§ 15 and 16. Mr. Ted Leadbitterasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that a number of investors in Pitch Fibre Pipes Limited, West Hartlepool, responded to statements by the chairman of the company and that those statements were based on the fact of Board of Trade grants and loans; and in view of the rapid deterioration of the company's financial position and of the fact that shares were bought on the basis of 20s. per share, giving a return of 5s. per share, and information supplied to him by the hon. Member for The Hartlepools suggesting that some shares changed hands at £3 and more each, he will set up an inquiry into the affairs of the company under section 165(b) of the Companies Act 1948, inasmuch as the company has acted in a manner oppressive of its members;
(2) Why the fullest investigation was not made by the Board of Trade Advisory Committee into the application of Pitch Fibre Pipes Limited, West Hartlepool, for a grant and loan totalling £235,000; and, in view of losses suffered by investors and the early deterioration of the firm's financial position in West Hartlepool, whether he is now satisfied that the Board of Trade Advisory Committee had all the facts before it before the grant and loan were made.
§ Mr. JayOn present information I am satisfied that the Board of Trade would not be justified in appointing an inspector under Section 165(b) of the Companies Act, 1948, to investigate the affairs of Pitch Fibre Pipes Limited. I am also satisfied that, before the Board of Trade Advisory Committee recommended a loan under Section 4 of the Local Employment Act, it carried out a full investigation into the relevant facts.
§ Mr. LeadbitterIs not my right hon. Friend aware that there is concern and suspicion in my constituency about this matter? Does not he agree that it is regrettable that so many investors have lost large sums of money and that the Board of Trade refused to take steps to avoid this? Is not he further aware that the company had very limited experience in the manufacture of these products and that, when the public loan was made, it only had £200 nominal capital while the chairman had only one 5s. share? Will my hon. Friend consider an inquiry into the Board of Trade Advisory Committee?
§ Mr. JayI see no grounds for suspicion in this case. The Board of Trade Advisory Committee is always being urged to act more quickly and to take risks. If it does take risks, it must occasionally be prepared to accept them. No public money has been lost.
§ Mr. LeadbitterIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.