§ Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (1) whether, seeing that one of the principal arguments used to obtain Government patronage and money for the development of the home-grown sugar industry was that not only would it assist agriculture, but also that it would bring work to British engineering concerns, he will say why this has been departed from in the ordering of sugar machinery from France; is he aware that for many years the designing of beet-sugar machinery and factories has been standardised in France, Belgium, the United States, Holland, Germany, and Czecho-Slovakia, from any of which countries designs are obtainable from which any good firm of British engineers can construct the best type of machinery;
(2) why open tenders were not asked for in respect of the beet-sugar machinery ordered by Home-grown Sugar, Limited; is he aware that neither the two best Belgian firms of sugar-machinery makers nor the leading Czecho-Slovakian firm were asked to tender; whether any American firms were invited and that the firm with whom the order has been placed had for some years before the War been making little or no sugar machinery either for foreign or French buyers; and is he aware that French sugar manufacturers prior to the War got most of their machinery from Germany and Austria and that in the post-War reconstruction 1448W of French factories the first four orders have been placed with Messrs. Breitfeld, of Prague, owing to French firms not being able to contract for early delivery?
Sir A. BOSCAWENThe Ministry has never justified its support of the homegrown sugar industry on the ground that it would assist the engineering industry, and it is obvious that the commercial success of the enterprise might be jeopardised if the company were unduly restricted as to the sources from which it could obtain plant or machinery. The Ministry is informed that it is not the case that there is any recognised standard design of beet-sugar machinery or factory. Invitations to tender for the supply of the machinery were specifically invited from British engineering firms by advertisements in "The Times" and the principal engineering papers, but the response was disappointing both in number and character. The company also took expert advice as to foreign firms who had experience of beet-sugar machinery, and on such advice invited the Compagnie de Fives, Lille, to tender, and after considering all the circumstances decided to give the contract to that firm. It has, however, been arranged that British firms who specialise in specific parts of the machinery should have the opportunity of acting as sub-contractors for such parts. The hon. Member's statement that the French company had been making little or no sugar machinery before the War is contrary to the information obtained by the directors of Home Grown Sugar, Limited, and the Ministry is not aware that French manufacturers have obtained in the past or are now obtaining their machinery from German or Austrian firms. Even if this were so, however, it has no bearing on the fact that a particular contract has been placed with a French firm, and I do not imagine that the hon. Member would suggest that the contract should be transferred to a German or an Austrian firm.
I may add that the view of the Ministry is that if success is to be attained the directors of Home Grown Sugar, Limited, must be allowed to manage the business of the company as they think best, subject only to such control by the Government's financial representative as is necessary to safeguard the State funds which are invested in the enterprise.