§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the average length of time elapsing between the receipt by his Department of applications for the appointment of inspectors under Section 165 of the Companies Act and action being taken upon them, whether by appointment of inspectors or by rejection or decision not to proceed, in each of the last five years.
§ Mr. DarlingOn the basis of ten sample cases in each year, the average periods are calculated to be as follows:—
Appointment of Inspectors Rejection Not proceeded with by applicant 1961 … 26 weeks 8 weeks 4 weeks 1962 … 21 weeks 6 weeks 5 weeks 1963 … 21 weeks 6 weeks 6 weeks 1964 … 5 weeks 8 weeks 5 weeks 1965 … 6 weeks 4 weeks 4 weeks
§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade how many final 299W reports by inspectors appointed under Section 165 of the Companies Act are at present under consideration by his Department; and, in each case, when the final report was submitted.
§ Mr. DarlingFive final reports of inspectors are under consideration by the Board of Trade. Three relating to three associated companies were received in July, 1965, one relating to two associated companies in August, 1965, and one in December, 1965.
§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade, what was the average length of time elapsing between the appointment of inspectors under Section 165 of the Companies Act and the receipt by his Department of their final report during the 10-year period 1951 to 1960, and during the 10-year period 1956–65.
§ Mr. DarlingFor the ten years 1951 to 1960, 16 months 1 week; and for the ten years 1956 to 1965, 15 months 3 weeks.
§ Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for the appointment of Board of Trade inspectors under Section 165 of the Companies Act are at present outstanding; and in each case what length
300W
Force Constable Sergeant Inspector Chief Inspector Barnsley … … … — — — — Birmingham … … … 2 — — 1 Blackpool … … … 1 — — — Bolton … … … — 1(E) 1(E) — Bristol … … … 1 — — — Cardiff … … … 1 — — — Durham … … … — 2 — — Essex … … … — — — — Glamorgan … … … 1 1(E) — — Gwynedd … … … — — — — Hampshire and Isle of Wight … … … — 1(E) 1(E) — Lancashire … … … 1 2 — — Leeds … … … — — — — Liverpool … … … — — 1(E) — Manchester … … … — — — — Merthyr Tydfil … … … — — 1 — Metropolitan … … … 6(1E) 3 3 1 Northamptonshire … … … — — — — Nottingham … … … — — 2(E) — Pembrokeshire … … … — — 1 — Plymouth … … … — — — — Portsmouth … … … — — — — Sheffield … … … — — — 1(E) Southend … … … — — — — Staffordshire … … … 1 — — — Wiltshire … … … — — — — Worcestershire … … … 1(E) — — — Yorkshire: East Riding … … … — — 1(E) — Yorkshire: West Riding … … … 1(E) 1(E) — 2(E) Totals … … … 16(3E) 11(4E) 11(6E) 5(3E) (E) Denotes external degree. of time has elapsed since the application was received.
§ Mr. DarlingSeven applications for the appointment of inspectors are outstanding. Two of these applications (both relating to associated companies) have been kept under review, for nine months, and a third for eight months. The remaining four applications were received four weeks, three weeks, and, in two cases, one week ago. In none of these cases does it necessarily follow, from the fact of the Board's consideration, that the appointment of an inspector will be justified.