Oral Answers to Questions — Arms Traffic Inquiry, United States.

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at on 15 November 1934.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Anthony Eden Mr Anthony Eden , Warwick and Leamington

Yes, Sir. I have taken note of the evidence to which the hon. Member refers. The hon. Member will doubtless have observed that in the letter which the Soley Armament Company are reported to have addressed to the American Armament Corporation about the possible export of arms to Bolivia, they also said that they must first be informed of the ultimate destination of all arms orders, so that they might submit the name of the purchasing Government to the British authorities and obtain their permission. I should confirm this by saying that an application by any British company for a licence simply to export anti-aircraft guns to their agents in the United tates would have met with a refusal.

The ammunition mentioned in the evidence of Mr. Carse was exported under licence to the Peruvian Government, for whom the Electric Boat Company were acting as accredited agents. It should be added that there was no question of any international restriction of the export of arms to Peru being enforced at the time when the transaction took place.

In the issue of licences for the export of arms the precaution is taken that such licences should only be issued on condition that the owner or shipper, if so required by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, shall produce to them proofs to their satisfaction that the goods were delivered to the destination to which those goods were consigned. It is a general rule that licences for the export of war material are only issued for exports to foreign Governments or to their accredited agents for delivery to them.