§ Mr. Cantasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what dates his Department received police or other official reports in respect of Hartley Baird Limited.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) from what other authorities than the Exchange Control authorities has his Department received representations relating directly or indirectly to the Hartley Baird case, and on what dates; and what action has his Department then taken, and on what dates;
(2) on what date his Department first was informed of an exchange control offence involving the controlling shareholding of Hartley Baird Limited; what action was taken; and on what date.
§ Mr. RidleyWe have not received any representations from the Exchange Control Authorities in regard to Hartley Baird Limited. During 1967 and 1968 the Metropolitan Police made inquiries as to possible Exchange Control offences and they reported the result of their enquiries to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Responsibility for any action is a matter for my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General. Reports from the police are confidential and I do not propose to disclose their dates or contents.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent his Department's Section 173 investigation established the accuracy and completeness of Hartley Baird Limited's statutory registers.
§ Mr. RidleyThat was not the purpose of the inquiry.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information his Department's Section 173 investigation of Hartley Baird Limited sought any information not contained in the Company's statutory registers, and what information it succeeded in obtaining.
429W
§ Mr. RidleyThat the persons interested in the majority shareholdings and able to control the company's policy were Dr. Wallersteiner and his mother, Mrs. Stoss.