82
6. Possible objections to the proposed policy as an Imperial policy are the follow- ing:-
(a.) It may be doubted whether protection would be the best policy either for
the public or for the British companies.
(b.) The policy has never been tried, so far as I know, and its effects are
unknown.
(e.) Discrimination might lead to reprisals. The House of Lords Committee- were opposed to discrimination in the case of life insurance companies- on this very ground.
16
(7.) It is not clear what the object of the policy is. Insurance is not a 'key industry". The policy may be dietated by a natural but temporary
reaction of the events of the war,
7. Proposal (e) is ambiguous in the following respects :---
(a.) What are “foreign" companies? If the term includes the local Chinese companies, it is a question how far it would be fair to insist on complete accounts in English. This subject has been considered in C.S.0, 6342:11.
(b) How are the auditors to be “properly appointed ”?
(r.) Is there to be a compulsory periodical audit, or are the hooks only to be
open to andit on demand or on some special order by some authority?
8. The above criticisms are not hostile, but more particularity seems desirable, and the object of the policy should be explained. When these points are ascertained the subject could be reconsidered. In any case I would suggest that the proposals should be forwarded to the Secretary of State for consideration of the experts in the United Kingdom rather than that they should be recommended.
26th April, 1917.
J. H. KEMP.
Attorney General.