asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any particulars and can state the number of British subjects that have been captured by brigands and held to ransom in China during the previous three years?

So far as I can ascertain, 18 British subjects have been captured by brigands in China since the beginning of 1927, and five others have been killed.

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether they were held to ransom and whether any ransom has been paid.

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make it a condition, before full diplomatic relations are arrived at with the Soviet Government, that members of the Ogpu will not be permitted to enter this country?

The answer is in the negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the last few weeks the First Secretary of the Soviet Legation in Paris has had to break into adjoining premises in order to avoid capture, and does he think that it is desirable—

That question does not arise.

Seeing that the renewal of diplomatic relations with Russia is most passionately and enthusiastically advocated by the North Battersea Conservative Association, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether that body has become a branch of the Third Internationale?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state when the exchange of diplomatic representatives between this country and the Soviet Government of Russia will take place?

No, Sir. Arrangements are being completed as rapidly as possible, but I am not yet in a position to give the exact dates upon which the respective Ambassadors will enter upon their duties.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether any conversations are in progress with a view to eliciting an explanation from the Soviet Government of their declaration on the policy which he proposes to ratify?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in his discussions with the representatives of the Soviet Republic of Russia, any reference was made to financial assistance; and, if so, will he state the nature of those discussions?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has information as to the policy adopted by the United States of America towards the Soviet Republic of Russia; and is he aware of any recent change of policy?

I have no information on this point beyond that to be gathered from the pronouncements made at various times by members of the United States Government. I am not aware of any recent change in the policy of the United States Government towards the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that he might follow with advantage the policy of the United States in order to secure more trade?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether members of the British Embassy at Moscow will enjoy the same diplomatic privileges as will be granted to members of the Soviet Embassy in this country?

The staff of His Majesty's Embassy at Moscow will enjoy the usual diplomatic privileges.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the servants of our previous representatives in Russia, who are now serving terms in Siberia, are granted their freedom?

I do not see how that matter arises on this question. In reply to a previous question by the ex-Foreign Secretary, I stated that the matter was being dealt with.

The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply, said that these servants would enjoy all the usual privileges in Moscow. Will he now say whether they will enjoy the same privileges as those who are in London?

They will enjoy the privileges which are usually extended in such circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Government is affording facilities at Moscow for the acquisition of accommodation for the British Embassy; and whether the accommodation provided will be self-contained or be in a building devoted in part to other purposes?

I am unable to make any comprehensive statement until I have received a report on the question from His Majesty's Ambassador after his arrival at Moscow, and his inspection of the present premises leased to His Majesty's Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman insist upon the plate and other property, which was stolen from our previous Embassy, being restored?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is prepared to support the adoption of a League flag by the League of Nations?

The question has never been raised officially, and I cannot say what would be the attitude of His Majesty's Government in such a hypothetical matter.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that an international competition on this subject has been organised by the League of Nations societies of various countries, and will he give the matter sympathetic consideration when it does arise?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the discrimination against the German minority being carried out in Latvia; and whether he will raise the matter at the next meeting of the Council of the League?

I presume my hon. Friend refers to the recent Latvian law, abolishing the right of former soldiers of the so-called "Landeswehr" to apply for grants of land. If this law can be regarded as infringing the provisions of the Minorities Treaties, as to which I express no opinion, a petition against it will doubtless be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations, and, as a member of that Council, I shall of course give it my most careful consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now decided to issue a White Paper explaining precisely the changes made in the rights and obligations of the United Kingdom by the Government's adherence to the optional clause?

Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have decided to Publish a White Paper on the subject, and the necessary steps are being taken, but I cannot at present state when the Paper will be issued.

Will the Foreign Secretary take care to publish the White Paper, not on the eve of the Debate, but a certain time before, so that hon. Members may see it?

I shall certainly undertake to publish it in good time before the Debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to state the amount of the compensation awarded to the officers and crew of the "I'm Alone," a vessel on the Canadian register, which was sunk outside territorial waters by an American Government vessel?

No, Sir. Under arrangements arrived at between His Majesty's Government in Canada and the Government of the United States, this case is to be submitted to arbitration under Article 4 of the Liquor Convention with the United States of 1924, but no hearing has yet taken place.

Has the right hon. Gentleman afforded any assistance to the Canadian Government in dealing with this apparently high-handed action?

asked the Secretary of State for. Foreign Affairs whether, now that His Majesty's representative at Warsaw has become an Ambassador, it is proposed to take any steps towards purchasing a suitable building as an embassy?

The present house is held on lease until 1935, and no change is contemplated in the meantime.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the British Ambassador in Rome communicated to Italy a list of the subjects to be discussed at the Naval Conference assembling on 21st January, in accordance with the Note of 7th October, inviting Italy to the Conference?

While no action in the sense outlined by the hon. and gallant Member has been taken by His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome, the Italian Ambassador in London was informed on the 12th November that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were considering the question of the agenda of the London Naval Conference and that a statement on the subject would be communicated to the interested Powers as soon as possible.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when any statement as to these matters will be communicated to this House?

That question should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Italian Government were advised of the points that were going to be raised at the Conference; and is he not aware that it has been made the subject of complaint in the Italian Press that they were informed so late?

I am not aware of that fact.

asked the Prime Minister the composition of the British and Empire representation at the forthcoming Five-Power Conference?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Monday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Sir C. Cayzer).

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that American tourists can now visit Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and France at a total cost of two dollars, while the cost of a visa to visit this country is eight dollars; and whether, seeing that this charge deters many visitors from coming to Great Britain, he can see his way to accept the suggestion of the United States of reciprocal abolition, or a reduction to a nominal figure, of visa fees on passports of visitors to and from the United States, thereby making this charge more uniform with those obtaining in other European countries?

I can only refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on the 18th November to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne). I hope shortly to be in a position to announce the decision of His Majesty's Government in this matter.

Are they sympathetic on the subject?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that certain hostile acts have been committed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics against the Republic of China, both parties having signed the Kellogg Pact, he will consider bringing this breach of the pact before the other Governments that have attached their signatures to the pact, with a view of bringing about a peaceful settlement?

The hon. Member will be aware that the Kellogg Pact provides no machinery for dealing with any case of infraction, or apparent infraction, of its terms, merely stating in the preamble that:

"Any Signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war shall be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty."

I understand that the Chinese Government may appeal to the League of Nations. The Covenant of the League provides machinery for dealing with such an appeal, and I think it will be best to await developments in this direction in the first place.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any communications have passed between the United States Government and His Majesty's Government on this subject, and whether any suggestion was made by the United States Government for common representations to Russia against the breach of the Kellogg Pact?

In the early days of this matter, communications did pass, and, as I informed the House at the time, I replied intimating that we were prepared to participate in any joint action that would be calculated to bring this dispute to a peaceful termination. Since then no further communication has been received, but I think a communication has come through a telegram from another Government, and, if joint action can be taken, we are prepared to participate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would not be proper for His Majesty's Government to initiate further communications with the United States Government on this subject?

I can only say that the matter was under consideration this very morning, and, as I have intimated, we are prepared to take part in joint action. I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion as to whether I ought to initiate such action.

Is it not the case that one of the difficulties lies in the fact that Russia is not a member of the League of Nations, and that the same applies to America; and is it not possible through other machinery to take action?

The action that I was contemplating was not action associated with the League in the first in stance, but joint action by the signatories, of the Kellogg Pact, who include both Russia and America.

Is it not the fact that Chinese committed hostile acts against Soviet Russia, and are His Majesty's Government going to bring any pressure to bear on the Chinese Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has made any representations to the Government of the United States of America in regard to the advisability of a tariff holiday; and with what result?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not, therefore, arise.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed increase in the United States tariff is calculated to do considerable injury to our export trade, and, consequently, to the employment of our people; and does he not consider it his duty to make representations on the matter?

The hon. Member should put his question to the proper Department, which is the Board of Trade.

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he will consider the appointment to the Empire Marketing Board and some of its sub-committees of representatives of those employed in retail distribution?

My noble Friend does not feel able to add; to the membership of the Empire Marketing Board in the manner suggested, but he will consider carefully possible alternative methods for securing closer touch between the Board's work and those employed in retail distribution.

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the amount spent during each of the last three years by the Empire Marketing Board on entertaining, including lunches at the Savoy and other London hotels?

The total expenditure brought to account in each of the last three financial years in respect of entertainment provided by the Empire Marketing Board is £341 6s. 4d. in 1927– 28; £741 16s. 4d. in 1928–29; and £140 13s. 11d. in 1929–30. In all cases arrangements were made through the machinery of the Government Hospitality Fund.

Is very extravagant expenditure still going on under the present Government, or has there been any change?

Is it the case that only Empire food and wines are used on these occasions?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the last figures, he will see that we are economising.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if any communications have passed recently on the subject of Imperial preference between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions; and, if so, if it is intended to publish these communications?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Prime Minister gave on this subject to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on 5th November.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to the lower-deck pensioners by the fact that their pensions are paid quarterly, he can see his way to introduce regulations whereby these pensioners will receive their pensions at more regular intervals?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 6th November to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) [OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 1025–26].

In view of the fact that these men have to pay their rent and purchase their goods weekly, cannot the Department consider making the same arrangements as other Government Departments?

In view of the fact that these pensions are paid in advance, would not the suggestion made in this question be generally unpopular?

The second supplementary question has answered the first.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board of Selection of candidates for the rank of mate includes an officer promoted through this channel; if not, will he consider the advisability of taking the necessary steps to provide for the inclusion of such an officer on this board; and is he aware that, of a total of 415 executive mates promoted, only three have been promoted to the rank or relative rank of commander?

With regard to the first part of the question, no such provision exists, nor am I convinced of its desirability, but, as I stated previously, the whole question of promotion from the Lower deck is under consideration. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave on the 6th November.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the fact that, of 415 executive mates promoted, only three have been promoted to the rank of commander indicates that there is something radically wrong with the method of promotion?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend cannot have read carefully the answers given to previous questions on this subject. Otherwise, he would have seen that 231 of the 415 have been retired under special retirement schemes, and also that a large proportion of executive mates are still within the promotion zone.

If the right hon. Gentleman had looked at the question which I originally put, he would have found that I was perfectly correct.

Are not representations being constantly made to the right hon. Gentleman that the mate scheme is not working satisfactorily, and will he appoint a Committee to go into the matter thoroughly?

As I said in answer to a previous question, the question of promotion from the lower deck is under consideration, and there is no need, so far as I can see at present, to appoint another Committee. The facts are well known and are being considered.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any considerable modifications were made in the plans for the new naval base and arsenal at Singapore since the scheme was inaugurated and prior to his recent decision to slow down work on the base; if so, can he state briefly what the modifications were; and when the Governments of the Dominions and Colonies concerned were consulted as to these previous modifications?

No considerable modification has taken place in the Singapore base scheme since its inception, but a modification of the programme of its development was announced when the Navy Estimates were introduced in 1927 (OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1927; column 1680). This was decided upon in 1926, after a prolonged investigation starting from the time that the late Government assumed office, and was duly laid before the Dominion Prime Ministers at the Imperial Conference in October of that year. There was no consultation with the Colonial Governments concerned. During the period of the investigation, preliminary work was being proceeded with, but it was found, when the situation was reviewed in 1927, that the date for completion of the base could not be adhered to without increased cost. A delay of up to two years was accepted by the late Government. No prior communication was made to the Dominions or Colonies in question.

Does that mean that the Dominion Prime Ministers were simply informed of the decision, and that their Governments were not asked to approve it or not?

In the case of the latter part of my answer, yes.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any orders for material have been cancelled owing to the slowing down of work on the Singapore base, and what orders have been postponed?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The suspension of various items of work will result in certain orders for material not being placed at present.

Does that mean that there was a certain amount of work which would have given employment which is no longer being given?

That may be the case to a small degree, but a good deal of the work which will have to be suspended is work that would have been done in the East.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that useful work like engineering work for the Singapore Dock is better to stop unemployment than Bills for doles such as the Government have just brought in?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can estimate the cost to the Exchequer of delaying the work recently in progress on the naval base at Singapore; and whether that cost will be borne exclusively by the Home Government?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies which I gave on the 20th November [OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 463] to the hon. Members for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) and Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny).

May I ask for a reply to the second part of my question?

I think that my previous answers cover that. It would be quite improper to give answers as to details of that kind before the negotiations which are taking place have been concluded.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least give us an under- taking that the Government will not ask the Colonies and Dominions to pay for slowing down the work?

I have nothing to add to my previous answer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, when contributions towards the Singapore naval base were promised by certain Colonies and Dominions, any conditions were attached by them to the grants?

The contribution promised by the Federated Malay States was intended to facilitate expeditious procedure with the necessary portions of the scheme as a whole, and was conditional upon the decision to proceed with the work on the base remaining unaltered. The contributions promised by the other Dominion and Colonial Governments concerned, namely, New Zealand and Hong Kong, were subject to no express conditions, but doubtless to an implied condition that the money would be spent on the development of the base. The presentation of the site for the base, which was given by the Government of the Straits Settlements, is the subject of a Trust under which, in the event of the land or any portion of it ceasing to be required for the purpose of a naval base, such land or portion of it is to revert to the Straits Settlements' Government, who would pay to the Admiralty the amount (if any) whereby the market value of the same, inclusive of all works, buildings and machinery executed or erected thereon, exceeds the estimated value of the land exclusive of the works, buildings and machinery.

Is it not quite clear that, when the Colonies and Dominions gave this grant, it was on the express understanding that the dock was to be completed, and are not the Government taking the money under false pretences?

The money that has been taken has been taken by the predecessors of the present Government. As to the future, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer already given by the Prime Minister.

Is the Federated Malay States a Dominion or a Colony?

Have any protests been received from any of the Dominons who have subscribed money towards the cost of the dock or not?

That question has already been answered.

asked the Prime Minister whether the postponement of the work on the base at Singapore is being confined to the naval base; and whether there has been any change in policy in respect to work on the air base there?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider giving establishment to all dockyardsmen as a right after a period of probation not exceeding five years?

The answer is in the negative.

Does not the Admiralty think that it would be desirable to give security of employment to national civil servants in the dockyards, as in the Post Office?

That is not quite the question that is on the Paper.

That is the question, exactly.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any proposals from trade unions concerned with regard to the provision of alternative work in the dockyards; and what his attitude is towards these proposals?

Proposals have been received and are being given attention.

Does that include private dockyards as well as Government dockyards?

My answer refers to Government dockyards.

Is no provision made for private dockyards?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state the nature of the plans for dealing with unemployment in the royal dockyards as the result of the naval construction policy of the Government?

The volume of employment in the royal dockyards has not been reduced as a result of the naval construction policy of the Government. The hon. Member's question, therefore, does not arise.

Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is not foreseeing the situation that may arise?

I think my previous answer to a Member for a dockyard constituency covers that point.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many boys and young seamen have been given special education facilities since 1919 to enable them to compete at the examinations for special entry cadets; and what steps he proposes to take to increase these facilities for promotion when young from the lower deck?

I regret that no information is available as to the number of boys and young seamen given special facilities for the purpose mentioned. In view of the changes made in the mate scheme in 1920 and 1923, under which promotion at an earlier age was made possible, the Board decided that no extension in these facilities was necessary or desirable, and no reason is seen for altering, that decision.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what period of time is required to train a cadet under the Osborne and Dartmouth scheme and under the special entry scheme, respectively; and what is the cost to the State of training a cadet under each scheme?

The approximate times required to train naval cadets entered through the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, and the special entry are seven years, 10 months and four-and-a- half years respectively. The net cost of training a cadet at Dartmouth is about £650 for the full period of three years eight months, and that of training a special entry cadet in the Cadets' Training Ship about £356 for the 12 mouths. course. Particulars of the cost for the remainder of the training are not readily available, and could not be obtained without undue expenditure of time and labour, but the amount per head is approximately the same for both classes of cadets.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to two recent articles contributed to the "Times" newspaper by an admiral on the active list on smaller navies; were these articles submitted to the Admiralty before publication; and do they represent the views of the Admiralty?

On a point of Order. Is it in order for the name of a newspaper to appear in a question?

I do not see anything out of order in the question.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second and third parts in the negative.

Does the article in question reflect the views of the Government, and will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister that, if views of that kind are put forward by our representatives at the forthcoming Conference, it will lead the country into nothing but danger and difficulty?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the writer in question speaks for a very large section of naval opinion?

My answer to the second and third parts of the question was in the negative, that the view expressed is not the view of the Admiralty, nor of the Government.

May I have an answer to my question?

We are quite well aware at the Admiralty of the views held by this Admiral.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what the intention of the Admiralty is regarding the Christmas holidays; whether the yards will be open on Friday and Saturday, 27th and 28th December; and whether employés may take any unexpired portion of their leave on these dates?

The reply to the first part of the question is that the yards will be closed on Christmas Day and Boxing Day, and to the second part is in the affirmative and to the third part also is in the affirmative, subject to the exigencies of the Service.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Federated Malay States Government has decided, in order to conserve the resources of tin, that no further application for mining land will be considered; whether such a policy was inspired by, or has the approval of, His Majesty's Government; and whether the embargo will apply to prospecting licences?

The decision is substantially as described by the hon. Member. Rights under existing prospecting licences will not be affected. My Noble Friend took no part in this decision of the Federated Malay States Government, but, as at present advised, he sees no reason to disapprove.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to uphold that decision, seeing that everyone in that part of the world thinks that it is a wise decision?

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the fauna of the Federated Malay States is rapidly becoming scarcer owing to unrestricted shooting, he will take steps to see that restrictive measures are imposed to preserve and safeguard big game throughout Malaya?

Measures for the protection of the wild fauna of Malaya already exist. Apart from the game reserves there are forest reserves in the Federated Malay States exceeding one-fifth part of the whole country, which constitute a sanctuary for wild animals since indiscriminate shooting is not allowed in forest reserves.

Arising out of the reply, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he will make inquiries, because the existing machinery is quite inadequate, and there is a great fear that the big game in that country will disappear altogether before long; and now that we have a new Governor will he make representations to him upon the subject?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the reserves that are at fault, but that the machinery for effectively seeing that the law is carried out has broken down, and that more powers ought to be given to the game wardens?

If the measures already taken are not satisfactory, I will make some inquiry into the matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, seeing that both Jews and Arabs have been asked to produce documents showing their ancient rights at the Wailing Wall and that the Arabs have produced documents showing their rights and that the Rabbinate has failed to be able to do so, he will take steps to see that the rights of the Arabs are safeguarded;

(2) whether, seeing that under the new instructions in regard to the use of the Wailing Wall the Jews may now bring a stand containing lamps, wash-basins, and at certain times tables and prayer-mats, that this has had the effect of turning this spot into an open-air synagogue, and that this temporary arrangement has caused great annoyance to the Arabs, he will take steps to revert to the status quo as soon as possible?

I cannot emphasise too strongly that the rights of the Moslems are in no danger. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that the temporary regulations turn the spot into a synagogue. Their object was merely to regulate procedure, on the basis of established practice, pending a final settlement of the whole question. For the rest, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to him of 13th November.

Will not the hon. Gentleman revert to the status quo, which was agreeable to both parties, or is he now trying to shift the burden from the Colonial Office on to the League of Nations and getting them to judge the whole matter?

Is it not a fact that the status quo was not quite so agreeable to the Jews when they were being massacred?

I have stated clearly that the procedure was on the basis of established practice, and I think that answers the question until the matter has been settled by a Commission which could inquire into it, and, as it is now under consideration by the League of Nations we must leave it for the moment.

Is not the hon. Gentleman going to abide by the terms of the White Paper?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he or the Government of Palestine will take steps to allay the anxieties in Transjordania, Syria, and Iraq at the present state of affairs in Palestine by giving absolute equality of treatment to both Jew and Arab in Palestine?

It is the policy of His Majesty's Government, and the constant endeavour of the Government of Palestine, to give equality of treatment to all inhabitants of the territory.

Will the hon. Gentleman give effect to the policy, either by permitting the Jewish population to carry arms or, alternatively, disarming the Arabs?

Is it not a fact that many of the Arabs were killed in these riots by gunshot wounds?

That is a matter that might be inquired into before I give an answer.

How many Jews are going to be killed before any action is taken?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent to the communication from the Emir Abdullah as to the conduct of affairs in Palestine; and will he lay Papers?

If my right hon. and gallant Friend will let me know to what communication he refers, I will look into the matter.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the evidence of Mr. Luke is being taken in camera; whether this involves the exclusion of the hon. and learned Member for the Rusholme Division and of his cross-examination; and will this evidence appear in the printed evidence to be communicated with the Report to this House?

The procedure adopted is a matter for the Commission. As regards the last part of the question, the Secretary of State will await the receipt of the full evidence and of the Report.

Is it open for a Member of this House to be engaged in an inquiry of which, ultimately, the Report is to be presented to the House of which he is a Member?

I cannot give an answer to that question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that Portuguese recruiting agents are obtaining labour from Liberia for the cocoa plantations of St. Thomé, he will see that none of the natives so recruited are taken from the territory of Sierra Leone?

Recruitment in Sierra Leone for foreign service is forbidden.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to publish a reply to the points contained in a memorandum submitted to His Majesty's Government by a deputation of Cypriot Greeks, and recently circulated to Members of Parliament?

A full reply to the memorial presented to the Secretary of State on behalf of the Cypriot Greeks is now under preparation. The reply will be sent to the Governor of Cyprus for communication to the memorialists and will presumably be published in Cyprus.

Will the hon. Gentleman make sure that we can obtain copies of it, as we all had copies of the original memorandum?

If there is any general demand for publication, I see no reason why it should not be published.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government still adhere to the decision to move the capital of Northern Rhodesia from Livingstone to some site nearer the new mining developments; whether a site for the new capital has been selected; and whether all further expenditure on Government offices and other buildings at Livingstone has now ceased?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative subject to consideration of any views which the Governor of Northern Rhodesia may express after further inquiry; the reply to the second part is in the negative. The building programme at Livingstone is being regulated by the assumption that administrative headquarters will shortly be removed.

Will the hon. Gentleman make representation to the Government of Northern Rhodesia to expedite a decision on this matter in view of the very rapid emigration and the rapid opening up of new mining areas?

I think that I am safe in saying that experts on engineering and sanitation are going out next month to consider the matter and advise the Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will agree to the setting up of an independent tribunal to investigate the charges against Miss Douglas Pennant which led to her dismissal from the Royal Air Force?

The answer is in the negative. I have given this case further attention and have submitted the papers to the Government's legal advisers. After full and sympathetic consideration the difficulties of having the matter reopened after so long a lapse of time were seen to be insuperable. In view of what is said to be the reason why this case should be reopened, I ought to add that there is no question of Miss Douglas Pennant's supersession having been due to any sort of neglect of duty on her part or to any cause which would in any way justify aspersions on her character.

May I give notice to the Prime Minister that I shall take the opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us have been looking forward to the advent of a Labour Government to do justice to this woman who has been so gravely wronged?

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are many of us who are thoroughly sick of the whole controversy?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any arrangements are contemplated in which facilities will be offered to the public for a trip in the airship R 101 in any of its future trips; and can he give particulars?

The answer is that no such arrangements are at present in contemplation.

May we assume that facilities will be given to Members of Parliament, and that last Saturday's trip (may merely be regarded as an instalment, like so much of our legislation?

The question upon the Order Paper is whether facilities will be offered for the public, and not for Members of this House.

Will there be a chance of taking part in the first trial trip to Egypt?

I do not think that there is the slightest likelihood of the general public being invited to go on the first trial trip to Egypt.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether the dinner supplied aboard the R 101 on Saturday, 23rd November, was included in the nominal charge of 7s. 6d. made to each Member of Parliament visiting the R 101?

No, Sir; no charge was made for refreshments. The charge of 7s. 6d. was for conveyance by motor-coach to Cardington.

Are we to understand that a charge was made for refreshment, and that each Member paid for what he had on the airship?

No. The answer to the supplementary question is that the lunch was an Air Ministry cost.

Is it not the custom under all Governments that a Minister giving such a reception, and not the Department, bears the cost? Is not that one of the arguments used for the big salaries which Ministers receive; and is not the course which was taken on this occasion a departure from the custom of the House?

Is not the hon. Member aware that a great many hon. Members visited Cardington on Saturday last in their own cars and, therefore, paid nothing, and that they recognised that they were the guests of the Air Ministry?

I desire to press this point, because it is better that the House should not be under any misunderstanding. It has been the custom, so far as I am informed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I want to ask the Minister whether he can deny the question that I have asked him?

That does not arise.

May I ask whether it is the custom of any Government Department to pay for a reception?

The hon. Member must put that upon the Order Paper as a separate question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if, in view of the fact that certain ranks of Royal Air Force officers engaged on active flying duties are paid less than their corresponding ranks of Army officers, and in view of the risks of flying and increased standards of technical knowledge and skill required for the Royal Air Force, the Air Ministry will consider recommending a revision of the basic rates of pay in respect of these ranks?

In considering this question it is necessary to have regard to the whole career which the service offers including the pay in all ranks and the opportunities for promotion. Whilst my noble Friend has the prospects and emoluments of Royal Air Force officers under constant review, he does not consider a revision of existing basic rates of pay is called for at the present time.

Is the hon. Member aware that a squadron leader after five years in the Royal Air Force gets £1 16s. a day and that a major in the Army, after five years, draws £1 17s. Does the hon. Member think that flying risk is equal to a shilling minus?

So far as those figures are comparable, I admit that there is a slight difference, but I think the reply that I gave in regard to promotion provides a set-off

Does not the hon. Member think that this case affords another reason for the co-ordination of the Forces?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if it is proposed to retain the Royal Air Force station, Manston, Kent, as a permanent peace time station; if so, whether it is proposed to construct any additional married quarters for officers and other ranks in the near future; and if he will give an assurance that, so far as is practicable, local labour will be used for this and any other constructional works undertaken?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second, in the negative; the last part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Is the hon. Member aware that many non-commissioned officers and men are living in 12-year old leaky huts on that station?

It is true that at the present moment there are not quite sufficient quarters available, but, as soon as the bombing squadron which is at present there leaves, the position will be normal.