HL Deb 27 July 1943 vol 128 cc810-6

LORD STRABOLGI had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government if they are aware that statements have appeared in the public Press to the effect that the Remington Arms Company, an American company and a subidiary of E. I. Dupont de Nemours, has been charged by the United States Department of Justice with refusing to sell tetrazene for use as a primer to the British Purchasing Commission; that seventeen months after the outbreak of war the Remington Arms Company 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 Imperial Chemical Industries, a British company; that this agreement was defended on the grounds that the clause forbidding the sale of tetrazene to His Majesty's Government was inserted at the request of Imperial Chemical Indus- tries; that tetrazene has military advantages over other primers; and whether, in view of this charge publicly made against a British public company any inquiry has been made into the facts and circumstances; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting this question to the Government, I may say that it involves no military secrets, because it is based entirely on statements in the public Press here and in America. These statements were allegedly based on the evidence given at public hearings and investigations in the United States of America. Furthermore, at this stage of the war we and the Germans know all about each other's ammunition. Plenty has been captured by all the combatants, and has been examined and analysed. I may say at once that I have heard no complaints, and I would not mention them if I had, in connexion with our own ammunition. The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, told us with great pride about his "beautiful bombs," and I have heard no complaints at all about those either, except from the recipients— certainly not from the users. The subject of this question was raised by me in the recent debate on the international chemical cartel but not answered by Lord McGowan. I suggested that he should deal with this particular point or issue a statement, but I have not seen any statement, and he has not informed me of any statement being issued; therefore I considered it my duty to investigate this particular matter and to ask the question which stands in my name.

Your Lordships will be aware that the primer is the more sensitive explosive used to fire the main charge in the shell, torpedo, mine, depth-charge or bomb. When I used torpedoes the war head was wet guncotton with a dry guncotton primer. When we used T.N.T. later on the primer was also T.N.T. but made up to a different formula from the main charge. The quantities of explosives for primers used in this war are enormous, and for all practical purposes Imperial Chemical Industries, through its control of Nobels and other companies, has a monopoly of manufacture or patents in Great Britain. I hope it can be stated that there is no truth in the suggestion that the I.C.I. or its agents tried to prevent the exploitation of tetrazene—which is described as a superior primer—for the munitions needed by our Armed Forces because of any cartel agreement or in an endeavour to maintain their monopoly. On the other hand, there may be technical reasons against the use of tetrazene in this country. I am not suggesting that the Chairman and Board of I.C.I. acted willingly in any way contrary to the public interests here. But I do suggest that an explanation is needed and some light should be thrown on how the cartel agreement operated in this case during the period when we were at war with Germany and the United States of America was still non-belligerent.

LORD MCGOWAN

My Lords, I have been unable to trace in the Press of this country the Press statements referred to in the noble Lord's Motion. If the noble Lord is referring to the Press statements made abroad in April of 1942, more than a year ago, it would appear that these statements are incorrect. It is not true that the Remington Arms Company has been charged by the United States Department of Justice with refusing to sell tetrazene primed ammunition to the British Purchasing Commission. Certain statements that were later withdrawn were made by one of the United States Assistant Attorney-Generals, which suggested that restrictive conditions in the Remington Company's pre-war agreements had impeded the Allied war effort. These statements were made, not in any judicial proceedings, but before a Committee of the United States Senate, who were considering a new Patents Bill. As I have said, they were withdrawn by the Assistant Attorney-General upon receipt of an explanation of the facts from the Remington Company, which is quoted in the New York Times of 18th April, 1942.

There were no agreements with Imperial Chemical Industries, or made at the request of Imperial Chemical Industries, which would have prevented Remington from supplying tetrazene as an ingredient in the primer for ammunition supplied to the British Purchasing Commission, had this type of primer been wanted. This applies equally to the A.C. Spark Plug Company. Had there been any such agreements which stood in the way of desired munition supplies, I need hardly add that Imperial Chemical Industries would have at once waived their rights under such agreements. In the inconceivable event of their not having done so, His Majesty's Government would have had adequate means at their disposal of compelling them to conform to national policy. I repeat what I said in your Lordships' House on July 15, that all our agreements and obligations have always been at the disposal of His Majesty's Government. So far as we are aware the British Purchasing Commission never called for the use of tetrazene in any ammunition orders which they placed with Remington or other American firms, and tetrazene is not specified in any British Service ammunition for any of the three Services.

THE MINISTER OF WORKS (LORD PORTAL)

My Lords, after that very short but complete explanation by my noble friend Lord McGowan, there is not very much for me to add. But there is a point for the Government to answer. It is that part of the Motion which states "that this agreement was defended on the grounds that the clause forbidding the sale of tetrazene to His Majesty's Government was inserted at the request of Imperial Chemical Industries," and that "tetrazene has military advantages over other primers." We have been in communication again with the British Purchasing Commission and I shall follow up what my noble friend Lord McGowan said at the end of his remarks by quoting the exact reply we have received on this question from the British Purchasing Commission: There is no evidence to show that 'agreement was defended on the grounds that the clause forbidding sale of tetrazene to His Majesty's Government was inserted at the request of Imperial Chemical Industries' as alleged in the Motion. No British Purchasing Commission contract placed with the Remington Company for small arms ammunition specified use of tetrazene and we here have no evidence that there was refusal to supply tetrazene to us. Remington Company does not produce 40mm. or other gun ammunition. We have not been able to trace any direct contract with A.C. Spark Plug Company which is. now a division of General Motors, and certainly no question in relation to use of tetrazene has ever arisen between us and that company These three points which we have got from the British Purchasing Commission show that we have again verified our position in this country and have inquired into the circumstances, as the noble Lord asks.

I should like to add one or two remarks on this question. No one could complain, and I should myself be the last to complain, of the commercial integrity of this country being upheld, and if that is what the noble Lord is suggesting, he is doing what anyone who is imbued with the desire of seeing integrity in business would do; but I do not see why this Motion should have been put down today. I know that the noble Lord thinks it was not properly answered last time, but if noble Lords look back only to the debate which took place in your Lordships' House on July 15 they will find that a full explanation was given by my noble friend Lord McGowan. The Lord Chancellor, answering for His Majesty's Government, fully expressed the view of the Government that there was nothing in the Motion before the House that called for an inquiry. In the present Motion the Government are asked a question on the use of tetrazene and whether any inquiry has been made into the facts and circumstances. As I have already said, the Government are completely satisfied with the inquiries they have made. I should like to refer your Lordships to what was said by the Lord Chancellor in his speech on July 15—that the Government have full powers to compel a company to do what they want. That is a very important point and it is one which your Lordships' House will realize. Whether it be Imperial Chemical Industries or any other company, we have full power to take action if, shall we say, any question of dealings of the sort suggested by the noble Lord took place. I have looked through the Press of this country to try and find the reference which the noble Lord mentioned. I think he said the American Press.

LORD STRABOLGI

And British.

LORD PORTAL

The noble Lord knows the Press better than I do. If these Motions go on we may shortly expect an article by the noble Lord on "What is wrong with the I.C.I.?" I think the Government have fully answered the noble Lord's question and that it is time to remember this. We all say that during this war effort the workers of this country have performed a great task. We are all agreed on that. But when the pages of history come to be written we shall realize more fully what a big part some of our large industries in this country have played, by research, by efficiency and in many other ways. One wonders what would have happened if we had not had these firms to help us. When the war is over you will find that besides great tributes being paid to the workers, tributes will also be paid to those companies. I had myself for one and a half years when I was in the Ministry of Supply, and I have now, knowledge of what Imperial Chemical Industries have done for the country as a whole. They have given their very best men unselfishly to the war effort and they have given us the benefit of all their research. I repeat that when the pages of history come to be written you will find there will be a tribute not only to the workers but to the great industries of this country, among which, I am sure, will be the I.C.I.

LORD STRABOGLI

My Lords, two noble Lords have answered my question —Lord McGowan and Lord Portal, on behalf of His Majesty's Government. With regard to the answer given by Lord McGowan, I was very glad indeed to hear —I assure him that I say that with complete sincerity—that these statements which have received considerable publicity are, in fact, untrue. He said he could not trace anything in the British papers. I refer him to one of the publications of my noble friend Lord Southwood, a suc- cessful paper called News Review, which he owns; but more specifically I refer him to a paper which has a wide circulation and was founded by a colleague of Lord Portal, my right honourable friend Sir Stafford Cripps—the Tribune, which you see on every bookstall and which had this matter in some detail. With regard to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Portal, he was good enough to refer to the attempts I sometimes make to write articles which occasionally are taken by the newspapers. He suggested I should write one on "What is wrong with the I.C.I.?" I read one by Lord McGowan in the Sunday Times which might have had the title, "What is Right with the I.C.I." dealing with the whole question of monopoly. This is not the time to debate monopoly, but if I am asked I should be very pleased to write an article on "What is wrong with monopoly in this country." I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.

On Question, Motion for Papers negatived.