asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in the settlement of the claims of British creditors against Soviet Russia; and if he will state the present position?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in regard to the settlement of outstanding debts due by the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to Great Britain and to British citizens?

The Joint Anglo-Soviet Committee which is investigating this question has now reached an agreement regarding the functions and procedure of the subcommittees which will inquire into the various categories of claims. It has also been agreed that Sub-Committee B—which deals with the bondholders' claims and Soviet counter claims—will meet on the 26th of January, and Sub-Committee C—which deals with miscellaneous private debts, claims and counter claims on both sides—will meet early in February.

Can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication of when any payments are likely to be made?

Can the hon. Gentleman say who the chairmen of these various committees and sub-committees are to be?

I shall be very glad to give the hon. and gallant Member that information if he will put down a question. Altogether, there are six committees to be set up.

Can there be a postponement of any loans to Soviet Russia until these claims have been met?

I am not aware of any loans being made to Soviet Russia.

Do we understand that no evidence has been taken from the claimants, and that things are still in the air?

What I said in the answer was that the two committees are shortly going to meet. The sub-committees will determine their own procedure about taking evidence on that matter.

Is it not the case that the then British Government, to get the Russians to come into the War, promised to give them Constantinople?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the matters which are still outstanding and in respect of which protests and other communications have been made by His Majesty's Government to the Soviet Government?

My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to answer in detail a general question of this nature. A number of communications on a variety of subjects are continually passing between His Majesty's Government and other Governments with which they are in diplomatic relations. If the right hon. Gentleman has any particular matter in mind, perhaps he will put down a specific question regarding it.

Surely the hon. Member is ready to make a statement this afternoon as to the number of grave protests which have been made quite recently, what action has been taken and whether the Soviet Government has expressed any intention of meeting the desires of the present Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many protests he has made to the Soviet Government since he took office; has he received replies to them all; in how many cases has the reply been satisfactory; and in how many cases has the protest had to be repeated?

If by "protests" the hon. Member means representations to the Soviet Government comparable with those made on seven occasions between 1921 and the rupture of relations in 1927, the only representations of this nature made by my right hon. Friend related to the allegations made by the Soviet Public Prosecutor in the Moscow trial of November-December last. The House is aware from my right hon. Friend's reply of the 15th of December last that His Majesty's Government recorded their dissatisfaction at the attitude adopted by the Soviet Government in this matter. My right hon. Friend has, however, on three other occasions warned the Soviet Ambassador of the danger to the relations between our respective Governments of certain activities which were regarded by His Majesty's Government as breaches of the pledges exchanged in December, 1929, and has also, as he informed the House on the 8th of December, made a protest in connection with a wireless message broadcast from Moscow.

Have not all these protests been treated with utter contempt?

Is there still a difference of opinion between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government as to the interpretation of the Protocol referred to, and are any steps being taken to try to come to an agreed understanding of that Protocol?

I do not think that arises directly out of the question on the Paper.

Will the hon. Gentleman inform us what was the reply given by the Soviet Government to these three representations and warnings by the Foreign Secretary?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the organisation of wireless broadcasting is under Government control in the Soviet Republic?

Regulations regarding the degree of Government control exercised over wireless broadcasting in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are contained in a decree of the People's Commissars of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of the 15th of February, 1929, as amended in 1930. I will send a translation of this decree to the right hon. Gentleman, if he desires to see it.

I would like to have that document. Does the answer mean that the Soviet Government have control over broadcast talks? If so, does it mean that the Soviet Government hold themselves responsible for the broadcast talks which have been so damaging to this country?

Perhaps I had better let the right hon. Gentleman have the copy of the decree in order that he may form his own opinion.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman form his own opinion?

Opinions might differ between myself and the right hon. Gentleman. This is a somewhat long decree, and, if I am asked to summarise it, I would say that there is some degree of Government control. The precise degree is indicated in the decree, which I am offering to let the right hon. Gentleman see in extenso.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any broadcast of propaganda from Russia has been reported to him during the Recess; and, if so, what action has he taken?

The only action which my right hon. Friend has considered it necessary to take is to arrange for stenographic reports of messages broadcast from Moscow during the Recess to be placed in the Library of the House.

Has there been any repetition of broadcasting from Russia during the Recess?

Various wireless talks have been broadcast from Moscow. Copies of these have been supplied by the Postmaster-General to the Foreign Office. My right hon. Friend has directed that copies are to be placed in the Library of the House where the hon. Member and others who are interested can read them.

In view of their unfriendly character and their damaging effect upon good relations, will the Under-Secretary of State—

Commander Bellairs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied that there has been no abuse of the diplomatic immunity granted to the Russian trade delegation in this country?

My right hon. Friend is not aware of any abuse of the diplomatic immunity conferred upon the Soviet Trade Delegation by Article 2 of the Temporary Commercial Agreement of the 16th of April, 1930.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his Department has sufficient information on which to prepare a White Paper showing the relations which exist between the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and the principal political, trading, and trade union organisations existing in Soviet Russia?

The Commercial Secretary at the British Embassy at Moscow is at present engaged on a report on the organisation of the administrative machinery of Soviet foreign trade. In view of its complexity, it is unlikely that this report will be completed in the near future; but my right hon. Friend is prepared to lay it when received. In the meantime I would refer the hon. Member to various works of reference on the subject, the titles and particulars, of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In view of the divergence of opinion between the representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Republics, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the difference between those two points?

I am afraid I have not understood the hon. Member's question. The difference between what two points?

In the expressed opinion of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary there is a certain interpretation of these conventions—

Speech!

The hon. Member had better put a question on the Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House particulars of the reply of the Russian Soviet Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Government with reference to the non-payment of the arbitral award to Lena Goldfields, Limited?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the attitude of the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to the Lena Goldfields arbitral award?

My right hon. Friend does not consider that the interests of the company would be served by the making of any statement at the present time. The Foreign Office is working in close collaboration with the company, and the case is still under discussion between His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow and the Soviet Government.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman say, apart from the methods of payment, has the Soviet Government recognised its liability?

I will answer that by repeating that we are primarily concerned with the interests of the company; and my right hon. Friend, after careful consideration, is of opinion that it is not in the interests of the company to make any further statement at this moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will communicate with our Ambassador in Moscow as to including in the White Paper or a supplementary White Paper information as to the famine conditions in Soviet Russia?

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to include in the White Paper any information other than that which it is designed to include, namely, legislative ordinances dealing with labour in the Soviet Union.

What about the hellish conditions in Glasgow?

asked the Prime Minister if he will inform the House of the result of his inquiry with regard to the conditions obtaining in Russian timber camps as testified to in the sworn statement forwarded to him by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young); whether any official British representative has visited the camps in question; and whether such representative has had full facilities for acquainting himself with the conditions under which timber exported into this country from Russia is produced and handled?

My inquiry consisted in seeking advice as to whether the various statements submitted to me regarding conditions in Russian timber camps would warrant action against the imports of that timber, under the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act, and that advice has been in the negative. No official British representative has visited the camps in question. I desire to take this opportunity of saying that I fully realise the anxiety caused in this country by the allegations regarding the conditions under which timber imported into the United Kingdom from the Soviet Union is produced. The House will understand that it is hardly suitable for one sovereign and independent State to request permission to make an investigation into the internal affairs of another. His Majesty's Government have, however, felt it only right to make known to the Soviet Government, through His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow, the statements that are being made and the extent of the interest on the subject felt in this country.

Does not the Prime Minister realise that this timber is being daily marketed in this country, and that British people are unwilling, as long as there is this allegation that it is made by slave labour, to have it put into their houses? Does he not recognise the responsibility of getting definite information, aye or no, whether these allegations are true or are false?

Is the Prime Minister aware that the timber produced in Finland and Sweden is produced under worse conditions than in Russia?

I am perfectly aware of those statements and alleged statements, but I hope the House will remember that in this matter it is one sovereign State dealing with another, and it is not only regarding Russian timber but many other imports into this country, and similarly regarding exports from this country, that interested people in various countries tell similar stories.

Does the Prime Minister intend to press for an answer from the Soviet Government to this communication?

That question had better be addressed to the Foreign Office. In that respect, I am simply the vehicle of communication of what has been done through the proper channels.

Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to answer so important a question himself and not refer us to some inferior Minister?

I demur very much to that. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a certain order in these matters, that it is the duty of the Department named to make these communications and, when these communications have been made and an answer is received, then, if it is necessary, it comes under my notice, but not before.

Has any foreign nation made representations to Russia in respect of the allegations that are being made?

Really, I must not make myself responsible for answering questions which it is not my business to answer.

May I ask one non-provocative question? As the right hon. Gentleman is unable to act, will he invite a representative of the League of Nations to visit Russia for this purpose?

That question should he put on the Paper.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to give the pledge of the Government that they are prepared to prevent slave conditions for miners and railway-men in this country?

Is the Prime Minister aware that his action may result in weeks and weeks of delay? It is easy to investigate the question in this country.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,

"The failure of the Government to make adequate inquiry in regard to conditions obtaining in Russian timber camps, as testified to in the sworn statement forwarded to the Prime Minister by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks and otherwise, whereby it, is alleged that Russian timber, which is daily being marketed in this country, is produced and handled by slave labour, thereby affronting the feelings and traditions of British citizens"—

"increasing unemployment, and infringing the provisions of the Prison Goods Act."

Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time it is quite impossible for any Russian timber to come over on account of the Baltic being closed?

Again, I am afraid that I cannot accept this Motion under Standing Order No. 10. It would not be in order.

On that point of Order. This is the earliest opportunity we have had of raising the matter. While it is true that Archangel may be closed by ice, the timber is daily being marketed in this country, and I submit that it is an urgent matter which should be dealt with by the House of Commons at the earliest possible moment.

On the point of Order, I submit that this matter cannot be said to be urgent inasmuch as it has been dealt with during the last 12 months; secondly, as the hon. Member said, there cannot be for four months yet any exportation of Russian timer, and thirdly—[Interruption.] With great respect—[Interruption.]

In giving my Ruling, I have fully considered the question and I cannot allow the Motion to be put under Standing Order No. 10.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House as to the progress of events in China in so far as British lives or property have been affected?

I am glad to say that no threat to British lives or property in China was reported during the Christmas Recess. One British subject (Father Tierney) is still in the hands of brigands, but the British authorities are making every effort to secure his release. Generally speaking, the position of the Nanking Government has been greatly strengthened. The rebellion in the North West provinces seems now to be definitely at an end. Complete harmony appears to exist between the President of the Republic and the Governor of Manchuria; and a determined effort is being made to suppress the outbreaks of organised banditry which unhappily occurred during 1930 at various points in the interior.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the interested Powers have conferred together with a view to using their good offices for a peaceful solution of the disturbances and civil war in China; and whether a proposal to give joint diplomatic and financial assistance to the constitutional Government in China has been considered?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. No proposal of the nature indicated in the second part of the question has been made to my right hon. Friend. As my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, the general condition of China has greatly improved, and there has been no renewal of the civil war.

Has this matter been before the League?

I am glad to say I believe the time has passed when it would be reasonable to bring it before the League.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to make a statement on the new Chinese tariff and how far additional duties are to be imposed; and what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to safeguard the interests of British trade at Nanking?

The new Chinese tariff came into force on the 1st January. Import duties have been increased for most commodities but have been reduced for some goods, including certain types of machinery. The changes in duties effected by the new tariff do not conflict with the provisions of any Treaties in force between this country and China. His Majesty's Government are bringing details of the changes, as they become available, to the notice of the interests concerned in this country.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the present position in China as affecting British trade and commerce?

It would not be practicable to deal with this matter by question and answer. If my hon. and gallant Friend would let me know on what particular points he desires information I will endeavour to give it.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is now in a position to state whether the Board of Admiralty have reached a decision regarding the award of marriage allowances to naval officers?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of yesterday (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 20–21) to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis).

Is it not a fact that all this information has been before the Admiralty for a considerable time, a committee having been appointed in 1924, which was presided over by a distinguished admiral, and which reported in favour of the scheme?

As I informed the hon. Member yesterday, in reply to a supplementary question, this matter is now before the Board of Admiralty, on which the officers are represented.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to state when we may expect a decision?

No, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what decision has been reached in respect of the scheme for improving technical instruction given to apprentices in the civil engineering department, Devonport Dockyard?

A scheme to extend the facilities for technical instruction of apprentices in the civil engineering departments in the Royal dockyards is still at present under consideration. It is hoped that a decision may be reached in the near future.

asked the. Minister of Transport whether he has any report to make on the new highway code of rules for motorists and pedestrians?

A draft of the Highway Code was circulated to the various authorities, associations and other bodies concerned in the middle of December and was given wide publicity in the Press. The observations and suggestions submitted from all quarters are being carefully considered and a conference, over which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry will preside, is being held to-morrow for the purpose of obtaining the views of those bodies on certain suggestions received.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when the code will come into effective operation and how he intends to define major and minor roads?

On the second point, I do not think that I ought to anticipate matters. The code cannot come into force until it has been confirmed by both Houses of Parliament. I hope to submit the code for approval within the next few weeks.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any further intention of defining what signals pedestrians should give to motorists?

That point is under consideration.

asked the Minister of Transport how far the planning and drawings have progressed respecting the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel; and whether the work has been sanctioned for the pilot tunnel?

It is hoped to invite tenders within the next few weeks for the construction of the pilot tunnel in connection with the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately, how many men are likely to be employed?

No, I cannot say.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, seeing that he has appointed Mr. Joseph Farndale, C.B.E., ex-chief Constable of Bradford, to be chairman of the traffic commissioners for Yorkshire, he will state the amount per annum that Mr. Farndale will receive in pension for past services in the police force?

I understand that in accordance with the usual scale, Mr. Farndale will be entitled to a pension of two-thirds of his salary.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the exact amount?

The salary was £1,250, and therefore the pension will be in the region of £800 a year.

Does the Minister of Transport not appreciate the foolishness of appointing a man in receipt of a pension of £800 a year to such a post?

asked the Minister of Transport if he will see that in all the appointments of inspectors and examiners under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, they shall be persons who are not in receipt of pensions from positions previously held?

I will bear carefully in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion, with which I am generally in sympathy, but the predominant consideration must be the selection of the best qualified candidate in each case.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in appointing these traffic inspectors and examiners, the inadvisability of appointing men who are in receipt of pensions?

I have already informed my hon. Friend that I am in general sympathy with the point he raises, and it will be easier of application in those cases; but where it is a question of securing the services of the men whom I require and whose experience particularly fits them for the task I really am not going to deny the public service the advantages to be obtained from such appointments.

asked the Minister of Transport when he proposes to introduce a Bill for the co-ordination of the tube railways, omnibus, and tramways services of London?

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the present position as to the London traffic scheme?

Discussions are still proceeding with the various authorities and bodies concerned, but I am not yet in a position to announce a date for the introduction of the Bill.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any serious hopes of introducing the Bill within the course of the present Session?

Certainly.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any recommendation from the London Traffic Advisory Committee with regard to the circulation of motor-coaches in London; and whether he will state both its nature and the decision thereon?

I have received a recommendation from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee that in order to relieve congestion regulations should be made with the object of restricting the operation of motor-coaches within the central area of London, and have published draft regulations in the matter. Before any regulations are made I shall carefully consider any representations which may be received within the statutory period of 40 days after the publication of the draft regulations. This period expires on 28th January.

Has any such representation been received from outside sources so far?

I understand that representations have been received.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he proposes to take steps to secure the building of a tube railway from Liverpool Steet via Bethnal Green to Ilford and beyond?

I am informed by the London and North Eastern Railway Company that they are not yet in a position to report any decision with regard to the construction of a tube railway from Liverpool Street to Ilford.

Will the Government give any assistance to this scheme?

I cannot say until the railway company make application.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider it?

Certainly. We consider everything.

Is the right hon. Gentleman really bringing any pressure to bear on this railway company to come to a prompt decision; and is he aware that people who have to travel from Ilford to Liverpool Street are impossibly crowded at the present moment?

I am quite aware of that fact.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the present position as to the Charing Cross Bridge scheme?

I understand that the committee set up to advise the London County Council are expected to report early in March.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the communication he has received from the joint councils of Erith, Crayford and Dart- ford regarding the scheme for reclamation of the foreshore of the south bank of the River Thames from Woolwich to the proposed Dartford tunnel approach, the reclamation of the marshland in that area will be considered in the same scheme?

I have not received any communication on the matter referred to by my hon. Friend. If he will be good enough to furnish me with particulars regarding the suggested scheme of reclamation, I shall be glad to look into the matter forthwith.

asked the Minister of Agriculture Whether in view of the fact that in November 40 per cent. of the wheat that came here was from Soviet Russia and some was sold down to 22s. a quarter, he will say what steps he is taking to counteract the effect on British agriculture of these sudden importations?

The cereal situation in this country is under examination, but I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply on this subject given on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade on the 30th October to the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope).

When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the House the results of his consideration?

I cannot say at the moment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since this question was put on the Paper, the price of Russian wheat has further depreciated to 18s. 6d. a quarter; and what is going to be done for the British farmer?

I am well aware of the price of Russian wheat.

Will you shut out Russian wheat?

Did not the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that, as soon as the Imperial Conference closed, we should have a definite statement of the Government's policy with regard to cereal agriculture?

The statement was that as soon as the Conference closed we should take the matter into our consideration.

Are not the Soviet Government and Arcos getting just as high a price as they can?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the decision of the Soviet Russian authorities to increase the exportable surplus of grain in 1931 from 10 per cent. to 25 per cent.; and what measures the Government intend to take to prevent dumping of this produce in the United Kingdom?

I do not know the source of the hon. and gallant Member's figures, but I am aware that the Soviet Government are hoping to be able to increase the exportable surplus of grain. With regard to the second part of the question I would refer to the answer which I gave on 3rd November to a question by the hon. Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Sir G. Penny), a copy of which I am sending to the hon. and gallant Member.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this export can only be increased by starving Russian nationals?

No, Sir; I am not aware that that is so.

You ought to be!

Are you taking any steps to find out?

Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement made by the hon. Member opposite is entirely untrue?—[Interruption.]

May we have an opportunity—[Interruption.] On a point of Order. An hon. Member has declared that the statement made by me is untrue. All that I ask is an opportunity later to prove that my statement was true. Can we have that opportunity?

Captain Peter Macdonald.