HC Deb 06 March 1922 vol 151 c830

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that at the open inquiry to consider the imposing of a duty on tartaric acid and cream of tartar, Sir David Kerly, K.C., complained that the name of the applicant had not been disclosed; whether Mr. Whitehead, who represented the Board of Trade, stated that his Department had undertaken not to disclose the name; and, if so, whether he can state what was the object of concealing the name of the firm in question?


The complainants in the case mentioned consisted of two firms whose names were disclosed at the hearing and certain other firms whose names were not so disclosed. As regards the latter, the Board were satisfied that they were British firms, and parties "interested" within the meaning of Section 1, Sub-section 5, of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, but that the disclosure of their names might cause them commercial disadvantage. The complaint by counsel mentioned in the first part of the question was made, but subsequently withdrawn.


Do I understand that the Board of Trade undertook not to disclose the name? What is the reason for taking that course?