HC Deb 10 March 1919 vol 113 cc906-7
12. Sir JOHN BUTCHER

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Advisory Committee appointed by the Board of Trade for the purposes of the Trading With the Enemy Act, 1916, has finished its work whether in any cases the recommendations of this Committee that firms should be wound up under that Act have been overruled, and, if so, in how many cases this has happened; and whether this was done because the cases did not fall within the Act?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

The Advisory Committee has not yet finished its work. Two cases have yet to be considered, and a few more may be referred to the Committee after inspection of the businesses.

In two cases only the Board have not adopted the recommendation of the Committee to make a winding-up order. One case was that of a limited company whose property was in German South-West Africa, and no business was being carried on in this country. After careful consideration it was decided that it would be impolitic to make a winding-up order in that case. A supervisor was, however, appointed.

In the other case the business at the outbreak of War belonged to three partners, one of whom was an enemy subject residing in Germany, another an enemy subject residing in this country, and the third, a British subject of German origin. Subsequently, the business was acquired by two British-born subjects, but although the case did not come within the winding-up provisions of the Act of 1916 it came within those of the Act of 1918 owing to the constitution of the firm at the outbreak of war. In view of the hardship that would be caused to the British owners of the business the Board agreed not to make a winding-up order, but insisted on the repayment of a loan made to the firm by the late partner who was a naturalised British subject, and upon the partners undertaking to exclude the former owners of the business and all enemy subjects from holding any interest in the business in future.

Mr. STEWART

I desire to ask whether the Board of Trade are content with the credit of the firm they have exempted and whether they are satisfied with the evidence which the firm, submitted to the Committee?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN

That matter has been very carefully looked into, and I am afraid I cannot say any more than I have said.