ARMS MANUFACTURE

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 294, 9 November 1934, Page 7

ARMS MANUFACTURE

DEBATE IN THE COMMONS.

QUESTION OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

FOREIGN SECRETARY EXPLAINS

(United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (British Official Wireless.) Received November 9, 11.55 a.m. RUGBY, Nov. 8.

A debate on private trade in arms occupied the attention of the House of Commons to-day. The debate was raised on a Labour resolution moved by Major Attlee in the following terms: “That this House endorses the view expressed in the Covenant of the League of Nations that the manufacture of munitions of war by private enterprise is open to grave objection. It regrets the absence of any international agreement to deal with this admitted evil and is of the opinion that Britain should set an example by prohibiting forthwith all private manufacture of, and trade in, armaments by British nationals, and by making provision for the production by the State of such armaments and munitions of war as are considered necessary.” Major Attlee argued that the existence of vested interests in the arms trade tended to frustrate the efforts of the wiser statesmen of the world to create world order. He believed the right course was to nationalise all armaments production and have a nucleus capable of expansion. The Foreign Secretary (Sir John Simon) said the Government had been glad to find parliamentary time for this important subject, which -outside the House had often been treated as though it was a simple issue on which a conclusion could be reached almost automatically by anyone who was not either a fooi or a knave. They had to proceed on the basis that arms were going to be produced by the State. The private armament firm, on the other hand, had its skilled staff, its organisations, and its machinery, which was producing a certain quantity of armaments, and that side of its business could not in fact be maintained without foreign orders. If they were tsr be plunged into the calamity of war, then these armament firms and. private shipyards, owing to their previous organisation and their acquired aptitude, were able to switch over very rapidly from their level of peace production to their maximum war production. That was the essence of this arrangement, and only by that means was it possible to bridge the gap which widened at a terrific rat© once war again visited the world between peace production and demand. It was the need for sudden and almost unlimited expansion in . time of war which made the conception of a Government monopoly so difficult to apply. Whatever might be the lessons which ought to be drawn from the late war, Sir John said he could not think they ought to put their trust in State factories and wait until they were in a war before anyone else was called upon. Major Attleo wished them to set an example and would like other people to follow it, but >if that were done not only would there be no supplies by their own armament firms, but they would be unable to make any purchases from foreign sources, because one State which was at peace could not provide arms from its own arsenals to a State at war without Involving itself in that war. States which had no internal production of arms would not only. be obliged to set up their own factories, but would have to accumulate a great stock so they might feel more secure. CONTROL EXERCISED.

The Commission which sat at Geneva in 1931 did not reach any conclusion in favour of the abolition of the private manufacture of arms. The British had the most complete and stringent means of controlling exports of any country in the world. No consignment of _ armaments could leave without a license; thev never subsidised a private firm for the' production of arms; they never allowed diplomatic or consular representatives abroad to act as travellers or canvassers for armament firms. It was Britain which took the initiative in placing the embargo on arms to Bolivia and Paraguay which 28 exporting countries had now undertaken to observe. The remedy was by international agreement and that the British Government was doing its utmost to promote. “If we, on this Government bench, were not throwing our utmost energy into the cause of peace, we should not merely be foolish beyond belief, wo should be stark, staring lunatics. We know of the horror which another wav would mean,” Sir John Simon added.