asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment passed on an Arab, Salem Mohamed Yaseen, at Aden, for concealing cases of small-pox; for what reason the Resident ordered the man's release after he had served five weeks of his sentence; whether he is aware that the objection of the Arabs and others in Aden to the notification of small-pox was due to the fact that the so-called contagious diseases hospital is a collection of huts several miles distant, that patients have to be carried on litters by human beings through the burning sun and with dust blown into mouths and eyes by the hot winds, and that subsequently it was decided that the penalty for breaches of the small-pox order should be a fine not exceeding 50 rupees; and whether he will make inquiries into the case of Salem Mohamed Yaseen, in view of the indignation of a large part of the Moslem community in Aden and district at the treat- ment he and others received at the hands of the medical officials during the recent small-pox scare at Aden?

I have received communications on this subject from the Anti-Vaccination League, but have no other knowledge of the facts alleged. I have seen, however, a Report by the Public Health Commissioner with the Government of India on the outbreak of small-pox at Aden which assumed menacing proportions in March last, and in view of the very serious situation with which the authorities were faced, mainly through concealment of cases, I should not feel justified in questioning the measures they found necessary to deal with it.

asked the Secretary of State for India how long the cases against certain persons accused of complicity in a serious crime at Lahore and of other persons accused of seduction and conspiracy at Meerut have been before the magistrate's court at each place; and whether he has any information showing when a decision is anticipated?

The preliminary inquiries into these two cases opened respectively before the magistrate at Lahore on 10th July and before the magistrate at Meerut on 12th June. At Meerut it is anticipated that the magistrate will be in a position to pass orders on the case by the second week in December. I cannot say anything as to Lahore.

When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of a preliminary inquiry he refers to the magisterial inquiry, and I take it that there will be no further inquiry before the case goes for trial, assuming that it is committed for trial?

I assume that, if a case is found against these people, they will be committed for trial.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Syt. V. S. Dandekar, assistant secretary of the United Provinces Congress Committee, has been sentenced to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.250 under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code; and the nature of the offence with which he was charged?

Mr. Dandekar was sentenced as stated in respect of a speech delivered by him at the youth conference in the Mainpuri District on the 10th June last.

asked the Secretary of State for India under what Act or regulation a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 has been passed on Ghazi Abdur Rahman, president of the Amritsar Congress Committee; and whether this man was proved guilty of any incitement to violence?

Mr. Rahman was convicted of an offence under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a speech at a meeting held to congratulate Bhagat Singh and Dutt on their conviction in the Assembly bomb case.

asked the Secretary of State for India the nature of the charges under which Syt. Madduri Annapurniah, editor of Congress, has been sentenced in Rajahmundry to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500 under Section 124 of the Indian Penal Code, and to one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code?

Mr. Annapurniah was charged under Sections 124A and 153A of the Indian Penal Code in respect of an article published in "Congress" entitled "A Thunderbolt of Fire."

Has not my right hon. Friend any recollection of similar attempts being made with regard to investigations in Ireland?

No, but in reply to that question, I have not seen the article of Mr. Annapurniah, and I believe it is possible that it deals with communal differences and not with political matters at all.

Was the attempt to suppress the "Skibbereen Eagle" successful?

That question does not arise.

How many sentences of two years would you have had if the same regulations were in force here?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the arrest, under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, of the president and secretary of the Provincial Congress Committee in Bengal and other prominent leaders of the Indian National Congress; whether there is any charge against these Indian leaders of acts of violence or incitement to violence; and whether he will take steps to stop such prosecutions?

In the first part of his question my hon. Friend correctly states the facts; regarding the second part it is alleged that in the procession in which the accused participated there were incitements to armed revolution. As regards the third part I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the nth November to my hon. Friend the Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway).

Can my right hon. Friend say whether, when he says in his statement that there were incitements, it is only on the authority of the officials in India, or whether it is on the authority of both sides?

The reason I used the word "alleged" is that the case is not yet tried.

asked the Secretary of State for India the number of persons under trial or in prison arrested or convicted under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code?

I have asked the Government of India by telegram to supply the information desired by my hon. and gallant Friend and will communicate with him as soon as I receive their reply.

asked the Secretary of State for India how many prosecutions have taken place in India for political offences during the last three months and how many convictions resulted?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on Monday last to the hon. and gallant Member for Southern Derbyshire (Major Pole) of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the Secretary of State for India how many Indian officers have been trained, since the inauguration of the present scheme, for commissions in His Majesty's Army; how many such gentlemen are at present under training in this country; whether a training college or colleges, exists in India for the training of Indian officers for His Majesty's Army; and, if not, whether it is proposed to establish such a college?

If my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the number of Indians trained at Sandhurst since King's Commissions were first granted, the answer to the first part is 112, and to the second 11. If he refers to the changes introduced last year as the result of the Indian Sandhurst Committee's Report, 18 Indians have qualified under the new scheme, of whom 7 are now at Sandhurst and 11 are due to join in January; no candidate has yet qualified for Woolwich. As regards the third and fourth parts, there is no Cadet College in India analogous to those in this country The policy in this matter was explained in a statement made by the Commander-in-Chief in the Indian Legislative Assembly on the 8th March, 1928, of which I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

In view of the very small number of cadets training as officers at Sandhurst, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it very necessary to establish a suitable college in India, and will he give attention to this very important matter?

I need hardly tell my hon. and gallant Friend that the matter is engaging my attention.

asked the Secretary of State for India in how many and in what parts of the British Empire the immigration of citizens of the Indian Empire is forbidden or restricted; whether he has recently received any complaints from India on the subject; and what action, if any, he proposes to take?

No part of the British Empire prohibits or restricts immigration on the ground that the immigrants are Indians. The other parts of the question therefore do not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for India the number of Indians repatriated from South Africa, in accordance with the Cape Town agreement, in the year 1928; and if he will inform the House as to the provision made by the Government of India for aiding these repatriates to a new life on their return to India?

The number of Indians repatriated from South Africa in 1928 under the provisions of the Assisted Emigration Scheme was 3,477. As regards the latter part of the question a special officer was appointed by the Madras Government in August, 1927, with the approval of the Government of India, to meet Indian repatriates returning from South Africa and to assist them in finding suitable employment.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the denaturalisation of 30 Indians in the United States of America subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court that Indians are ineligible for citizenship; and whether it is the intention to make any representations to the Government of the United States of America upon the matter?

I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers. I am afraid that no action which His Majesty's Government could take could affect the decision of the Supreme Court which is irrevocable.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether it would be possible to draw attention to the statement of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin), that the Indian people and our people are of the same race?

That is not a matter for my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received a report from India regarding the circular issued in the Punjab instructing the police to shadow prominent leaders of the Indian National Congress and to bring pressure on the people to refrain from attending the forthcoming session of the Congress at Lahore; and whether he will take steps to prevent official action against representative Indian leaders and organisations?

No, Sir. I have not yet received a reply from India. Perhaps my hon. Friend will repeat his question in a week's time?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received information of pending contracts for the supply of rolling stock, rails, and other material for Indian State railways; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure, if possible, that such contracts shall be placed with British steel and engineering firms in this country?

I understand that contracts for a large number of wagons and carriage underframes, also for bridge-work, are pending and that tenders for the supply of these materials are now or will shortly foe under the consideration of the Government of India. In accordance with the undertaking given by that Government to the Legislative Assembly tenders for these contracts were invited by advertisement and, unless for special reasons a tender by an Indian firm of manufacturers is preferred by the Government of India, the lowest satisfactory tender will be accepted. I am, therefore, not in a position to take any steps in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman continue to use his good offices in this respect as did his predecessors in office on behalf of the British manufacturer?

It is a very well-established practice, with which I certainly do not intend to interfere, to permit the Indian Government to do the best for India.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Lord Privy Seal to see whether something cannot be done to bring these orders to this country?

I am as mindful as anyone of the needs of this country, but the interests of India must predominate.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the best results for India are incompatible with the use of British goods?

I refer to the passage which states the decision taken on this matter after due consideration.

Is not this the same policy which was carried out by the last Government?

I do not know anything about that.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any information as to the manifesto addressed by the Executive Committee of the Communist International to the peoples of India urging them to rise and throw off British rule, etc.; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to prevent the circulation of this manifesto in India?

I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India was consulted respecting the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government by the British Government; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the reply thereto?

The Government of India were consulted and the action taken by His Majesty's Government accords with the views they expressed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement has been published in the official organ of the Soviet Government, and what action does he intend to take to stop this subversive propaganda?

I saw something in the newspapers about it, and the ordinary machinery continues to exist.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the declaration in the "Izvestia," the official organ of the Soviet Government, that the Soviet Government cannot speak for or undertake responsibility for the Comintern's activities, the Government will give the House an opportunity of reversing its decision as to the resumption of diplomatic relations?

No, Sir. I do not think that the majority of the House would desire such an opportunity.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not realise, as an outcome of all these questions, and without imputing any insincerity to the Soviet Government, that they are powerless to carry out these pledges; and that the pledges are therefore worthless?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the paper quoted by the hon. Member, the "Izvestia," is not in the same relation to the Soviet Government as the "Daily Mail" is to the party opposite?

I do not think I can add anything to the answer I have given. The question is whether the House should have another opportunity, and I do not think that the majority of the House desires it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman know, and will he inform the House, that the "Izvestia" is the official organ of the Soviet Government?

Answer!

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to further statements in the official Government Press at Moscow, issued under the direct authority of the Soviet Government, ridiculing the statement made in the British Parliament that the Soviet Government could or would restrict the activities of the Third International as a result of the proposed agreement with Great Britain, and further stating that the Third International had just issued an appeal to the workers in India urging them to greater revolutionary efforts; and whether he has made any representations to the Russian Soviet Government on the matter and with what result?

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I have already made in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain).

Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has said that this guarantee with regard to the Comintern, would not operate until the Ambassador had actually arrived and initialed the Protocol; and will he assure the House that, if matters similar to those referred to in my question arise, diplomatic relations will at once be severed?

The right hon. Gentleman has already covered that ground in answers to previous questions.

I am only asking the right hon. Gentleman if, after the Protocol has been initialed, similar action on the part of the Comintern should arise, he will take action to terminate diplomatic relations?

I have already answered that question this afternoon more than once.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an article published in "Izvestia," the official organ of the Soviet Government, on 5th November, and in particular to the statement that the agreement of 1924 and the Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, do not contain and could not contain a single word relating to the Comin- tern, and that the statement made by him to this House is a distortion of the agreement just concluded; and whether he will assure himself that the Soviet Government understands and accepts his interpretation of the agreement before effect is given to it by the exchange of Ambassadors?

As I have already explained in reply to previous Parliamentary Questions, I have seen various articles in the "Izvestia" and other newspapers, the general purport of which is as described by the right hon. Gentleman. Under paragraph 7 of the Protocol of the 3rd October, which was approved by the House on the 5th November, the Soviet Government have undertaken to confirm, on the day on which their Ambassador presents his credentials, the pledge with regard to propaganda contained in Article 16 of the 1924 Treaty. In accordance with the statements made by the Prime Minister and myself on various occasions, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to insist that the pledge which is thus provided for in the Protocol and which they regard as clearly applicable to the propagandist activities of the Comintern shall be observed both in the letter and the spirit. With regard to the last part of the question, the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the necessary formalities have already been completed and the two Ambassadors appointed, and that His Majesty's Government have thereby begun to put into effect the provisions of the Protocol as approved by the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it is safe to proceed with the exchange of Ambassadors when it is quite obvious that the Russian Soviet Government put a different interpretation upon the pledge, repeated from the 1924 Treaty, from that which has been placed upon it in this House by both the Prime Minister and himself?

I think I am under an obligation to seek to carry into effect the decision of this House, and, in the event of the pledge, which will be contained in the Agreement which will be handed to the Ambassador on the presentation of credentials, being broken, the responsibility will rest on His Majesty's Government as to the action that it must take.

Was not the assent given in this House on the basis of an understanding and acceptance by the Soviet Government of the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman told us they had accepted?

No. I think the position was quite plain to the House. I have stated a fact, and we must wait, and, when the pledge has been given, we must do our best to see that the pledge is carried out.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to prevent the Press of this country from issuing propaganda articles against Russia?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the conditions having been broken, this is not a very good occasion for delay?

I do not know to what the hon. and gallant Member refers, when he talks about conditions having been broken. The pledge has not yet been given. The pledge is only given on the day when the credentials are presented. That is in accordance with the statement made in this House and in accordance with the statement made in the Article of the Protocol which this House has already approved.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell us that in conversation that pledge was given?

No, I did not tell the House anything of the kind. I told the House that I had said to the representative of Russia that our Government would continue to interpret the pledge of Article 16 as covering the Third International.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it prudent solemnly to exchange this pledge, with the knowledge that the Soviet Government interpret it differently from himself, and repudiate his interpretation—

Answer!

I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman once said in this House: "Enough of this fooling"?

In view of the fact that there is evidence of great attempts at disturbance in Vaious parts of the Empire at this very moment, will the right hon. Gentleman make perfectly certain that the position in South Africa and India is cleared up before he takes this step in regard to Russia?

I have already stated the Government's position on the issue to the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is keeping the pledge in the spirit when the pledge is about to be signed and the other side do all that they can to break it in anticipation?

The pledge has not yet been given, as I have stated to the House this afternoon.

You are trying to fool the House of Commons.

"Withdraw"! "Name"!

On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. and gallant Member on the other side to impute falsehood to the Foreign Secretary?

"Fooling the House."

It is out of order to impute any motive of false intentions to any hon. Member.

If it be out of order for an hon. Member to use an expression of that kind, will you ask the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) to withdraw the expression?

On a point of Order. If I have given offence to hon. Members opposite, I desire to withdraw my remarks, and say that the right hon. Gentleman has grossly deceived the House of Commons.

On a point of Order. Is it right that a Minister, in replying to a question, should be charged with grossly deceiving the House?

That expression is not in order. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) will withdraw the remark.

If the remark was out of order, I withdraw it and substitute the word "deceive" the House of Commons.

That was the remark which I asked the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw.

On a point of Order. Is it your Ruling that it is out of order to use that phrase at Question Time, and, further, may I respectfully ask whether Ministers have not constantly been charged by the Opposition, for at least the last 100 years, with deceiving the country?

These differences in expression are rather difficult to define.

I desire at once to say that if my remarks are regarded by you as un-Parliamentary, I will withdraw them and will substitute the word "misled."

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Government have agreed to the request of the Dominion Governments that the guarantees against propaganda should be made applicable; to them?

No, Sir, not yet. I am now engaged upon this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any guarantee against propaganda in India has been given by the Soviet Government?

Yes, Sir. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the terms of paragraph 7 of the Protocol of the 3rd October and Article 16 of the 1924 Treaty.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government of India have given any indication of the nature of the guarantees they require from the Soviet Government in this matter?

No, I do not think any very definite indication has been given. I think I replied to a question the other day that the Dominions had sent a request to have the pledge with regard to propaganda applied to them.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence at all that the Soviet Government intend to withdraw their propagandists from these parts of the Empire; has he any evidence of their having shown any good will?

That is going over ground which we have gone over already.

rose —

The right hon. Gentleman has given a good many answers on this question already.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will obtain a Report of the Soviet propaganda that is fomenting trouble amongst natives in South Africa and point out to the Soviet Government that this constitutes a breach of the protocol agreement?

The question of possible Soviet propaganda in the Union of South Africa is a matter for His Majesty's Government in the Union, from whom no communication on the subject has been received.

Is it not a fact that the present Government have intercepted communications and forwarded them to the South African Government?

I think that question had better be put down.

Would it be for the Government of the Union of South Africa to complain direct to the Soviet Government or to complain through this Government?

They have already appealed, I think, to His Majesty's Government to take up the matter with regard to general propaganda; but this is a specific instance of something which is said to have been done in South Africa, and that is the point upon which I am informing the hon. and gallant Member that no request has yet been made by them.

In cases of that kind, is it for the Dominion Government concerned to complain through His Majesty's Government in Great Britain, or to complain direct to the Soviet Government?

I think if the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the answer which I have given, he had better put a question on the Paper, and I will consider it.

rose —

On a point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Members opposite to put these questions, reflecting upon the good faith of a friendly Power? Is it not the case that on previous occasions in this House Mr. Speaker has refused questions on the ground that they reflected upon the good faith of a friendly Power?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many visas will be granted in connection with the establishment of a Soviet embassy in London; will these visas give diplomatic immunity to the holder only or to members of his or her household; and is there any limit to the number of persons affected by each visa?

The members of the Soviet Diplomatic Mission to this country will receive precisely the same facilities as regards visas as the members of any other Diplomatic Mission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether diplomatic immunity granted to representatives of the Soviet Government in this country will be extended to cover their wives, families, and servants?

In accordance with custom, general diplomatic immunity will be accorded to the Soviet Ambassador, his family and domestic servants, and to members of his staff provided they are not British subjects, but not to the domestic servants of members of his staff.

Is there to be any limit as to the number of servants and other employés in connection with this embassy?

That point is not raised in the question, but I would say in reply to it, that the same limit will apply in this case as that which applies to other diplomatic staffs.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is that limit?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, pending a definite undertaking by the Soviet Government both on its own behalf and on behalf of the Third International regarding the provision of funds for subversive activities in this country, he intends to modify in any way the doctrine of diplomatic immunity in respect of correspondence and packages passing between the Government at Moscow and its representative in London?

No, Sir. The resumption of full diplomatic relations naturally implies that the Soviet Ambassador will receive the usual facilities in respect of his diplomatic correspondence.

How many bags will he have?

Three bags full.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether upon the resumption of full diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government, British commercial attachés will be posted to commercial and industrial centres in the Union of Socialist and Soviet Republics?

It is not the practice to appoint commercial attachés to industrial centres, but to the diplomatic mission in a country. This procedure will be adopted in the present instance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that only 52½ per cent. of the admitted claims of British subjects within the Turkish Empire in respect of losses arising from War damages has been paid; and when His Majesty's Government propose to pay the outstanding balance of 47½ per cent. of the assessed amounts of such claims out of the reparation moneys already received or to be received from Germany?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, it has repeatedly been stated by successive Governments that there can be no increase in the amount already provided by His Majesty's Government for compensation for damage by enemy action, and I am not prepared to reopen the matter.

If further sums are received, will the Treasury see that the claims of these unfortunate people who have lost so much in respect of War damage are dealt with?

I am afraid that is a hypothetical question, and I cannot answer it.

It is stated in the question:

"reparation moneys already received or to be received from Germany,"

and, if any further moneys are received, will the hon. Gentleman see that the claims of these people are dealt with, as they have already suffered very severe losses?

I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to the situation in Austria; and whether the desire of His Majesty's Government, in view of the danger to British interests, for a peaceful and constitutional issue of the crisis has been communicated to His Majesty's Minister in Vienna?

Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Minister in Vienna is in possession of the views of His Majesty's Government and is keeping me fully informed as to the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any response will be made to President Hoover's declaration with reference to the immunity from seizure of food ships in time of war?

In his Armistice day address, President Hoover emphasised that in suggesting the immunity of food ships in time of war he did not intend his words to be interpreted as embodying official proposals to any nation. In these circumstances no answer is called for by His Majesty's Government. I may say, however, that the President's proposal will, of course, be carefully examined by His Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether representations concerning the trial of Dr. Ullitz have been made by the German minority in Poland to the League of Nations?

As my right hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, a petition from the Deutscher Volksbund protesting against the arrest of Dr. Ullitz was discussed by the Council of the League of Nations in March last. I have seen no representations to the League regarding the subsequent trial of this gentleman.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Ullitz's trial has not yet taken place, and will it be possible that that trial may be watched over by the League of Nations, in the interests of the minority?

I understand that the trial has taken place and that no representations have been addressed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make inquiries as to whether that is so in order to avoid misunderstanding?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many diplomatic visas are in existence for each of the embassies in London; is more than one person covered by each visa; and, if so, how many?

The numbers of permanent diplomatic visas issued to embassies of those countries with which no agreement for the reciprocal abolition of visas has been concluded, are as follow:—

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, in view of the fact that the communication addressed to foreign Powers in March, 1922, denned the special relations between the British Empire and Egypt, which other Powers were required to respect, as being those referred to in the Declaration of 28th February, 1922, in which His Majesty's Government accepted the responsibility of protecting foreign interests and minorities in Egypt, he will state whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to replace this definition by an Anglo-Egyptian Treaty which relieves them of any such responsibility; if so, what is the character of the special relations between the British Empire and Egypt in this matter which other Powers will in future be required to respect; and, if not, under what Clause of the proposed Treaty does His Majesty's Government retain a responsibility as towards foreign Powers for the protection of their nationals;

(2) whether the conclusion of an Anglo-Egyptian Treaty in the terms offered by His Majesty's Government to the Egyptian Government will involve any change in the status quo as regards the position of other Powers in Egypt itself; and whether the communication addressed to foreign Powers in March, 1922, will remain in full force and effect?

It is His Majesty's Government's policy to re- place the Declaration of the 28th February, 1922, by an Anglo-Egyptian Treaty which would re-define the responsibilities of the High Contracting Parties in regard to the protection both of foreign interests and of minorities in Egypt. The proposals made to that end have been laid before the House in the White Paper, Command 3376. The character of the special relations which would exist between Great Britain and Egypt in the event of a Treaty based on those proposals being ratified, and such changes as the Treaty would produce in the position of other Powers in Egypt, are clearly indicated in the proposals themselves. The communication addressed to foreign Powers in March, 1922, in so far as it represents a general statement of principle, would not be superseded by the conclusion of the Treaty, but the conditions resulting from the Treaty, including the fact that Egpyt, which is already a party to the Peace Pact, would have become a member of the League of Nations, would obviously affect its practical application.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in reply to a question last Monday, he said that no new communication would be addressed to foreign Powers, because the old communication of March, 1922, had already contemplated the Treaty? How does he reconcile that answer with the answer which he has given to-day?

If the Noble Lord will permit me, I do not see any inconsistency between the answer given last Monday and the answer which I have given to-day.

Is no new communication necessary because the old communication stands or because the other Powers are not now to be asked to recognise any special relations between this country and Egypt?

I answered last week that the communication was not necessary, because the communication sent in March, 1922, contemplated at some time or other the position that I have stated this afternoon.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon he expects to hear from the present Egyptian Government as to whether they accept this Treaty or not?

The House will probably remember that I made a statement that the proposals had to be submitted to the Egyptian people. They had then to be accepted by the new Parliament in Egypt; then they had to be submitted to this House, and when the Treaty was signed, it had to be submitted to this House a second time for ratification. As the right hon. Member knows, the Egyptian elections are now pending.

May I ask whether in July the right hon. Gentleman did not inform; the House that there was no fundamental departure from the policy laid down by previous Governments, and whether this does not constitute a first-class departure from that policy? I do not say that there is any intention to mislead.

If the hon. and gallant Member will read the speech which the Prime Minister made in July, he will see that he stated that we could not be bound in every degree to existing conditions.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman proposes that this House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the Treaty?

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman must address that question to the Leader of the House, who controls the fixing of the business. As far as I am concerned, the sooner the better.

I was not asking for the exact date. I think the right hon. Gentleman understands me, and I understand him. He will not wait to bring it to the House until it has passed through all the process in Egypt, to which he has alluded?

No. If the right hon. Gentleman will make application through the usual channels and time can be provided, I am willing to give the House the first opportunity to discuss these proposals before they are put into the Treaty, and then bring the Treaty up a second time for ratification.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communication from the United States Government offering to abolish or reduce the visa fees on passports of visitors to and from the United States; and, if so, what reply has been made thereto?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received representations as to the visa fees now charged on passports of visitors to and from the United States; and whether he will offer reciprocal abolition or reduction in these fees so that they should no longer exceed the fees charged by the principal Continental countries of Europe?

No communication has been received from the United States Government upon this subject since the correspondence contained in Command Paper No. 2746 of 1926 took place. Representations have, however, been received from various bodies interested as to the desirability of abolishing these fees. As the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis) was informed on the 5th instant, and my hon. Friend, the Member for Kennington (Mr. Matters), on the nth instant, the matter is under active consideration, and arrangements are being made to convene an interdepartmental committee to consider the question in all its bearings at the earliest possible date.

Is it necessary for us to wait until communications have been received from the United States; and could not the Government take some action by approaching the United States in this matter, in view of the fact that these visa fees are five times as heavy as visa fees for Continental countries?

I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer which I have already given.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now make a statement as to the action the Government propose taking to abolish the seven years' limit with regard to ex-service men?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is able to make any statement about the consideration of claims made in respect of War disability by ex-service men more than seven years after the termination of their active service in the Great War?

The operation of the seven years' time limit on the making of fresh claims for disablement, and of the arrangements made by the late Government for dealing with certain cases affected by it has been closely investigated by me since I assumed office.

At the present date, more than 10 years since the men were demobilised, cases in which disablement by War service can now be justifiably claimed for the first time are, as is admitted on all hands, few in number and will necessarily become fewer. Old War wounds, thought to have been healed but giving trouble for the first time since the War, are readily identifiable, and are already dealt with both by medical treatment and pension. New claims in respect of some ailment or disease are the more numerous, but comparatively very few cases are found on investigation to be genuinely traceable to War service.

The situation is one that requires to be met by provision for a small and diminishing number of genuine cases only. These cases require to be dealt with on different lines from those that were suitable at an earlier period of pensions administration.

The Government intend taking such action in regard to the time limit as will secure "that all claims shall still be considered." The arrangements made by the late Government do not, in my opinion, fully secure this object, and therefore the Government have decided to amend and extend them in important respects. For the future, the arrangements for dealing with belated claims for disablement will be such as to ensure the following essential points:

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his very long reply to my question, may I ask if every publicity will be given to it, so that those men who are claimants will have an opportunity of knowing their position?

Yes, Sir. The necessary communications will he directed to the area offices and to the War Pensions Committees.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect the arrangements he has just mentioned constitute an advance upon the action taken by the last Government? He said that not enough had been done by the late Government, but will he kindly say what —[ Interruption. ].

Answer!

I have not the slightest abjection to answering the hon. Member. The very important points of difference, as I have been able to gather them since I have been in the Department, will be these: There will be no rejection of claims on the ground of the time limit; every case will be invited to give evidence, and all evidence will be fully investigated; and full opportunity will be given for investigation through the War Pensions Committees and the Ministry direct, on the top of which we are inviting the assistance of independent medical opinion.

Is it not a fact that no case was turned down by the late Government—[ Interruption ]. Is it not the case that many hundreds of cases were considered, although they had gone beyond the seven years' limit, by the late Government?

I believe I have fully answered the questions on the Paper, but, if there are other points which require investigation, I shall be very pleased to give an answer if questions are put on the Paper. On the point which the hon. Member has raised, it is true that numbers of cases were considered.

When the right hon. Gentleman refers to independent medical experts appointed by the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, does that apply to London headquarters alone, or are the provinces also included?

They will deal with all cases which are submitted.

Is it not a fact that all cases under the late Government normally were turned down under the time limit?

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it is intended to carry on with the previous policy regarding the British Industries Fairs or whether he will consider holding fairs in great provincial cities other than Birmingham; and if he is aware that the Civic and Empire Week recently held at Hull, when valuable assistance was given by his Department, was successful?

I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Government have already announced their intention to appoint a committee to investigate the present situation in regard to the British Industries Fair and to consider what means can be adopted to increase its utility to British trade. This committee, which is at present being formed, will no doubt consider whether it is desirable to open sections of the Fair in cities other than London and Birmingham. In reply to the last part of the question, my hon. Friend, the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, is well aware of the great success of the Civic and Empire Week recently held at Hull and of its value to the work being done by the Empire Marketing Board.

Is it not a fact that the whole cost of the organisation and maintenance of the Birmingham Fair was defrayed by Birmingham people themselves, and was no charge on the Exchequer?

Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole cost of the Hull Fair was defrayed by the Hull people?

Those are questions upon which I have no information.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the appointment of a Minister of Commerce who shall personally visit our Dominions and mandated territories for the purpose of laying before them the advantages of trading with Great Britain and increasing our export trade?

Opportunity will continue to be taken by individual Ministers to urge the importance of inter-Imperial trade whenever they visit the territories concerned. But such visits ought not to be treated as a matter of routine. Careful consideration is being given by my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade to strengthening the existing services of his Department with a view to rendering the greatest possible assistance to our overseas trade both within the Empire and elsewhere.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that better results are reached by other visits than were reached by the Lord Privy Seal?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will introduce legislation to compel a certain percentage of British wheat-flour to be used in every British loaf?

I have considered the hon. and gallant Member's proposal, but I am convinced that it is not practicable. I am hopeful, however, that the object which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind will be achieved by the extended use of all-English National Mark flour, which is now on the market and which makes an excellent loaf.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why it is not practicable, seeing that it is beneficial both to the farmer and to the consumer, and seeing also that it does not conflict with either Protectionist or Free Trade principles?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put down another question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have this British wheat-flour used in the Army and Navy?

asked the Minister of Agriculture the cost of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease for the year ended December, 1928, and for the 10 years preceding 1928?

With the permission of my hon. Friend, I will circulate the reply, which contains a number of figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The information required is not available in respect of calendar years but the cost in the year ended 31st March, 1929, and in the 10 previous financial years was as under:

The above figures exclude headquarters administrative expenditure of the Ministry and administrative and other expenditure of local authorities.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that during the present outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease the experimental farm, in East Sussex, of the Department of Agriculture was among those infected; and how many cattle were found to be infected and how many were destroyed?

An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease occurred on the 3rd instant on Wales Farm, Plumpton, Lewes, belonging to the East Sussex Agricultural Committee. Two cows were found to be affected, and 114 cattle, two sheep, and 122 pigs were slaughtered.

Is the Minister aware that a farmer within three-quarters of a mile of the State farm, who took the precaution of folding his cattle and putting them indoors, escaped the infection altogether, and cannot that policy be considered as an alternative to destruction?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will give him exact information.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that all possible steps of a scientific nature are being taken to endeavour to locate this disease in order to avoid the present system of slaughter.

Oh, yes; everything possible is being done.