HC Deb 17 June 1965 vol 714 cc867-9
9. Mr. Dodds

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an investigation under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, into the financial affairs of the Freedom Group, which is acting in a manner oppressive of its shareholders, in view of the difficulties experienced by shareholders in obtaining repayment of loans.

11. Mr. Murray

asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the difficulties experienced by shareholders in obtaining repayment of money invested with the Freedom Group and of the fact that this company is acting in a manner oppressive of its shareholders, if he will cause an investigation to be held under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948.

14. Mr. Rhodes

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint an inspector to conduct inquiries under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, into the financial affairs of the Freedom Group, which is acting in a manner oppressive of its shareholders, in view of the fact that shareholders are experiencing difficulties in obtaining repayment of loans.

25. Mr. Robert Edwards

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an inquiry, under Section 165 of the Companies Act, into the National Fellowship, the People's League for the Defence of Freedom, the Free Press Society and the Anti-Socialist Front, in view of the difficulties they are creating for shareholders in obtaining repayment of moneys lent in good faith.

45. Mr. Alfred Morris

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that shareholders with money invested in the Freedom Group are having difficulty in securing repayment of their money; and, in view of this fact, if he will appoint an inspector under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 1948, to inquire into the financial affairs of the Freedom Group, which is acting in a manner oppressive of its shareholders.

Mr. Jay

The Freedom Group, the National Fellowship, the People's League for the Defence of Freedom, the Free Press Society and the Anti-Socialist Front are not companies and Section 165 of the Companies Act does not, therefore, apply to them.

Mr. Dodds

Is it not scandalous that, under the guise of higher moral values in politics and economics, Edward Martell has been able to persuade people to send him large sums of money by issuing a false prospectus and a personal guarantee for the return of loans on request at 14 days, which we now know has resulted in broken promises and a trail of dud cheques? In view of the details which have been sent to my right hon. Friend about the latest Martell dodge to escape repaying this money, can he not take some action to protect the public or warn them that this latest device is a blatant case of barefaced robbery?

Mr. Jay

My hon. Friend's Question asked about the Companies Act, and have answered it. He must take responsibility for the statements which he has made today about various individuals. Of course, if there are people who have been aggrieved or damaged in this way, the ordinary remedies of the law are open to them.

Mr. Rhodes

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have in my hand a thick dossier of cases of people who have tried to obtain the repayment of loans, of sums varying between £50 and £1,050, and that all that they have got have been evasions, lies and bouncing cheques? Since we are witnessing the decline and fall of the Martell empire, surely my right hon. Friend is able to suggest ways and means of protecting the public in future from this kind of racketeer whose personal guarantees are worthless?

Mr. Jay

Future legislation is, of course, another matter, but if the statements which my hon. Friend makes are correct—and I can neither confirm nor deny them—I advise those concerned to take legal advice.

Mr. Murray

Since Mr. Martell is now going to set up a limited liability company to take over his own debts, is it not time that my right hon. Friend protected the consumers in this case—persons who are being bilked—and stopped this latest Horatio Bottomley of the 'sixties?

Mr. Jay

I do not wish to answer hypothetical questions, but I think that I am safe in saying that if Mr. Martell or anyone else proposes to set up a company, then that would come under the provisions of the Companies Act.

Mr. Edwards

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have in my hand a letter from a firm of solicitors stating that one of its clients has loaned over £1,000 to the various groups presided over by Mr. Martell and that every effort to get the return of the loans has completely failed? Is it not a scandal that a political mountebank of this character can exploit credulous people, and even though they are ex-colonial blimps and ex-generals, do they not need some protection from this House?

Mr. Jay

I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but I must repeat that these people should take legal advice.

Mr. Morris

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I also have documents in my hand—[Interruption.] It would be a poor hon. Member indeed who did not have such documents—showing that Mr. Edward Martell, while preaching freedom, has been practising licence in the most scandalous possible way, and will my right hon. Friend initiate an urgent public inquiry?

Sir G. Nicholson

Surely it is impossible to protect people from their own political gullibility? After all, many of them voted Labour at the last election.

Mr. Jay

If that were not so, of course, no one would ever vote Tory.

Mr. Dodds

On a point of order. I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Mr. Murray

Further to that point of order. I also beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Even for the hon. Member I cannot perpetrate duplicity.