HC Deb 14 November 1918 vol 110 cc2857-9
30. Sir R. COOPER

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an Order under Section 9 of the Non-Ferrous Metals Act to bring manganese and chromium and their ores under the operation of that Act, in order to obtain the power to enable him to put an end to thy control of these metals by firms of enemy Association, like that of K. Ettlinger and Company?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley)

The question of a possible extension of the list of metals and their ores included within the scope of the Non-Ferrous Metal Industry Act is under consideration.

Sir R. COOPER

asked the President of the Board of Trade if Mr. Ernest Moon's Committee reported to him on 16th April of this year that the business of K. Ettlinger and Company is a case of enemy association, that it did not fall within Section 1 of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916, and that in the opinion of the Committee further legislation was desirable to enable the Government to deal with it; and will he say why he has not taken steps to obtain the necessary powers to enable him to remove this and similar instances of enemy control during the War?

Sir A. STANLEY

The Advisory Committee under the Trading With the Enemy Acts reported to the effect stated in the hon. Baronet's question, but I did not feel prepared to introduce legislation which would bring many firms of undoubted British character within the scope of the winding-up provisions of emergency legislation.

Sir R. COOPER

Is it not the fact that the firm, which has been found by a Government Committee to be of enemy association, has been allowed to continue to trade during the War against British interests?

Sir A. STANLEY

I do not think I can usefully add to what I have already said, that this case was gone into very carefully by the Board of Trade, which took advice from various quarters. The conclusions we came to, I think, were right and they are embodied in my reply.

Sir J. BUTCHER

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the case of this firm could be dealt with if English legislation were similar to the Indian legislation of this country; and will he assimilate the English legislation to the Indian?

Sir A. STANLEY

I am afraid I am not versed in Indian legislation and I could not give a satisfactory reply.

Sir J. BUTCHER

Is there any reason why, this firm having been in substance recommended to be wound up by Mr. Moon's Committee, which found a technical difficulty, effective steps should not be taken to enable it to be wound up?

Sir A. STANLEY

I think the hon. Baronet must accept that there are reasons why we did not take the step suggested by the Moon Committee.

32. Sir R. COOPER

asked the President of the Board of Trade if an investigation was made by an accountant appointed by the Board of Trade into the affairs of Messrs K. Ettlinger and Company; if the investigation extended to the relationships existing between K. Ettlinger and Company and the Carlton Iron Company, Limited; and will he lay the accountant's report upon the Table?

Sir A. STANLEY

The answer to the first and second part of the question is in the affirmative. Reports of inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade under the Trading With the Enemy Act are invariably treated as confidential documents, and I do not therefore propose to lay this report upon the Table.

Sir R. COOPER

Is it not desirable in the public interest that where the right hon. Gentleman finds it necessary to take action in direct opposition to a Government Committee he should give the public some fair reason why he has had to go in opposition to it?

Sir A. STANLEY

I am quite prepared to give the hon. Baronet the reasons why we were not prepared to carry out their recommendation.