§ LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to the charges by the United States Department of Justice against three American chemical companies who are accused of conspiring with the German I.G. Farbenindustrie, the British Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., the Italian Montecatini Company and the Japanese Kokusan Kogu Kaibushihi, to create trade monopolies; and whether, in view of the naming of a British public company, they will conduct an inquiry into the circumstances in this country; and to move for Papers.
§
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question to the Government which I have put on the Order Paper is based on a Reuter dispatch of June 28 which was printed in The Times of June 29. For greater accuracy, as they say in another place, when I had read The Times account I consulted the Daily Herald and found that that paper carried a similar news story. I do not think it is necessary to read the whole of the report in The Times and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for leaving part of it out, but the important part reads as follows:
The United States Department of Justice announced to-night that three American chemical companies have been indicted by a federal grand jury for creating a world-wide cartel in conspiracy with German, British, Italian, Japanese and other foreign interests. Mr. Tom Clark, Assistant Attorney-General in charge of the anti-trust division, said the cartel embraced titanium compounds used in the production of strategic war materials.
The dispatch, later, goes on:
The indictment alleged that the defendants and the foreign companies divided the world into exclusive non-competitive areas, and in the United States obtained monopolistic control through the pooling of patents. Under this arrangement the British Titan Products Company, Limited, owned jointly by Imperial
586
Chemical Industries, Limited, the Titan Company, Incorporated, and other British companies, received the British Empire. At the outbreak of the European war, the indictment said, the Titan Gesselschaft, jointly owned by the I.G. Farbenindustrie and the National Lead Company, was unable to supply South American markets. So the National Lead Company agreed to supply South American customers and pay the German company profits from such sales. This arrangement terminated when the United States entered the war.
I am not quite certain what it means to be indicted by a federal grand jury in the United States—I am not familiar with American legal procedure—but I presume it is something like a true bill being returned by a grand jury in this country. That, however, is not so important. What is important here is that apparently a very responsible charge is made by law officers against these cartel companies.
§
Under this message from Reuter there was published in The Times a statement from the Press Association whose representative interviewed the noble Lord, Lord McGowan, the Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries. My noble friend said:
I give you an absolutely flat denial that we are engaged in any international conspiracy. We are not in combination with any international bodies. The report is quite wrong. I do not think it is necessary to elaborate on the denial.
I have had the privilege and pleasure of knowing the noble Lord, Lord McGowan, for a great many years now and with others of your Lordships I would like to congratulate him on the maiden speech he delivered earlier in to-day's proceedings. I say at once that I have accepted, and would accept at any time, any statement he made. I am not doubting his word in the slightest degree, but I do not think he has refreshed his memory of the real meaning of the word "conspiracy" as used in the United States. The word "conspiracy" in this country has a sinister meaning, but in the United States it has not the same meaning in legal language. This indictment was framed under the Sherman Act of 1890 and I would like to read the first clause. There have been some technical Amendments to the clause but they do not affect the sense. It runs as follows:
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall
587
make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour.
In that sense, of course, "conspiracy" refers to something illegal in the United States which is not illegal in this country.
§ There is nothing illegal here in entering into a cartel or patent pooling arrangement with German, Japanese or other foreign companies. I do not suggest that there is conspiracy in the English sense, but in the American sense, if the indictment is correct, I think it will not be denied that there was conspiracy. Certainly I think it is generally understood that for many years before the war there was an arrangement between Imperial Chemical Industries, which I shall refer to with your Lordships' permission as I.C.I., the great American chemical and industrial combine of Dupont de Nemours, which I shall refer to as Dupont, and the great German chemical and dye combine, I.G. Farbenindustrie, which I shall refer to as I.G., with regard to certain markets. They kept out of each other's way in these markets. I do not think it will be denied that according to the Sherman Act, this was illegal in America. An arrangement "to divide the world into exclusive non-competitive areas" is a restraint on commerce according to the Sherman Act and therefore a conspiracy. The only evidence I intend to bring of this matter on my own knowledge is that when I was last in Sweden, a little time before the war, Swedish business men complained to me that when they tried to buy industrial chemicals or industrial explosives from England, because they did not want to trade with Germany—they had a great fear of what the Nazis intended to do —they were referred by I.C.I. to I.G. They were not allowed, they told me, to buy in England and they were forced to buy in Germany. That was apparently the condition of affairs in all Scandinavia.
§ Whether it is against public policy that this kind of thing should go on is a matter I am not raising to-day. That will be discussed in great detail by many other Peers and by many members in another place on many occasions in the future. It is one of the great subjects that will come up for debate and decision after the war. I am not raising the question of trusts or monopolies as such. The Home Secretary and others have indicated that it is a question which will have to be 588 solved in the future and on that matter I do not want to anticipate the great public discussions which will no doubt take place.
§ That is a different subject, and I want to say at once that, in my opinion, and from my own knowledge of this great combine known as I.C.I., which was founded by two former friends of mine, two great men, the late Sir John Brunner and the first Lord Melchett, this great monopoly in chemicals, explosives, fertilizers and the like has not been used harshly in this country. Domestically I.C.I. has treated the consumer fairly. I do not suggest anything different to that. And I have heard no complaints about the record of the company as an employer of labour. Also, I am aware that the research and development work carried on by I.C.I. has been of benefit to the nation and to its defence.
§ Now I come to the war period. I know that very large numbers of the personnel of I.C.I. have been lent to the Government. According to an answer which was given by Sir Andrew Duncan in another place no fewer than sixty-one of the holders of senior posts in the Ministry of Supply alone have been loaned to the Government for the duration of the war by I.C.I. I am sure that Lord McGowan and other directors of I.C.I. have not been behind the great masses of their fellow citizens in doing their best for the national war effort. What is it therefore that, if this information which is coming from America is well-founded, calls for inquiry? I do not suggest, as was suggested in another place, that there has been trading between I.C.I. and the enemy. I do not suggest that for one moment. That would be a matter for another court. But there are a number of indictments and accusations, and here I am going to base my statements only on what has been published in British newspapers.
§ Publicity has been given to remarkable statements with regard to this international cartel. The first I quote has been referred to by the Assistant Attorney-General of America. It suggests that there was a close alliance between these great chemical combines and that through subsidiary companies they formed a world-wide cartel in titanium. When the present war broke out, and the U.S.A. was still neutral, the National Lead Company, linked finan- 589 cially with Dupont, continued to supply and look after I.G.'s South American customers and to supply them and put aside a share of the profits to be transferred to I.G. after the war. That is one indictment. Incidentally, before Pearl Harbour—this is in reference to American trading with the enemy—every gallon of high octane petrol from the U.S.A., used in a British bomber over Germany, attracted royalties which it is stated were put aside for payment to I.G. after the war. Secondly, the Dow Chemical Company, an I.C.I. interest, have been found guilty of restricting magnesium production because of arrangements with the German Chemical Trusts. The Dow Company had agreed not to produce more than 8 000,000 lb. per year without the consent of the German companies.
§ LORD MELCHETTMy Lords, may I say that my company has no connexion with this American company?
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I am only telling your Lordships, if I may, what the charges are. I do not know if they are true or not. But they have been published in English newspapers and presumably in American newspapers too, and that is why I suggest that there should be an inquiry. I am not formulating these charges; they have been widely circulated, and I should think that the noble Lord, Lord McGowan, and those associated with him, would be glad to have them inquired into.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that it is proper—
LORD STRABOLGIWhatever I say is proper, I can assure the noble and learned Viscount of that. I did not know that he had any concern in this matter.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMI am only con- corned to ask the noble Lord whether he thinks it is proper that there should be an inquiry about something which, it occurs to me, is sub judice in the Courts of the United States?
LORD STRABOLGII will come to that matter, as I had intended doing, and will answer the noble Viscount. To continue what I was saying: the Dow Company had agreed not to produce more than 8,000,000 lb. per year without the consent of the German companies. They had also 590 agreed to limit their shipments to Britain to 300,000 lb. a year, and in pre-war years to ship 50 per cent. of their output to Germany at two-thirds of the price charged to Britain. Prior to the war—this is the charge—the Dow Chemical Company was owned jointly by I.C.I. and I.G. The German shares have been taken over by the British and United States Governments. The magnesium position, I am informed, is now very much easier, and it is being manufactured in Britain and in the United States in satisfactory quantities. Quite apart from the question of whether I.C.I. is interested in the Dow Chemical Company or not it would be interesting and, I think, important to know whether, in the early stages of the war, we and the United States were hampered in the production of light alloys, for example, by these restrictions of this international cartel.
Thirdly, the Remington Arms Company, a subsidiary of Dupont, refused to sell tetrazene to the British Purchasing Commission in the United States of America because of its arrangements with I.G. This charge was made nearly a year ago by the American Department of Justice. Seventeen months after the outbreak of war Remingtons warned the A.C. Spark Plug Company that it could not use tetrazene in ammunition sold to His Majesty's Government because of an agreement with the I.C.I. and I.G. Far-benindustrie. This agreement was defended, that is to say a defence was put forward by Remingtons, on the ground that the anti-British clause was inserted at the request of I.C.I. I understand that tetrazene has advantages as a primer for shells and torpedoes, and it is stated that its use was not exploited by the Defence Ministers of this country during, at any rate, the first period of this war, because of these restrictions.
The next matter to which I wish to refer is that of the hydrogenation cartel. A hydrogenation cartel, it is alleged, was formed of which Standard Oil was a partner and Dupont, I.G. and I.C.I. were members. In this case the Standard Oil Company was a partner. This cartel obliged the British, German and American companies to share each other's technical discoveries, and, for the benefit of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, I may say that this was a finding of the Nye Committee. It is not 591 sub judice; it is chose jugée. I dare say that this pooling arrangement of trade secrets and technical discoveries afforded us some advantages by giving us access to the German discoveries, but the Germans also benefited. Standard Oil discovered how to make synthetic rubber, and dutifully handed over the secret to their German and Italian partners; but, after America's entry into the war, Standard Oil, when requested to do so by the American Government, refused to disclose its process to the American Government, because of its agreement with I.G., and it was prosecuted and fined. That is also chose jugée.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMFined for an offence according to United States law. What has that to do with us?
LORD STRABOLGII did not know that Lord Maugham was particularly interested in this matter; I thought that he was going to speak to us on technical research. What the noble and learned Viscount has not grasped is that these were activities, so it is stated, of an international cartel, one of the members of which was a great British public company.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMMy noble friend challenges me.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMYou turned towards me, and I thought that you were challenging me. I answer the challenge. I say that I do not understand the language of the Motion, unless my noble friend will point out to me in some way the nature of the charge. If the charge is only that something has been done by somebody against American law which is now being investigated, I should have thought that it was quite impossible for this House to go into it at all. We could not go into it if it was a charge which was sub judice here; a fortiori, if there is no charge in relation to British law, and it is merely said that something has been done contrary to American law, we cannot go into it. I could not say that until my noble friend had explained that that was his case.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I am sorry that I responded to the noble and learned Viscount's earlier interruption. I was coming to the very point he raises. 592 This arrangement for pooling patents and sharing technical secrets no doubt lapsed on the outbreak of war, as did the cartel arrangements with the Axis chemical companies; but the American Attorney-General and his assistants alleged that these arrangements have merely been put into cold storage—if I may use a slang expression—and that it is planned to revive them after the war. That is the charge against Dupont and the other American companies in the cartel. I do not know whether it is made against I.C.I. or not, but, as I.C.I. is part of this cartel, I suggest that an inquiry would be useful to clear the name of I.C.I. Above all, what I think we have a right to know is whether the war effort is still being hampered in any way by these cartel agreements, by what the Americans call the "conspiracy." It may be that the cartel agreements in certain directions are still hindering us, and in that case I think that the two Governments should take the matter up and remove all inhibitions and restrictions. Shortly after the formation of I.C.I. in 1926, it was stated in a letter from the London offices of Dupont that the British company's Chairman, Lord McGowan, had explained that the formation of I.C.I. was "only the first step in a comprehensive scheme which he had in mind to rationalize chemical manufacture in the world. The broad picture includes working arrangements between three groups—the I.G. in Germany, I.C.I. in the British Empire, and Dupont and the Allied Chemical and Dye in America. He hopes to develop some scheme involving financial ties binding the three groups together." That was in 1926, and there was no Nazi Government in Germany then, but, according to the Department of Justice, there was this working arrangement right up to the outbreak of the present war. In 1938, I.C.I. and I.G. between them, it is stated, established a company in Manchester—the Trafford Chemical Company—operating under joint British and German control.
Rationalizing chemical manufacture means restricting output and pegging prices. I am not concerned with prices here at all, but did this restriction of output—without which, of course, this rationalization scheme means nothing— contribute to the slow pace of our rearmament in the years immediately before the war, and in the early months of the war? The President of the Board of Trade has 593 been questioned in another place about these affairs, and he has called for a report by His Majesty's Ambassador in Washington.
I now come to the point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. I am not moving for Papers as a formality; I would respectfully request His Majesty's Government that the report of the public proceedings, when it is received, should be issued as a White Paper, with such remarks of the Ambassador as can properly be published. One form of the defence used by the accused companies in America has been to attack the bona fides of the Department of Justice and of the American Law Officers. I trust that no such accusations will be made in this country against American officials. At the same time, I can imagine a grievance on the part of the directors of I.C.I. and their thousands of shareholders. I do not know whether they can be represented before the American tribunal or not, but these charges have been printed in the newspapers, and presumably have appeared in other countries. I suggest that they are very serious, and that matters cannot be left where they are. I presume that the noble Lords, Lord McGowan and Lord Melchett, will welcome an inquiry and an opportunity of answering charges which have received such wide publicity in the British newspapers, and probably in the Press of other countries. I beg to move for Papers.
§ LORD MCGOWANMy Lords, on the Motion raised by the noble Lord I welcome the opportunity of making a statement. Let me say at once that Imperial Chemical Industries is not indicted in the case to which the noble Lord has referred, but is merely named as one of the parties to the agreement with an American company. There is no suggestion that Imperial Chemical Industries, a British company, has in any way, directly or indirectly, done anything to be ashamed of, or in any way infringed the laws of this country. Actually the Motion raises two issues, one directly and one by implication. I will deal with both very briefly, for this is neither the time nor the place to enter into a long exposition. We have nothing to hide and-nothing for which to apologize. If I give the present brief explanation it is not to defend anything, because there is nothing 594 to defend, but merely as an act of courtesy to the noble Lord who has raised the Motion and to your Lordships' House.
The issue raised directly is the so-called cartel. This is a system of trade agreements. Some of these are of long standing, dating back as much as seventy-five years, to the very roots of the chemical industry in this country. They have, without doubt, greatly helped in the scientific development of that industry. Trade agreements of this nature, whether domestic or international, are entirely legal in this country, and have in fact been favoured by successive Governments. Indeed, in certain cases the Government have themselves intervened and used their influence to enforce cartel arrangements in oversea markets. If and when at any time Parliament enacts legislation to make cartels and trade agreements illegal such legislation would naturally be binding on all industrial concerns. If at any time the Government of the day even declared that they looked with disfavour upon such agreements, industry would naturally have to review its policy in the light of the new situation then created.
The underlying principle which Imperial Chemical Industries has striven for in cartel agreements is to retain as far as possible the British Empire Market for the British Empire. There is no secret in regard either to international or domestic trade agreements, or cartels, and full information in regard to them has always been, and still is, available to the Government. In the case which is the subject of the noble Lord's Motion this matter was discussed in correspondence and personal interviews with the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Economic Warfare in 1940.
§ LORD MCGOWANThe titanium matter. So far as the United States is concerned the position is entirely different. The Sherman anti-trust legislation has been in existence for a period of something like fifty years. During this period its interpretation has differed very widely. Within recent years the interpretation has been stretched and expanded to such an extent that it is frankly admitted by the Department of Justice of the United States Government that no citizen, nor 595 the Government itself, can define the meaning of existing legislation, and that each case must be dealt with on its merits.
The present case deals with certain American manufacturing companies who are producers of titanium oxide. This is a pigment derived from the titanium ore, ilmenite, the value of which lies in its non-poisonous character to the worker. Its production was developed many years ago by Norwegian and American interests, which in time came to control a range of patents and to sell their product on a small scale throughout the world. In 1933 the British firms, the I.C.I., the Imperial Smelting Corporation and Goodlass Wall & Lead Industries, approached these United States' interests for a share for Great Britain, the result being the formation of British Titan Products, Ltd., which erected works at Billingham and whose shareholders are the National Lead Corporation of America, 44 per cent.; Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd., Imperial Smelting Corporation and Good-lass Wall and Lead Industries, 17 per cent. each; R. W. Greef & Co., also a British firm, 5 per cent. The effect of this arrangement was to ensure that the British Empire had its own supplies, being independent of foreign sources. There is no monopoly in this country, as another firm produce similar products by a different process.
Now the United States firms concerned are indicted for making this and previous arrangements on the ground that these are breaches of United States anti-trust laws. As I am informed, I.C.I. is not a defendant and is not indicted by the United States Department of Justice for any breach of the laws of the United States. It is named with half a dozen British and Canadian companies as one of the parties associated with the scheme. The innuendo contained in these newspaper references that British firms, including ourselves, were trading with the enemy is sheer nonsense. We are satisfied that if any such allegations were pursued in a Court of Law in this country or in the United States they would be shown not only to be entirely unfounded but utterly false. The British company in question put its problems to the Government more than three years ago. From 596 then on it has formulated its policy on the guidance then given it by the Government. This is only in accordance with the policy which Imperial Chemical Industries has itself pursued since the outbreak of war. Wherever, in our dealings with firms in neutral countries, we have felt that any question of enemy interests might be involved, we have placed the facts before the Trading with the Enemy Department in order that we might receive from them directions as to the proper course we should take in the national interest. Apart from procedure at law, if there is any information which any Government Department requires in regard to any of our commercial transactions, either foreign or domestic, I would like to repeat here what I have already stated to the President of the Board of Trade, that I.C.I. is entirely at the Government's disposal to answer any questions that they may care to ask, or to inspect any documents that they may desire to call for.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON)My Lords, the House will have been glad to have heard Lord McGowan's statement, and I now have briefly to state the view which the Government take of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi's Motion. In the view of the Government the noble Lord's suggestion is entirely misconceived. It is really necessary to state what the situation is in simple terms, and not clouded with too many details. The situation is this, that in the United States, under the law of the United States, certain United States companies are being indicted for breach of a United States Act, the Sherman Act. Of course, as my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham pointed out, that is entirely for the United States; I make no comment on it at all. I would not in any case do so, as the matter is sub judice. But in order that your Lordships may appreciate what is involved by raising this question in this way I would add two observations. First of all, the Imperial Chemical Industries—the I.C.I.— is not indicted for any breach of American law at all. Of course, no question of British law is involved. So far as I know, the I.C.I. is only mentioned in these American proceedings because it is alleged that the American companies have broken American law in connexion with agreements that they may have with non- 597 American companies. That does not involve the I.C.I., of course, in any charge or suspicion of crime at all. That is the first point.
The second point—and this will readily appeal to the common sense of the House without any elaboration—is that there could be no ground on which the British Government and British authorities should make inquiry whether there has or has not been a breach of the Sherman Act, which is an American law and not our law at all. Really, the suggestion of an inquiry is quite misconceived. And the suggestion has a serious disadvantage. The noble Lord who has put it forward explains that his motive, or one of his motives, is to assist in "clearing the I.C.I.'s name." Well, the suggestion has this disadvantage, especially when it is introduced with such language as that, that some thoughtless or careless people in this island may suppose that what is implied is that the I.C.I. have done something improper, or that there is some ground, known to the Government, or that ought to be known to the Government, for inquiry whether this company has not done something improper.
The noble Lord who introduced this matter assured us that he was not raising any question of trading with the enemy, but he referred to the questions which were put in another place to the President of the Board of Trade. I notice that among those questions was one raising this very issue, and that the President of the Board of Trade spoke in particular of the serious allegation that there had been trading with the enemy, and therefore the President was pressed and asked, in view of that very serious allegation, whether there should not be an inquiry. I am sure the House will be glad to note—I dare say that Lord McGowan and Lord Melchett will also observe—that although this question is put down, it is not intended to make any such suggestion; but if the matter to be inquired into included the suggestion that I.C.I. has, during the war, had commercial relations with a German company, an Italian company, or a Japanese company, all of which are mentioned in the noble Lord's question, let us be quite plain about it— that would be a suggestion that the I.C.I. had been trading with the enemy. Of course, such a suggestion should not be made, or even be given an opportunity 598 to be misunderstood, unless there is some adequate ground for making it.
Let me take the other side. If what is being referred to is the situation before the war broke out, then if agreements of this sort described by Lord Strabolgi existed before the war—I know nothing about it myself—they would, as far as I know, be legal. They would not be contrary to any British law; but, as indeed the noble Lord pointed out, they would be automatically terminated at the outbreak of war because, of course, as everyone acquainted with business or law knows, a current commercial agreement with a foreigner is frustrated and illegal when the foreigner becomes an enemy.
In view of the very grave matters which might be inferred from this question, I thought it right to make inquiries from the Government Departments which are specially charged with the matter of watching for any possibility of trading with the enemy. I made inquiries of the Trading with the Enemy Department. An opinion, I believe, was obtained from the Attorney-General in order that the highest legal advice should be secured. I made inquiries of other Departments concerned with such matters, and I am now in a position to state—and it is only just that I should state it—that there is nothing known to the Departments to suggest that I.C.I. has been guilty of practices contrary to the law. The company is under no suspicion for that or any other reason. On the contrary, the company has been completely co-operative in economic warfare, and appears to have done its utmost to assist this country against the enemy. Your Lordships will appreciate the full importance of that statement which I make as a result of close inquiry.
I must remind you in two or three sentences of what our existing machinery is. Lord Strabolgi proposes, in view of what he has heard or read, that there should be an inquiry set up. The Trading with the Enemy Department is a Department responsible to the Board of Trade and to the Treasury jointly. It is adequately staffed by skilled personnel. It is constantly engaged in examining transactions and in dealing with those that are suspect or might be open to any objection. It is assisted, mark you, by a postal, telegraphic, and cable censorship of commercial messages going abroad. No messages in a secret code are accepted. 599 There is no question whatever of a firm in this country sending in secret code any sort of communication abroad; it has all to go through the censorship. The whole system is designed to keep close watch and check over anything that might suggest a breach of the law.
LORD STRABOLGII do not want to put the noble and learned Viscount to the trouble of going right through the defence against a case I have not made. I began by emphasizing that there is no suggestion of trading with the enemy in my indictment at all.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWith the same materials which the noble Lord thought fit to bring before the House, it has been suggested in the House of Commons that it does imply that there has been trading with the enemy. I propose to take the opportunity of making the matter entirely plain—I am sure with the noble Lord's concurrence—to anybody who reads this debate. The Trading with the Enemy Code is a detailed code passed by Parliament for the purpose, which gives power to appoint an inspector of the books of any company, and even a supervisor of its business. Therefore the House will see, and I hope the noble Lord will see, that there is no need at all to invent a special inquiry, for the machine of inquiry already exists and is used by the authorities in every proper case, wherever necessary, even to the length of putting in an inspector to see what is going on inside, or even to the extent of putting in a supervisor in order to control each transaction as it takes place.
Let us realize, too, that if by any chance what has been published in this country, which is what we are discussing now, were to be understood by any body of people here as a hint of trading with the enemy, the punishment for such wicked crime is about as severe as you could imagine. The punishment for trading with the enemy may be as much as seven years' penal servitude, and in the case of a limited company (because you cannot send a limited company to gaol), the punishment may be applied to any director or official of the company who has consented or connived at the offence. Your Lordships will see, therefore, how serious a matter would be involved if that were the question. But, as I have said, the authorities have no ground whatever 600 for adopting the course suggested by the noble Lord. I will add this: if there were grounds which justified special action, I can assure your Lordships that what was being dealt with would be dealt with by a method of treatment quite different from the setting up of a mere general inquiry. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not feel that either his desire to help in clearing the name of the I.C.I., or his solicitude for those standards of rectitude in business transactions which he so rightly desires to uphold, calls for the adoption of his suggestion.
§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAMMy Lords, I rise only to explain why I asked a question of the noble Lord who moved the Motion. I have nothing to do with the I.C.I., I regret to say, nor with any other company named in the Motion. I have a training as a lawyer. When I had the honour to become a member of this House I was given to understand that there was a very clear distinction between the legislative powers of this House and its powers as a judicial body. There is no Court so high as the House of Lords when it sits judicially, but I am not aware that this House, sitting in its legislative capacity, ever interferes with legal matters at all while they are under the supervision either of a Court of Justice here or a Court of Justice abroad.
I confess that when I read this Motion I thought some charge was made, or was about to be made, against the I.C.I., the British public company mentioned, in reference to something which is contrary to British law. If it had been so it would have been perfectly wrong and contrary to the practice of this House to deal with it in this way at all if they had committed a breach of British law. You might apply in the proper quarter and have a prosecution launched, but it would not be right for this House to express any opinion whatever in the matter, and it would be quite contrary to the practice, or Constitution, of this country for His Majesty's Government to interfere, by directing an inquiry as to whether some breach of the law had taken place or not. But it turned out, and the noble Lord made it perfectly plain, that he is not charging any breach of any British law against the company. Then what is it? He has had the opportunity of reading out some statements from newspapers against American companies, and one or 601 two suggestions which may be against the I.C.I. That is not evidence. Then the whole question would be whether His Majesty's Government would take the step of directing an inquiry as to the propriety of the actions of the I.C.I. in reference to something in the United States of America or contrary to the laws which are in force in the United States. There again I should have thought it was an absolutely wild proposal to think that His Majesty's Government could properly direct an inquiry on that matter which for all I know will be inquired into in due course by the appropriate court to decide such a question. For that reason and none other I have intervened.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, I hope it will not be considered unusual if I thank Lord McGowan for his speech in answer to mine. It contained information and was a serious attempt to deal with what he admits, and I am sure are, very weighty accusations being made not by me but in public.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORAgainst whom are these accusations being made in public?
LORD STRABOLGIAgainst, among other companies, the Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited. The explanation he made seemed to me perfectly reasonable so far as he went, if my opinion is of any value. I did not expect him to reply because I did not give him notice, though I presume he knows about these charges. He did not deal with one of the most serious accusations, with the question of tetrazene which. I described. I think that should be dealt with as soon as possible, if I might suggest that in the most friendly way. It is a very serious accusation. It has received already some circulation and the sooner a statement is made, I suggest, the better. I sympathize with the Lord Chancellor if he will allow me to do so. He had to make his speech and he made it in answer to a case which I had not myself put forward. I never suggested for a moment that there was an accusation of trading with the enemy after war broke out. I made that, I thought, clear. It is quite a new experience to me to find a Lord Chancellor of the House of Lords answering suggestions made in another place. I dare say the Lord Chancellor has created one more precedent in your Lordships' House.
602 Now once more may I, with great respect to the noble and learned Lords in this House, with great legal knowledge, explain in two sentences the case for an inquiry? There are indictments in America against this great international cartel and some of the statements made which I have referred to are very extraordinary indeed. I should have thought it was necessary, and I still think, that there should be an inquiry, a corresponding parallel inquiry in this country, into the workings of this cartel to see, not whether there was a breach of the British law; that is not the case. I was pointing out that we should inquire and see whether the public interest, whether the trade, commerce and prosperity of our people, were affected, and whether our defence was hindered by this international cartel. That is the charge that has to be answered and it will have to be answered. I ask for Papers. I ask for an assurance —perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could inform me now or later—can we have a White Paper with the report of the Ambassador at Washington when it is received? That is the important thing. We cannot get these documents here. We only get truncated extracts from the Press and we have to make the best of them. Can we have the full statement from the Ambassador with, of course, anything confidential left out?
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI think I can say at once—the Lord Chancellor has made it absolutely clear—that there is no case of any kind in the view of the Government to inquire into, and obviously there is no need for the production of any Papers.
LORD STRABOLGII do not think the noble Viscount has followed what has happened. The President of the Board of Trade said in another place that he has called for a full report by the Ambassador, which I presume would include a full account of the case before the American Courts. That is what we need. Those are the type of Papers I ask for, and I think we are entitled to them.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWhat the President of the Board of Trade said in another place was that he had sent to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington and asked for particulars of the charges made. I do not find in his answer anything of the sort suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD STRABOLGIPerhaps we can have that. I presume it would include a full account of what was happening before the American Courts. I hope we can have some assurance that these Papers will be laid.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEI have already answered the noble Lord and can say no more. The Lord Chancellor has made the position perfectly clear. In the view of the Government, as I have said before, there is nothing so far as the Imperial Chemical Industries are concerned to inquire into; therefore there is no need for the production of any Papers.
§ On Question, Motion negatived.