Germans from concentration camps and elsewhere, and that chimney construction offers good opportunity for observation and photography; and will he take further steps to deal with this matter?
Mr. RUNCIMANI have made further inquiries into the constitution of Custodis, Limited, and I find that, although the shares which have been issued are registered in the names of British subjects, a large majority of those shares are held 796 in trust for Mr. Alphons Custodis, a German subject in this country, who is a director of the Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Company, Limited. It is, therefore, probable that the interests in the two companies are similar if not identical. I am informed that the total number of Germans employed in the business is three. The official file of the company has hitherto contained no information as to the shares issued by the company, owing to the fact that an agreement which ought to have been filed was withheld from the file. I am at once taking advice as to whether a prosecution of those responsible for the default can be instituted. I have appointed an inspector of the company under the Trading with the Enemy Act.
§ Sir J. D. REESWill the right hon. Gentleman, seeing the results in this case, look rather to the spirit than the letter of carrying out the intention of the Government in cases such as this, because in this case it was only by repeated questions that the facts came out?
§ Sir A. MARKHAMIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he stated in this House that no Germans were connected with this company, a Mr. Schnadts, a non-naturalised German, living in Norwood, is conducting the business of this company in exactly the same way as before the company changed its name, and that this alien, who has been building at Portland Harbour, is still connected on the telephone, as I know, because I rang him up myself?
Mr. RUNCIMANI am afraid I am not aware of the position of this alien with regard to the telephone. If at present he is doing work at Portland he is within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, and I will see that the information is conveyed to the proper authorities. In reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I may say that it is very difficult for us to obtain all the information we want exactly when we want it, and it is only by very careful and repeated inquiries that we are able to ferret out an agreement which is not filed. As we have been deceived in this matter, I think it is essential that we should take action.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIn view of the circumstances now disclosed, is it not desirable to appoint a controller of this company rather than an inspector, who has very limited powers?
§ Sir A. MARKHAMHas the right hon. Gentleman received a letter stating that this company had definitely stated in precise language that this company was entirely British, that the management was all British, and that no German had any connection with this company?
Mr. RUNCIMANI have already stated that the information given to us was deceitful information, and it is on this ground we are now taking action.
§ Mr. BUTCHERWill the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to the appointment of a controller?
Mr. RUNCIMANI am advised that it is not necessary to appoint a controller, as it is not essential for the purposes we have in view.
§ Mr. BUTCHERTo control the operations of the company the appointment of a controller is essential, and the appointment of an inspector alone is totally insufficient to control the company.