asked the Secretary of State for India the number of publications that have been confiscated in India under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act during the three years ended to the last convenient date; and can he give particulars?

I have no figures for the three years; but in the year ended 1st October last copies of 58 publications were intercepted. They were mostly issued by the Communist International or subsidiary organisations.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether any of the other books of which he has particulars were prohibited on moral grounds?

There may have been some, but I do not think the majority.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether any Indian gentlemen have been trained, or are under training, as artillery officers in His Majesty's Army; and, if so, how many?

The answer to both parts of the question is, "None, as yet."

When does my right hon. Friend intend to take definite action to provide for training Indian officers?

The reason that no Indian candidate has been admitted to Woolwich is because none has yet qualified.

But when can he arrange to train these gentlemen in India?

It has been decided provisionally that candidates for commissions must be trained in cadet colleges in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for India what is the value of the orders placed on the Continent by the India store department, London, acting for the Government of India, since 1st January, 1929, to date, for locomotives, spares, rolling stock, rails, etc.?

The value of the orders fur railway materials placed on the Continent by the High Commissioner in London since 1st January, 1929, is £943,000.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything in his power to influence that business for this country, on account of the wages which it means to our workers?

I am very glad indeed to see orders come to this country, but the hon. Baronet probably knows that we are acting under a rule proposed to and accepted by the Government of India in the Legislative Assembly.

Could nut the right hon. Gentleman occasionally make a kindly suggestion to the Indian Government?

I am very glad indeed to see orders coming here, but India must manage her own affairs in her own interests.

Is it not a fact that the money expended on these orders is raised in the City of London?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will withdraw the ban imposed on Mr. Saklatvala attending the Indian National Congress?

I fear I cannot alter my decision.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it extremely harsh to prevent an ex-Member of Parliament going back to his native land, and is he not rebuked by the echoes of his own speeches on the subject?

I do not like doing it at all, but I have to consider a very delicate situation ill India.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in regard to the decision of the Viceroy to make public the Report of the Indian Central Committee as soon as possible, he is now in a position to inform the House as to the approximate date of publication?

Probably about the end of the year.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the House particulars in respect of the chief recommendations made by the Repressive Laws Committee set up by the Government of India in 1921 under the chairmanship of the Law member of the Government; and what action has been taken by the Government of India on each of these recommendations?

All the nine enactments or portions thereof, the immediate repeal of which the Committee recommended, have been repealed except the State Prisoners Acts of 1850 and 1858. One other enactment and a portion of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, which the Committee thought could not then be repealed remain on the Statute Book; and the amendment of Bengal Regulation III of 1818 and the corresponding Madras and Bombay Regulations of 1819 and 1827 which the Committee recommended has not yet been undertaken. The retention of these Regulations has necessitated the retention of the Acts of 1850 and 1858 just referred to.

Do we understand that these things are under consideration at the present time?

That is not in the question. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put it down.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that British executive officers of the Indian Army who became qualified for pension between 1st January and 1st April, 1919, were awarded pensions on the same scale as officers of the British Army in India; that those qualifying between 1st April, 1919, and 1st October, 1925, were awarded pensions lower by £90 a year; and that in 1925 equality of pensions with officers of the British Army was again conceded; and if he will now urge the Government of India to make this concession apply to the officers of the Indian Army who retired between 1919 and 1925 and whose services deserve equal treatment?

I have explained the position with regard to departmental officers of the India Unattached List in a statement furnished to the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I fear I can hold out no hope of reversing the existing decision.

Does it mean that the Secretary of State condones the injustice towards these men simply because they happen to fall in a different year of retirement?

I do not like to hear that reflection on the late Government.

Was it not a mistake that these officers were left out, seeing that before April, 1919, and after 1925 they were treated in the same way as British officers of the Indian Army, and will the right hon. Gentleman not rectify this error?

I do not accept the hon. and gallant Member's presentation of the case.

Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's object to try and redress grievances that may have been made by previous Governments?

Certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether any further delays will take place in the completion of the Vizagapatan harbour; and if it is likely to be in use next year?

I have no later information than that contained in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member's question on 22nd July last.

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

The question of the exchange of guarantees against propaganda between His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and the Soviet Government is still the subject of negotiation between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, in consultation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, and the Soviet Government.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the Ambassador would not go to Moscow until the matter had been settled?

No, I never said anything of the kind.

Oh yes, you did.

Order!

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Russian Ambassador has arrived?

No, Sir, but I understand that the Soviet Ambassador will reach London on the 10th or 11th of December.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Ambassador will be leaving?

That will depend on when the gale subsides.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the date upon which he expects the Soviet Ambassador; and where he will take up his headquarters in London?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I have to-day returned to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery). It is not yet known where the Soviet Ambassador will take up his residence.

When the Soviet Ambassador does arrive, if there is a revival of trouble and propaganda will the right hon. Gentleman invite him to return?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Article 9 of the Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, signed by himself and M. Dovgalevski, provides that the decision concerning the re-establishment of diplomatic relations will be brought for approval before Parliament before each of the two Governments take the usual steps for the appointment of their respective Ambassadors, he will suspend further steps for the exchange of Ambassadors until this condition is completely fulfilled?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that paragraph 9 of the Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, signed by himself and M. Dovgalevski, provides that the stops to be taken under preceding paragraphs of the Protocol, including the decision concerning the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, will be brought for approval before Parliament early at the beginning of the next Session, it is the intention of the British Government to observe these terms of the Protocol; and, if so, whether he proposes to render void the steps already taken to re-establish diplomatic relations until both Houses of Parliament shall have come to a decision on the matter?

Paragraph 9 of the Protocol of the 3rd October was designed to enable His Majesty's Government to comply with the undertaking given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on the 15th of July, to the effect that any conclusion which His Majesty's Government might come to regarding the resumption of relations could not become effective until it had been debated in this House. In compliance with that undertaking, and in accordance with the understanding with the Soviet Government recorded in paragraph 9 of the Protocol, the decision reached by His Majesty's Government was debated in this House on the 5th November. The reply to the last part of both questions is in the negative.

Is it not a fact that in this Protocol the word "Parliament" means both Houses of Parliament?

If taken in the light of the statement that I have just made and the pledge given by the Prime Minister on the date mentioned in my last answer, I think he had in mind that the Debate had to take place in this House. Moreover, in that reply he did undertake to follow as far as possible the procedure that had been followed by the previous Government when diplomatic relations were abandoned, and in that case the Debate only took place in this House.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman asked the approval of this House to the form of Protocol, and the interchange of Ambassadors on the basis of the Protocol, and does not Clause 9 of the Protocol expressly say that that Protocol has to be submitted for approval to Parliament? That being so, what right has the right hon. Gentleman to substitute one House of Parliament for the submission to "Parliament" which has been approved at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman by this House?

I do not claim any right to substitute anything other than was intended by 'the Prime Minister's statement. The Prime Minister undertook that it should be discussed in this House, and we have complied with that part of his undertaking, and if I should have used the words "House of Commons" instead of "Parliament," the responsibility is mine.

The right hon. Gentleman has missed my point. He asked the approval of Parliament to a Protocol which provided that this matter should be submitted to Parliament. Does he intend to proceed with these arrangements without having obtained the approval of Parliament in conformity with the Protocol?

Yes, His 'Majesty's Government do intend, having, they believe, complied with the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave to the House.

Does the Foreign Secretary hold that he Las complied with the terms of his own Protocol?

Yes, I do.

Is it not a fact that this House is the only really representative institution?

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a Session of Parliament is a Recess? When he drafts a State document, ought he not to see that he does not misuse well-known language?

Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of a Debate in the other House?

Is this the result—

Order!

May I ask—

Order!

Does the hon. and galland Member rise to a point of Order?

Yes. I only wanted to ask whether I could put a question and why I should be howled down?

I am doing my best to enable the hon. and gallant Member to be heard.

On a point of Order.

Mr. de Rothschild.

It has been quite impossible to hear.

Mr. de Rothschild.

On this point of Order.

There is no point of Order. Mr. de Rothschild.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement as to the present position in Manchuria; and what replies have been received in. response to the representations made to the Chinese and Soviet Governments calling their attention to their obligations under the Kellogg Pact?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any reply from the Soviet Government or the Chinese Government to his joint representations with the Government of the United States of America in respect of the situation in Manchuria?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reply has been received from the Soviet Government to the representations made to it respecting its obligations under the Kellogg Pact in connection with affairs in Manchuria; if so, whether he can state its nature; and whether the Powers concerned intend to make further representations on the matter?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply the Government has received to their message to the Soviet Republic as to that Government's breach of the terms of the Kellogg Pact with regard to the strained relations existing between Russia and China?

I have received the text of the reply of the Chinese Government and a telegraphic summary of that of the Soviet Government. As they have already appeared in the Press, I will, with the hon. Members' permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Chinese and Soviet authorities are now carrying on negotiations, and I do not, as at present advised, contemplate taking any further steps. I have no knowledge of the attitude of other Powers in this respect. There has been no recrudescence of military activity.

Is it a fact that the Soviet Government, in their reply, stated that they regarded the representations that had been made to them as unjustifiable interference, and that it was an unfriendly act on the part of our Government?

Yes, but I do not think that arises out of this question.

Is that the sort of reply the right hon. Gentleman would expect from such a friendly nation?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any consultation took place between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Sudan as to the policy of allowing the return of the Egyptian troops to the Sudan; and, if so, did the latter concur with the proposals to that end put forward in the treaty?

The answers to both parts of the hon. Member's question are in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Nahas Pasha, the leader of the Wafd, has proposed a visit to London to confer with him on the details of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, he will state whether he will adhere to the terms he laid down as representing the limit in the way of British concessions to Egypt?

I have no knowledge of the projected visit to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. Nor have I anything to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Eastbourne on the 4th of December, that the policy of His Majesty's Government regarding the proposed Anglo-Egyptian Treaty remains unchanged.

May I take it that the representations published in the newspapers are quite untrue as to the communications going on with the Government?

I do not know to which reports the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the conditions of service in the West African and Senegalese Consular service are not the same as those enjoyed by the West African Colonial service; and whether he intends to bring the Consular service up to the same standard as the Colonial?

I am aware that there is a difference in treatment, but the reason is that officers in the Colonial service as a rule spend their whole official career in one or other of the West Coast colonies, whereas Consular officers who serve at the two Consular posts on the West Coast proper, namely, Dakar and Monrovia, do BO only for a portion of their career, and after a period of service at either of these posts endeavours are made to give such officers a term at a healthy post. Moreover, West Coast Consular posts are classed, together with certain other Consular posts in different parts of the world, as "unhealthy" both for purposes of pension and leave of absence, and officers enjoy more favourable treatment as regards repayment of a proportion of travelling expenses on leave than officers serving elsewhere It will be seen that the conditions of service are thus quite different, and I do not propose to make any alteration in the existing Consular Regulations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Privy Seal in this House, on several occasions, has expressed very strong views as to the advisability of changing the 18 months' tour into a 15 months' tour for those engaged in this service, and will he consider looking into this matter?

I was not aware of that fact, but I will certainly look into it and see what can be done.

Will the hon. Gentleman also look into the question from the point of view of the consular officers out there? Alter all, if the climate is unhealthy, surely it does not matter whether you are there all your life or only two or three years, you ought to get the same terms.

I am afraid I cannot change the climate. If the hon. and gallant, Member has any special representations to make to me on the subject, I shall be glad to consider them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to carry into effect the recommendations made three years ago by the Advisory Committee appointed under the China Indemnity (Application) Act, 1925, having regard to the fact that a specially constituted committee rejected the suggestion that the funds should be retained temporarily in consequence of the disturbed state of China?

As I informed the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carrington) on the 20th November last, new proposals are now under consideration. They are based on the Advisory Committee's Report, but in some respects they differ from its recommendations owing to changed circumstances.

When may we expect a decision?

I cannot give any definite reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House in regard to the present position in China in so far as it affects the property of British nationals?

Following on a mutiny of troops at Pukow, opposite Nanking, President Chiang Kai-shek disarmed the guards left in Nanking by certain generals of whose loyalty he was doubtful, and arrested their civilian staffs, and martial law was proclaimed. Measures were at once taken for the despatch of British naval reinforcements and preparations made for the evacuation in case of need of women and children. A critical situation has since developed owing to the revolt of troops stationed on the Shanghai-Nanking Railway, about mid-way between the two cities.

In view of these developments, His Majesty's Consul-General at Nanking has been instructed that, in the event of danger, he should at once order the withdrawal of women and children. There are at present two British warships at Nanking and His Majesty's Ship "Suffolk" is due there to-day and another cruiser, His Majesty's Ship "Berwick," is due there to-morrow.

I have no information as to the declaration of martial law at Shanghai. At present, three British warships are there, and a flotilla leader and two destroyers are on their way there from Hong Kong. All refitting in the Hong Kong dockyard is being expedited and overtime is being worked. Arrangements are in hand for the transfer of one battalion from Hong Kong to Shanghai should the situation demand it.

I have no information that British property has been interfered with nor endangered elsewhere, except perhaps at Ichang. A small body of rebels approached that place and preparations were made to evacuate foreigners in case of need. The latest reports show that the defence of Ichang has received reinforcements, and after continuous fighting the rebels have been repulsed. No immediate trouble is foreseen there, but as a precaution, women and children either remained afloat or concentrated on the river front last night.

Has any information been received to the effect that this situation is largely due to Soviet propaganda?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any communicacation with Mr. Eugene Chen?

Is it a fact that His Majesty's Government are taking the necessary steps to protect British interests in China similar to those which were taken by the late Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of any measures adopted by other countries to translate political agreements into economic agreements; and if positive results have yet been reported to the League secretariat at Geneva?

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the resolution passed by the Assembly of the League of Nations in September directing the Economic Committee of the League to draw up a preliminary draft convention for the conclusion of a tariff truce. The Committee have concluded their labours, and His Majesty's Government have decided to be represented at a preliminary conference of delegates to discuss it. This conference will meet, subject to the consent of the Council at their session in January, about the end of that month. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will represent His Majesty's Government.

Does this mean that in fiscal policy the hands of this country are to be tied, while foreign countries are to be free to manipulate their tariffs as they please?

The hon. Member must put that question on the Order Paper; I have answered the question which is before us.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether at this Conference the Government will raise the question of bounties on exports as well as of tariff restrictions?

I have already said that the Conference is to consider the Report, and, if that is part of the Report, no doubt it will receive consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, unless the question of bounties on exports is dealt with, the Government will not tie the hands of this country?

If the right hon. Gentleman will place that question upon the Order Paper, I will give him an official reply?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the tariff concessions proposed by the Argentine Government, he will state with what countries Argentina has most-favoured-nation treaties?

According to the information at my disposal, Argentina has treaties containing a most-favoured-nation clause with the following countries: Bolivia, Brazil, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United States.

Does that mean that any concession in the Silk Duties in Argentina will he extended to our chief rivals?

I am afraid that that is too important a question to be answered now, and I must have notice of it.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Presidential decree is merely a trap, and that it is designed to prejudice—[Interruption].

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present position of negotiations with Argentina following upon the D'Abernon Mission?

I have been asked to reply. As regards the duties in the Argentine on British artificial silk goods, the position is as stated in the answer which the President of the Board of Trade gave on the 21st November to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power). The trading agreement has been signed, but the arrangements for bringing it into operation are still under discussion.

Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly what undertaking has been given by the British Government to Argentina?

If the hon. Member refers to the Declaration, that has not yet been made; the answer to the question to which I have referred stated at the end that the terms and exact scope of the Declaration are still under consideration.

The Agreement has been signed, but what has been the understanding?

I think, as a matter of fact, that there are two points in negotiation with Argentina; one is the Agreement, and the other is the arrangement under which the British Government are going to make a Declaration, and, in return for that, there is to be a certain alteration in the Silk Duties. I do not know to which the hon. Member was referring, hut I was referring to the Declaration which has to be made.

Can we have a clear statement on the whole subject?

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether His Majesty's Government have yet made the required declaration to the Argentine Government regarding the non-imposing of duties or restrictions to the importation of certain Argentine food produce; and, if so, whether he can now state the terms and exact scope of the declaration?

The answer is in the negative.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the trade arrangements in connection with this declaration are already in force, or whether they will have to wait?

They will have to await a final settlement between the Governments.

Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when this declaration is likely to be signed?

I hope very shortly, but I am afraid I do not know more than that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-French West African Convention of 1898 is still in force; if so, when it expires; and whether any decision has been reached as to its renewal?

The Anglo-French West African Convention of the 14th June, 1898, is still in force. The only Article, for which any provision is made, regarding expiry or denunciation is Article 9, which grants to British subjects and French citizens, their goods, and the products of their respective countries similar tariff treatment in certain defined areas in West Africa. This Article will remain in force until the expiry of one year from the date of its denunciation by either of the contracting Powers, and since it is still in force, the question of its renewal does not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the International Convention of 1927 for the abolition of import and export prohibitions is yet in force; and, if not, whether any steps have been taken by the Governments which have ratified the convention to encourage additional ratifications?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but a conference is now meeting in Paris, at which His Majesty's Government are represented, to decide whether the Convention should be brought into force, although the necessary number of ratifications have not yet been deposited. At the last Assembly, the British delegation supported a Danish resolution to the effect that a commission be set up by the Council and the Assembly to accelerate the ratification of all League conventions.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has had official notification of the recent change in the anti-dumping regulations of the Dominion of Canada; and what steps he has taken to make the change known to British exporters?

A telegram conveying this information was sent by His Majesty's Trade Commissioner to my Department on 15th October. The particulars were published in the Board of Trade Journal on 17th October.

Has the hon. Gentleman made any representations to the Canadian Government of the importance to the British exporters of the abolition of the old 5 per cent. difference between the market value price in this country and the import price in Canada?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister whether the inquiry into the cotton industry is expected to report before the commencement of the Five-Power Naval Conference; and, if not, whether he intends to appoint a substitute for the First Lord of the Admiralty on the cotton inquiry, seeing that he has been chosen as a delegate to the Five-Power Conference?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. In view of the large amount of evidence already taken, I do not think that there would be any advantage in appointing a substitute member.

Can the Prime Minister say when he expects the report of the committee to be available for Members?

I am afraid I cannot say how long it will take.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number and value of the contracts in respect of exports to Russia which have been entered into under the exports credit scheme since the operation of the scheme was extended to Russia, and the approximate financial terms granted; and the general nature of the goods which have been the subject of these contracts?

The number of Russian contracts entered into up to and including the 7th instant is 22, and the total value £363,930. It has always been the practice not to disclose the terms and conditions on which guarantees are given. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to supply the hon. and gallant Member with details. In regard to the last part of the question, a general description of the goods is machinery, textiles, metals, coal and chemicals.

Could the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea as to the maximum time that the Committee are now giving for contracts of this kind?

Are any foodstuffs included in these contracts?

I do not think that the present figures indicate any considerable amount of food.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he has recently made any fresh appointments to the Advisory Committee under the Export Credits Scheme; and the present number and names of the Committee?

With regard to the names of the Export Credits Guarantee Committee, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on the 4th November to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, West (Mr. W. J. Brown). Since then I have invited my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Central Division of Portsmouth (Captain W. Hall) and Mr. W. R. Blair, of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, to serve on this Committee, and they have accepted.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what steps he has taken to ensure that the maximum use of the Export Credits Department for the purpose of providing additional employment; and whether he has received any recent complaints from responsible exporters that the present terms and practice need revision?

Advantage is constantly taken of the assistance generally afforded by the chambers of commerce, the banks and the Press to bring the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme to the notice of exporters throughout the country. A branch office has been opened in Manchester, and frequent visits are paid to other centres by officials of the Department. With regard to the second part of the question, some complaints have been received, but business continues to increase. If my hon. Friend will bring to my notice any special cases, I shall be glad to give them my consideration.

Will my hon. Friend see to it that the Committee consider these proposals from the point of view of creating employment, which is the only justification for the Act being on the Statute Book?

I think that the Committee always have that consideration before them.

Has the hon. Gentleman had before him within the last 10 days the question of an order coming from the Dartford Division of Kent which has not received the necessary consideration as to time?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that complaints have been made that unless the answer is received by return of post business is lost, and that very often the reply does not come until after two or three days?

I am aware that some complaints of that kind have been made, but it is almost impossible to obtain the information as rapidly as the applicants desire.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it is intended to make any change in the personnel of the Committee set up by the last Government to deal with grants under the Trade Facilities Act?

As the power to give guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act expired in March, 1927, I understand my hon. Friend's question to refer to the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I would accordingly refer him to the answer which I have to-day given to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor).

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state when the promised White Paper on the optional Clause will be available for the information of Members?

I hope that this White Paper will be available for Members on Thursday.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made any promises or pledges to the Arab-speaking populations of Palestine or neighbouring countries which invalidate in any way the Balfour Declaration of 2nd November, 1917, or the clauses of the Mandate for Palestine as approved by the League of Nations?

I have been asked to answer. The position in regard to this question was fully stated in the White Paper (Cmd. 1700) of 1922, to which I would refer the hon. Member. His Majesty's Government have always held that there is nothing in their pledges that could invalidate the Balfour Declaration or conflict with the terms of the Mandate.

On a point of Order. May we have that answer repeated? It has been perfectly impossible to hear what was said.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Arab leaders that this is the policy of the Government?

Is it not the case that on 24th October, 1915, Sir Henry McMahon made a declaration stating

"I am empowered in the name of the British Government to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the limits of the boundaries proposed by King Hussein"

and that these limits included Palestine?

On a point of Order. This is a very important matter, and neither I nor any of my Friends could hear the reply.

May I have a reply to my question?

As regards the first supplementary question, I think it is true to say that the facts which I have stated are perfectly well known. The position is that which the British Government have always taken up in this matter. In regard to the second supplementary question, the pledge to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred was not made to the Palestinian Arabs, and the British Government have always taken the view that Palestine was excluded from that pledge.

Was it not definitely stated in a letter from Sir Henry McMahon to King Hussein that they were promised independence for Arab territories and that the promise included Palestine and that has always been the Arab point of view?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state whether the Portuguese Government have replied to the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador at Lisbon as long ago as January last regarding the arrest on the charge of theft of £1 of Mr. A. J. Brewer, who was detained for nine months while awaiting trial at Portuguese West Africa and subsequently sentenced to 300 days' imprisonment and £18 fine or another 90 days' imprisonment; and if he is now in a position to make a statement about this matter?

The discussions on this case with the Portuguese Govern- ment have, I fear, been proceeding very slowly and I am unable at the moment to make any statement. But I intend to take up the matter with the Portuguese Ambassador at an interview which has been arranged for to-morrow.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Cosham Hospital and its administration; and if it is proposed to make it available to Members?

I have now received the Report referred to wad have caused it to be printed. Copies will be available to Members at the Vote Office to-morrow.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will ascertain the number, on any date, of tubercular ex-service men who, though certified as unfit for work, are not receiving treatment allowances?

I regret that I have no means of obtaining this information. Such certification would ordinarily be done by practitioners acting under the Health Insurance Acts.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his medical advisers as to the necessity for putting this matter on a proper and just footing, and is he aware that this is a matter of life or death to the ex-service men concerned?

Yes, I shall be very happy to give consideration to the point which has been raised.

Are we to understand that once an ex-service man gets on the panel under the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Pensions loses all further interest in the case?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give further consideration to- the application of Mrs. E. Plant, of 10, Elm Avenue, Yarborough Road, Grimsby, the widow of the late Company-Sergeant-Major A. L. Plant, Cheshire Regiment, for an increase of pension; if he is aware that the late Company-Sergeant-Major Plant applied for a pension in May, 1922; was examined by the Pension Ministry's medical officer on 3rd July, 1922, and died on 5th July, 1922; and that an appeal was lodged in August, 1922, and the widow was informed that, as death had occurred before the appeal could be heard, the claim could not be considered?

Mrs. Plant is already in receipt of pension on the alternative pension scale, which takes full account of her husband's pre-war earnings; and as this is the maximum scale admissible under the Warrant no increase of the pension is admissible.

Can I have at answer to the latter part of my question respecting the man's appeal, which could not take place because he died two days before it could be heard?

My information is that the man died before a decision could be arrived at; therefore, there was no opportunity of lodging an appeal.

Has the widow to suffer simply because her husband died two or three days before the appeal could be heard? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer;"] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this and many other similar cases into consideration when he is bringing in his amending Bill to deal with pensions?

Yes, I am willing to-take any point into consideration which will be for the benefit of those who are suffering; but I am informed that this case has been fully considered, and the widow has been awarded a proper pension under the warrants.

In dealing with these cases, was the right hon. Gentleman dealing with the law as it then existed?

asked the Minister' of Pensions, whether he will inform the House when the Central Advisory Committee, established under Section 3 of the War Pensions Act, 1921, last met; the names of the members of the committee and whether this committee was consulted by him in connection with the scheme recently announced regarding the method by which claims submitted by officers and men outside the seven years' time limit would be dealt with?

I understand that the committee last met in November, 1927. The committee consists of 22 persons, and, in order to economise the time of the House, I propose to print the names of the members with the OFFICIAL REPORT. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The arrangements in question were considered in the first instance and determined by the Government itself before announcement to this House.

Seeing that the members of the committee were mostly members of the local War Pensions Committee, and that they have to run the scheme suggested by the Minister, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, it would have been right and courteous to have first consulted them?

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

Is it not the case that this committee never met when the right hon. Gentleman was in office in 1924 or this year?

I can assure the House that, the committee will meet whenever it is necessary.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether officers and men granted an allowance under the scheme recently announced in connection with claims submitted outside the seven years' time limit will be eligible to receive assistance under all the regulations of the Special Grants Committee; and whether widows of men who at the date of death were in receipt of an allowance, as mentioned above, will also he eligible for consideration under the Special Grants Committee regulations?

No extension of the scope of the Committee's regulations is contemplated.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to take over all medical and surgical treatment of ex-service men, providing, where necessary, full-time medical officers for the purpose?

My Department has authority under the Royal Warrants to provide such treatment only as is not otherwise provided. I could not, therefore, adopt the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member without duplicating other statutory arrangements for the provision of treatment which are in operation under the National Health Insurance Acts and other enactments.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to make his Ministry responsible for the employment of all men so disabled as to be unable to take their place in the labour market?

My Department, has, I fear, neither the means nor the equipment at its disposal which would enable it to undertake the additional task suggested.

When did this cease to be part of the policy of the Government?

I am afraid that I could not answer that question off-hand.

Is the Minister of Pensions not aware that on page 273 of the Labour Year Book for 1924, the words contained in my question occur verbatim?

I can only congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend upon his memory being better than mine.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Irish Free State has recently made any communication to the Government concerning the Irish treaty or its position thereunder or its relations with this country?

No communication of the nature indicated in the right hon. Member's question has recently been received by the Government here.

Is the Prime Minister not going to make some representations to Southern Ireland in regard to this matter?

That does not arise out of the question en the Paper.

asked the Prime Minister if he has considered setting up a committee somewhat on the lines of the Estimates Committee in order to examine every Bill on its introduction and to report to the House whether and, if so, how such a Bill increases the power of the Departments; and, if so, whether he proposes to invite this House to set up such a Standing Committee?

The whole question of the powers of the executive both as regards subordinate legislation and quasi-judicial decision is at present under the consideration of a Committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor, with my concurrence, and presided over by Lord Donoughmore. I do not think any step should be taken to prejudge the report which they may present.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with the suggestion made by the Lord Chief Justice, that a committee of this kind might serve a useful purpose in the interval?

asked the Prime Minister whether the terms of reference of the Committee on Ministerial Emoluments have now been settled; and whether they will include the question of extra payment to certain Members of the House of Commons who are not members of His Majesty's Government?

As regards the first part of the question, the general scope of the inquiry has been settled, but not the actual terms of reference. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on Tuesday last to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). Up to the present I have received no indication that there is a general desire for an inquiry into the question raised.