asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a publication called the "Workers' Daily," which is engaged in hostile propaganda inspired from Soviet sources and is financed by the Third International; and whether he has called the attention of the Soviet Government to this breach of the recent agreement?

If the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the publication known as the "Daily Worker," he will find the answer to his question in my reply to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) on the 22nd January, to which I have nothing to add.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it advisable to make representations to the Soviet Ambassador on account of this paper?

Having regard to the state of affairs since the undertaking was signed, and to the issue of this paper, which is directly financed by the Soviet Government, does the right hon. Gentleman not really think that the time has come when he must intimate to the Soviet Government that he will not tolerate this state of things any longer?

I have no evidence of the accuracy of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman.

rose—

We are getting too many supplementary questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received a reply from the Soviet Ambassador to his protest against the message from the Communist International which appeared recently in an issue of an English newspaper; and, if so, will he communicate that reply to the House?

I have nothing to add to my statement of Monday last.

rose—

Under the Rules of Procedure that govern questions, if a Minister says that it is not in the public interest to answer a question, he need not do so, and a Member has no right to press him.

May I ask you a question, Sir? I should be the last person to ask a Minister to answer anything which would be against the public interest, but all we want is an answer "Yes" or "No."

On Monday the same question was put, and the Minister said that he had nothing to add.

May I ask a question arising out of the matter of public interest?

Mr. Smithers.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give this House an opportunity of discussing the recent protest made by the Foreign Secretary to the Soviet Ambassador in regard to the question of propaganda?

If a further discussion on this subject is required, it may be debated on the Foreign Office Vote in Committee of Supply. I regret that it is impossible to provide a special day for this purpose.

We understood from the right hon. Gentleman that during this Session opportunity would be given to debate any subject that the Opposition asked for in the usual way, deeming the matter to be of sufficient importance. We deem Russia to be of sufficient importance, and, if we ask in the usual way for a day, which we shall do, we shall expect the right hon. Gentleman to comply.

I hope there will be no misunderstanding on that point. I did not treat this as an official Opposition request. If the Opposition officially request a day, they shall have a day.

I have no desire to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. That is one of the subjects which we shall wish to discuss, and I shall give due notice to the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make inquiries regarding the fate of domestic servants and other employés who were imprisoned by the Soviet authorities in 1927 after the departure of our diplomatic mission?

According to my latest information, all these persons are now at liberty.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when, in view of the protocol signed by himself and Mr. Dovgalevsky, and dated 3rd October, 1929. and in view of the provision in Clause 2 that negotiations shall take place immediately on the resumption of full diplomatic relations, he proposes to settle the matters referred to in Clause 1 (3) of that protocol; and what steps has he taken to set up committees under Clause 4?

As I informed the hon. Member on Monday last, negotiations are now proceeding respecting all the questions enumerated in the protocol of the 3rd October.

When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to have any solution of some of these difficulties, especially as regards the debt?

It is quite impossible at the opening of negotiations to say when we hope to have a solution. I have already said that when negotiations are complete the matter will be brought before the House.

Will it be possible for the Foreign Secretary to make an interim statement from time to time as to how these negotiations are going on, as has been done in regard to the Five-Power Conference?

That is quite another point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in accordance with Article 9 of the treaty between the principal Allied Powers and Rumania respecting Bessarabia, signed at Paris on the 28th October, 1920, His Majesty's Government, having recognised the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, proposes to consult with the other high contracting parties to the treaty who have pursued the same course with a view to inviting Russia to adhere to that treaty?

No. Sir. The question does not arise, since the Treaty is not in force.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if officers promoted from mate are given opportunities to specialise?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many promotions to mate executive and also mate E he anticipates will be made in 1930?

The number of promotions to be made depends to a very large extent upon the number of suitable candidates coming forward and it is not possible to give an actual estimate of the numbers anticipated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an enormous amount of dissatisfaction in regard to promotions to mate and mate; will he consider this, and, if possible, meet the objections which have been made, especially in regard to anomalies in pay as compared with the cadet class?

I am always willing to receive representations from the Service. I have had a good many representations in the House, but no strong representations yet from representatives of the Lower Deck.

When is the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman has appointed likely to make their report on this subject?

I do not think I said that I had appointed a Committee. What I said was that full inquiries would be carried out in the Admiralty.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider making an alteration in the regulation which causes service pensions to be temporarily forfeited if the recipient is committed to prison for debt?

There is no Naval Regulation which directs that a service pension, is to be temporarily forfeited if a pensioner is committed to prison for debt. Under the Regulations all pensions are tenable only during good behaviour, the matter being judged by the Admiralty, and in cases of imprisonment it is usual to suspend a pension for the period of imprisonment. This suspension, however, is not inflicted on the occasion of a first imprisonment for debt. Should further imprisonments for debt occur the suspension of pension is at the discretion of the Board of Admiralty who would decide according to the circumstances of the case. The Regulations do not, therefore, require any alteration.

Does the hon. Gentleman know that the Department dealing with old age pensions have no such regulations and no such forfeitures?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what was the charge on public funds of the Parliamentary Secretary's journey to Mediterranean stations?

asked the "First Lord of the Admiralty what staff accompanied the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on his inspection of Naval establishments in the Mediterranean; and what transport facilities were supplied by His Majesty's Navy?

The whole cost to the public of this visit, in which the Parliamentary Secretary was accompanied by a private secretary, was £115 16s. 8d. The party was conveyed from Syracuse to Malta in one of H.M. Destroyers, which was returning from the Adriatic to Malta, and from Gibraltar to Devon-port in H.M.S. "Cumberland," which was on her way home from the China Station.

Was that expenditure met out of savings, or does it require a Supplementary Estimate?

The expenditure will be met without the necessity of submitting any Supplementary Estimate.

Is it a fact that during the four years of the late Government five visits were paid?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the number of lieut.-commanders of the Royal Navy who have retired under Admiralty Fleet Order 1030, of 1929; and whether the number is considered to have appreciably reduced the congestion in the lieut.-commanders' list?

Sixty-eight retired under Admiralty Fleet Order 1036/29, and as a result the surplus on the list has been appreciably reduced.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of lieut.-commanders who are out of the promotion zone now and the estimated number who will be out of the zone on 1st January, 1931?

The number is now 165. It is not possible to give any reliable estimate of the number on the 1st January, 1931, but the present number, which is abnormally low, will almost certainly be increased.

Does that reply mean that the Government are prepared to make provision for admirals who are going to be dispensed with through disarmament and no provision is going to be made for the ordinary rank and file working men?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the advisability of offering the full pension to those officers who are prepared to retire immediately they are out of the promotion zone?

The offer of terms of retirement which are more favourable than those under the ordinary regulations can only be made in exceptional circumstances, when a special scheme of retirement is necessary. No such scheme is contemplated at present.

Does my hon. Friend not realise that it is very bad for the Service to continue these officers in service when they have no hope of promotion? Would it not be a good thing if those officers who wish to retire could be allowed to retire on pension, and thus have an opportunity of taking up other occupations before they are too old?

There is a difference between retirement and special retirement.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that these officers have been told that they have no hope of promotion—that there are too many on the list; and that it would be far better, from the point of the view of the Service and from the point of view of the officers themselves, if they were allowed to retire on pension rather than be kept on for another five years?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many representatives the Admiralty appoint to the Navy, Army, and Air Force Canteen Board; what responsibility the Admiralty have for the financing and conducting of these canteens; and what are the wages and conditions of working of the men and women employed in these canteens?

The answers to the first and second parts of the question are as follow:

In view of the conditions operating in these canteens, will the Admiralty make some inquiries to see that conditions are at any rate humane?

The hon. Member may have noticed that I said in my answer that the board of management are responsible. If there is any complaint, the matter can be raised there first; and then, if there is anything, it can be brought before the Council, who in turn will bring it before the Admiralty.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what has led up to the decision of the Government to cancel the building of four cruisers, four destroyers, three submarines, and other smaller craft, which were included in the programmes of 1928–29 and 1929–30?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the reasons which have caused His Majesty's Government to drop four destroyers and three submarines from the 192930 naval construction programme, having regard to the present weakness of the Navy in these categories compared with the other naval Powers?

The decisions referred to have been come to in pursuance of the declared naval policy of the Government, a full statement of which was made by the Prime Minister on the 24th July last. His statement made it clear that as progress was made with that policy, reductions of the present new construction programme, by way either of suspension or cancellation, were probable. After the fullest and most thorough examination by the Government of our naval needs, and also the consideration of the economic use of public money, the Government consider that the revised provision now made is adequate.

May I ask whether any corresponding reductions have been made in the fleets of other nations, and whether any guarantee has been received which justifies His Majesty's Government in making such reductions?

I think that supplementary question anticipates another question which is on the Order Paper?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ruthless cutting down of such vessels as torpedo-destroyers before any agreement has been come to at the Conference as to the position of submarines, can only be viewed throughout the country with feelings of very great anxiety?

I have already said that the naval position has been fully reviewed and the Government have come to their decision; and the Government are quite confident that their policy in this matter has the support of the majority of the people of the country.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these reductions and cancellations are going to make an enormous difference to the Royal yards, and will he expedite the alternative work which the Government have promised?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the answer to a question further down on the Paper as to the allocation of work.

On a point of Order. I could not catch what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my supplementary question. May I know what he said?

What. I meant to convey to the hon. and gallant Member was that his supplementary question was already, in terms, on the Order Paper in a question addressed to the Prime Minister.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the decision was taken to make large reductions in the shipbuilding programme of 1928–29 and 1929–30 as authorised by Parliament and why no statement was made in this House of the changes decided to be made?

I would refer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Prime Minister's statement made in this House on the 24th July (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1301–8), and to my replies to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the 29th January (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 975–6 and columns 1019–20). These cover all the decisions taken on the 1928 and 1929 Programmes, and the decisions have in each case been announced to the House as soon as taken.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a statement made to this House when it is only a written answer to a question on another matter?

I do not follow the last suggestion that the question was on another matter. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look up the records of the OFFICIAL REPORT for last Wednesday, he will see that a specific question was put down by the hon. Member for Devonport. (Mr. Hore-Belisha) for a written answer, and it happened that on that day, although we had not been previously informed of the question, that confirmation of the recommendation in the matter was made by the Government, and out of ordinary courtesy to the hon. Member whose question was on the Paper, and because of our duty to complete the announcement of the decision taken, the answer was made in a constitutional way.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the method he has adopted of announcing a most important and drastic decision on the part of the Government has caused the greatest dissatisfaction both inside and outside this House and will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in future, when he has an important announcement of this kind to make, he will make it across the Floor of the House, and not in answer to a question on another subject?

Obviously, I cannot be responsible for every Member of the House putting down a question, either starred or unstarred, but, whatever course an hon. Member takes, surely I am entitled to answer him as early as possible?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that boys who have passed the educational test and two medical examinations for entry into the Navy are liable to rejection by a third medical examination on entry; and if he will see that the first medical test is made more thorough in order to avoid expense to parents and disappointment to boys?

I assume my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to boy artificers. These boys frequently volunteer to undergo a preliminary medical examination some time before taking the educational test. Those who pass this educational test undergo an official medical examination for entry into the Service, which is normally final. But those who join after a lapse of fourteen days or more are again medically examined on arrival in their ship or establishment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply does not answer the question which I put? This first examination takes place, and then, within 14 days there is another examination, often with an entirely different result. Is not that unfair to the boy and to his parents, who have spent money on his education?

My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The boy need not take the first examination unless he likes; that is for his own convenience. If, following the official examination, he should join up after a lapse of 14 days, he will be required to undergo a second examination, but not if he joins up within 14 days.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what number of engine-room artificers and chief engine-room artificers were invalided from His Majesty's Service during 1929?

The following are the numbers invalided from His Majesty's Navy during 1929:

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the particular regulation which lays it down that a naval pensioner re-employed after a lapse of five years cannot count his previous service towards progressive and good-conduct badge pay; and if, as this bears hardly on deserving men, he will take steps to abolish this regulation?

The regulation referred to is contained in Article 1584 of King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions and applies to all men voluntarily reentered and not to pensioners only. It provides that absence from the Naval Service for a longer period than live year entails forfeiture of previous service for all purposes, unless otherwise ordered by the Admiralty in a particular case. Men who, while not actually on the active list, have maintained touch with service matters and discipline, e.g., by means of drills as Royal Fleet Reservists, are allowed the benefits of reckoning former time even if their period of absence exceeds five years. No reason is seen for abolishing the rule.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state the steps which it is proposed to take to meet the decrease in employment occasioned by the further abandonment of naval construction?

Since this question is addressed to me, I assume that it refers to employment in the Royal Dockyards. I would refer the hon. Member to a reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Devonport on the 29th January (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 975–6), and would ask him also to be content for the present with the assurance that the situation is engaging the attention of the Admiralty, and that so far it has been found possible to give effect to

Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that a man in the reserve fleet working party, although he may have been out of the Service for five years, does not get the 1s. 5d. per day, while a man who has been out of the Service for four years and 11 months gets it? Does the hon. Member not think that that is a sufficient reason for altering the regulation?

I have no knowledge on the point put by my hon. Friend, but there must be a line drawn somewhere, and anomalies are bound to arise.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of cruisers, destroyers and sloops now in full and reserve commission?

As the answer is in tabular form I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

As far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, in replying for his own Department, is he not aware that this is a matter of very great importance to those engaged in armament work, and what preparations in anticipation of the proposed reduction of armaments have been made by the Government to provide work for those men who will become unemployed?

I think that that question, in so far as it does not relate to the Royal Dockyards, ought to be addressed to the Minister in charge of employment, because I imagine that any savings effected in this direction will probably be fruitful of expenditure in other directions.

rose—

We cannot continue to debate this question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of his Department to continue to grant all recognised statutory bank holidays to manual workers in addition to the annual week's holiday; and whether in the latter case all employés will take their holidays at one and the same time?

It is intended to continue in addition to the week's holiday not only all the paid general holidays formerly allowed, but to give also an additional public holiday. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, but whether every bank holiday will also be a dockyard paid holiday depends upon a decision which has not yet been taken as to the particular week to be made the closed week.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this question of giving bank holidays at the same time as the annual holidays has been considered by the Joint Advisory Council or the Admiralty?

That is so, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty is in full touch with the trade union representatives on the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, if the new surveying vessel to be constructed for the Department of Fisheries at a cost of £80,000, plus £180,000 for the operating expenses, whilst searching for new fishing grounds discovers any valuable ground, it is proposed that the British chart publishers should be allowed to publish this information free of charge for the British fishermen without copyright claims being made upon such publishers?

In the event of any valuable fishery grounds being discovered in the course of the proposed surveys, such information will be communicated forthwith to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for immediate dissemination to the fishing industry. British Admiralty charts showing the details of the surveys will be published in due course. All Admiralty charts are Crown Copyright and if any publisher desires to copy them application for permission would require to be made to the Controller of His Majesty's Stationery Office in whom Crown Copyright is vested.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government in Great Britain proposes to issue any statement as to the causes of the outbreak in Palestine last year, either at the time of or after the issue of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry?

This question will be considered when the Report has been received.

Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the fact that up to the present the Government have made no statement of any kind on this most lamentable event, which resulted in the death of hundreds of people; and will he make representations to the Secretary of State that this House is entitled to be informed by the Government, after the issue of the Report, what their views are on the causes of the outbreak and the measures to be taken to avoid any such occurrence in the future?

I do not understand the attitude of the Noble Earl. This Commission was appointed, it has done its work, and it is now preparing its Report; and we are asked to make a declaration, or to decide upon the nature of a declaration, before the Report has been written.

I did not ask the hon. Gentleman to do anything of the sort. All that I asked was whether the Government, after the Report has been published, are prepared to make a statement of their own as to whether or not they agree with that Report.

It will be better to await the Report.

On a point of Order. Do I understand you to say, Sir, that my question was not in order; and if so, may I respectfully ask why it was passed by the Clerks at the Table?

I did not say that the Noble Lord's question was not in order; I only suggested that, after the answer has been given, he might wait for the Report.

May I respectfully point out that I asked the hon. Gentleman in my supplementary question if he would answer the question on the Paper, and—probably wrongly—I understood you to rule that ray question was out of order? That was my object in rising to a point of Order.

On that point of Order. May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that on a previous occasion the Government gave an undertaking to answer a similar question when the Report had been drawn up? My Noble Friend is now asking whether they will implement that promise or not?

The Under-Secretary has already given the answer, and I do not see any object in repeating it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the speech delivered by Mr. Jabotinsky, at Tel Aviv, on 23rd December, 1929; and why steps were not taken under the Seditious Offences Ordinance Act with regard to that speech?

Yes, Sir. I have seen a report of the speech in question. I am not aware whether action on the lines suggested in the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question was considered by the local authorities. I understand that Mr. Jabotinsky left Palestine two days after the speech was delivered.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he made an extremely inflammatory speech, that the position in Palestine is very bad, and that this gentleman was sentenced to 15 years in 1920 for a similar offence?

I quite agree that it would be generally advantageous if both Jews and Arabs would talk more calmly on these matters.

Is it not a fact that in 1920 Mr. Jabotinsky was liberated from gaol after serving six weeks of his 15 years' sentence, and was deported on the distinct understanding that he was not to return to Palestine?

I was not aware of the statements that my hon. and gallant Friend has made, but I will certainly take note of them.

On a point of Order—

I will deal with the point of order in good time. Meanwhile, I hope hon. Members in all quarters of the House will assist me in preventing the system of supplementary questions becoming abused.

We on this side consider that the situation in Palestine is a very dangerous one, and that we have a right to put a certain number of questions to the Minister if possible, and we ask for fair protection.

If hon. Members have further questions to ask, it would be very much better to put them down separately instead of putting them as supplementaries.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sheikh El-Muzaffar, the honorary secretary of the Moslem and Christian Association, a former mufti of the Turkish Army, and nine other leading Moslems of Jaffa were arrested on the night of 23rd November, 1929; that these men were tried by the administrative Governor of Jaffa and not by a judge or magistrate; that they were not allowed counsel and were all sentenced to exile and imprisonment at Acre, and were sent handcuffed to two convicted murderers; and that, owing to the illtreatment received, the Sheikh El-Muzaffar and Midhat-Effendi Habbab are now seriously ill in hospital; and whether he will look into this matter and have a full inquiry made?

I have no information on some of the statements in the question and must not be taken as accepting them as accurate. I am aware that a number of persons engaged in political agitation and a compaign of intimidation were arrested on the occasion mentioned and were sentenced under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance. The Ordinance provides for the imprisonment of persons who, when ordered to do so, fail to give security to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour. The circumstances were reported and fully gone into at the time, and I see no reason for making further inquiry now.

Why is there this reason for difference of treatment between Sheikh El-Muzaffar and Mr. Jabotinsky? Is it not because one is an Arab and the other a Jew?

No. I must repudiate such a suggestion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must be aware that these matters are under the general supervision of the High Commissioner, and you cannot expect us here to interfere in these details. We are satisfied that the procedure under which these convictions took place was perfectly right and proper.

Does this special Ordinance to which the hon. Gentleman refers supplement or take the place of the ordinary law?

I understand it supplements the former law, but is now, of course, part of the ordinary law.

Will the hon. Gentleman get exact information on the point if I put down a question?

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of inquiring into the present administration of justice in Palestine?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has figures for the past 10 years showing how many Jews have settled in Palestine and how much Jewish capital has been invested in it, also the effect of the Jewish effort upon the social, economic and cultural level of the country, including the Arab inhabitants?

The excess of Jewish immigrants over emigrants from 1st September, 1920, to 30th November, 1929, was approximately 72,000. There is no doubt that a very large amount of Jewish capital has been invested in Palestine during the period, but I am not in a position to give official figures. The last part of the question raises wide general considerations which could not be stated in numerical terms.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, when the Arab delegation arrives in this country from Palestine in the near future, to invite accredited Arab and Jewish leaders to attend a joint conference, under Government auspices, for the purpose of attempting to reach an amicable settlement of outstanding differences?

The hon. Member's suggestion will be borne in mind. But I am unable to say whether circumstances will admit of its adoption.

asked the. Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British taxpayer has contributed towards the creation of the Jewish homeland m Palestine or the maintenance of the Palestine administration, or whether the civil administration of Palestine is entirely supported by means of its own internal revenue; and from what source the excess cost of the British forces stationed in Palestine and Trans-jordan over the cost of such forces if stationed in Great Britain is defrayed?

Apart from charges in respect of a force of British Gendarmerie which was established, under the orders of the Palestine Government, in order to enable reductions to be effected in the Imperial Garrison, no portion of the cost of the Civil Administration of Palestine has been defrayed by the British Exchequer. As regards the last part of the question, the excess cost of the normal Garrison, apart from works services in Transjordan, is borne by Palestine funds. The question of incidence of charge of the additional forces employed during the recent disturbances has not yet been settled.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether on or about the 26th November, 1929, he received a telegram from the Arab executive in Palestine objecting to the proposed signature of the formal agreement between the Crown agents for the Colonies and Mr. Moses Novomeysky and Major Tulloch for the grant of the Dead Sea salts concession, on the ground that the agreement and concession were contrary to, and an evasion of, Article 11 of the Mandate; and what steps he has taken as a result of this communication?

I received the telegram from the Arab Executive to which the hon. Member refers. As the hon. Member is aware the preliminary agreement for the grant of the Dead Sea Salts Concession to Messrs. Novomeysky and Tulloch was signed in May last. I see no ground for the contention that the concession was contrary to and an evasion of Article 11 of the Mandate. No action was taken as a result of the telegram.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state what action has been taken in respect of the £20,000, included in the Kenya estimates for 1930, representing arrears of Hut Tax not collected in 1929 on account of famine; and whether the Governor has been advised to exercise his powers of remission of this sum?

The Kenya estimates for 1930, as passed in the Legislative Council, have only just been received and are now being examined. The figures for native taxation have been revised since the estimates were prepared for submission to the Council, and it is not clear what sum is budgeted for as arrears of tax not collected in 1929 owing to famine. The position will have to be further investigated, and for the moment I cannot add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 23rd December.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the value of the cotton exports from Kenya for each of the last three years for which figures are available?

The figures required are as follow:—

How can the hon. Gentleman's figures be correct, seeing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) stated last Wednesday in an interruption of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that no cotton was produced in Kenya.

I must leave the right hon. Gentleman to settle that matter with that hon. and gallant Member.

Is it not obvious from the hon. Gentleman's reply that the exports of cotton from Kenya are absolutely negligible considering the amount of the exports from other Colonies?

I do not think that it is true to say that £30,000 and £20,000 are absolutely negligible sums.