§ 2. Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that before the War the East India export trade in raw hides was largely in the hands of and controlled by the Calcutta Hide Trade Association, which worked with a Hamburg association, and by its methods virtually maintained a monopoly; if he will say whether of the nine firms composing the association four were closed tinder the Enemy Traders Order, and in two instances alien employés of these firms started similar businesses and are now carrying them on; whether the existing export trade in cow hides, buffalo hides, goat and sheep skins, so far as it is not controlled by the British Government, is still in the hands of these pre-war firms; and if he will say what steps he intends to take in order to prevent the Calcutta Hide Trade Association holding a monopoly and thus diverting the post-war hide and skin trade from British merchants and tanners?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe statement in the first part of the question is, I believe, substantially correct. The Calcutta Hide and Skin Shippers' Association consisted of seven firms, of which five have been wound up under the Enemy Trading Act, while from the remaining two enemy interests have been completely eliminated. I have ascertained from the Government of India that there three alien employés (two Swiss and one Italian) of liquidated firms have started business.
282 The export trade in raw hides is now controlled by the Government of India who, on behalf of His Majesty's and the Italian Governments, purchase the exportable surplus of certain classes. As purchasing agents five British or Indian firms are employed, but other firms, including the two reconstructed firms and the three new alien firms referred to, are permitted to participate in the export trade of hides not required by Government. They do not, however, in any sense enjoy a monopoly of such trade. As regards the last part of the question, the Government of India have the future regulation of this trade under consideration. The measures already adopted have done much to divert this trade to British and Indian merchants, and there is every reason to think that the enemy control of this important trade has been permanently eliminated.
§ Sir J. D. REESIs the right hon. Gentleman sure that Mr. Howieson, late Ernsthausen, is not now occupied in getting back a considerable portion of this trade into German hands from which this arrangement was designed to remove it? Will he very kindly inquire into that aspect of the question?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI cannot carry in my mind the details of the action of any individual, but I know that the Government of India are determined that any such efforts as the hon. Gentleman suggests shall not be successful.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSAm I to understand that the two employés who set up a business for themselves in association with these other firms that have been suppressed under the Order in relation to enemy trading are of neutral nationality and in no way belonging to German nationality?
§ Mr. MONTAGUYes. I understand one is an Italian and the other two Swiss.
§ Sir J. D. REESWill the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether Howieson (Ernsthausen), has not been exceedingly active and has been in communication with the commercial member of the Government of India?