asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has received any information as to the country of origin of the four films that have recently been prohibited from exhibition in India; and will he give particulars?

I have been asked to reply. Two of these films are of Indian and two of American origin.

Can the hon. Member say on what grounds these films have been prohibited?

I am sorry, but I cannot give that information.

Will my hon. Friend get the information and send it to me?

I will convey the request to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for India how many prisoners are still in gaol for political offences; and whether all prisoners covered by the recent Delhi agreement have now been released?

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the position on the 26th March.

Can the hon. Member say whether all prisoners have now been released under the agreement?

The answer gives the number of prisoners who have been released. I understand that there is a number of cases still being considered.

May I ask whether the hon. Member will ask the Secretary of State for India to consider the release of other prisoners including the Meerut prisoners?

No!

Following is the table:

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can state the names of the proposed federal structure committee, the terms of reference, if any, and when it will be meeting?

My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to give this information.

Can my hon. Friend give any indication when the Secretary of State will be in a position to make a statement?

My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to say when he will be able to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the murder of a dealer in foreign cloth at Benares on the 10th February and to the fact that this man in his dying statement mentioned the name of a Congress volunteer as his assailant; and whether the accused man has been arrested?

Yes, Sir. The Secretary of State is aware that such a statement was made, but he has no information as to the second part of the question.

Will the hon. Member suggest to the Secretary of State that he might inquire as to whether the murderer has been arrested?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give information concerning the opportunities provided by the railway authorities in India to students from the engineering colleges at Benares for facilitating workshop practice in the railway workshops on the Indian state railways?

My right hon. Friend regrets that he has no information. The matter is not one on which the Government of India would consider it necessary to consult him or to furnish him with details.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he is in a position to inform the House of the personnel of the Indian delegation to the forthcoming International Labour Conference at Geneva?

The Secretary of State hopes to be in a position to make an announcement after Easter.

asked the Secretary of State for India the total cost to Indian revenues of the maintenance of the services taken over from the Indian Broadcasting Company; and what part of this cost is met by receipts from the issue by the Government of India of wireless receiving licences?

I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving particulars of expenditure and income for the period 1st April to 30th September, 1930.

Following is the statement:

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can yet make any statement as to the carrying on of the proposals of the Round Table Conference for the future government of Burma?

It is not yet possible to say anything on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for India (1) the total number of lives lost and the number of police killed, respectively, in disturbances of all kinds in the provinces of Madras and Bombay during the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930;

(2) the total number of lives lost in disturbances of all kinds in Calcutta during the years 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively?

It is regretted that such statistics are not available, but if the hon. Member so desires, the Government of India will be asked to inquire from the local Governments in question whether the figures could be compiled without undue labour.

Will the hon. Member ask the Secretary of State to obtain these figures?

I will convey the hon. Member's request to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he has received a report of the fighting in the Insein and Tharawaddy districts of Burma; and what casualties were caused thereby?

My right hon. Friend received a report that two half companies of Punjabis had been engaged in the Insein district, and that it had been found necessary to patrol a section of the railway line in the Tharawaddy district with an armoured train. No details have been received regarding the incidents reported in the Press last week which appear to have been merely local skirmishes.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he has now received a report of the rioting in Cawnpore; and if he cam state the cause of the outbreak?

asked the Secretary of State for India how many persons have been killed and injured as a result of the outbreak in Cawnpore; and whether conditions there are now quiet?

The rioting followed an attempt to force Mohammedan shop-keepers to close their shops in protest against the executions at Lahore. Daily reports have been received. A report received from Cawnpore this morning states that feeling is getting better and that the situation in the city this morning is perfectly quiet. No case of arson or murder occurred during the night; some of the mills were starting work this morning, and some shops were being opened. The number of dead registered at the cavil hospital amounts to 141 and the number of injured treated is 386.

As this appears to be the most serious outbreak that has ever occurred in this part of India, I beg to give notice that I will refer to this matter on the adjournment this evening or to-morrow in order to ask certain questions.

asked the Secretary of State for India what special measures or ordinances have been imposed by the Government of India in view of the riots which have occurred following the recent executions?

No ordinance has been promulgated by the Governor-General nor have the Government of India taken any special measures. The rioting at Cawnpore has been dealt with by the local authorities in accordance with their powers under the ordinary law.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the actual terms of the telegram he recently despatched to Mr. Gandhi with regard to the Round Table Conference and the discussion of constitutional safeguards?

My right hon. Friend has sent no such telegram.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any statement concerning the safety of Father C. Tierney, of the St. Columba's Mission, at Keinchang; and whether he has any information concerning the murder of two American women missionaries last week?

His Majesty's Minister in China is unable as yet either to confirm or to deny the rumour that Father Tierney is dead. Sir Miles Lampson is in frequent communication with the Minister for Foreign Affairs who, on Wednesday last, undertook to telegraph again to the local authorities. The latter have already been instructed to spare no means to secure Father Tierney's release and are prepared to pay the ransom demanded by the bandits, if he is still alive and his release can thereby be obtained. A special messenger, who has been sent to the locality by the Chinese Government to obtain all possible information is expected back at Nanking on the 3rd of April. I have no information apart from statements in the Press regarding the reported murder of two American women missionaries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he can now communicate to the House any further information relating to the projected Austro - German Customs scheme; and whether he will make a statement as to its bearing upon the Treaty of St. Germain or the Geneva Protocol of 1922?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the German and Austrian Governments have offered any explanation of their failure to give earlier information to His Majesty's Government of the fact that they were negotiating a Customs union, thus leaving His Majesty's Government to glean their first information of the agreement from the French Ambassador;

(2) if he can make a full statement to the House as to the terms of the preliminary agreement for a Customs union concluded between Germany and Austria, and say what steps His Majesty's Government propose to take to determine whether the agreement conforms to the provisions of the Treaty of St. Germain and the Geneva Protocol of 1922, and how the Customs union, as explained by the two Governments, would affect the Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses of our commercial treaties with Germany and Austria?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a full statement to the House on the progress of the negotiations between Germany and Austria for the establishment of a Customs union; and what representations have been made to safeguard the interests of British trade in both those countries?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give the House any information with regard to the proposed Austro-German Customs agreement and its possible effect upon British commercial interests?

The answer to these questions relating to the German-Austrian Customs union is very long, and I desire, Mr. Speaker, to ask you whether it would not be more convenient if I made my statement on the subject at the close of Questions.

I think that course would meet the wishes of hon. Members.

At end of Questions —

I propose to try, in reply, to give the House a general but concise account of the course of events and of the action taken and contemplated by His Majesty's Government in reference to the proposed Austro-German Customs Union. On Saturday, 21st March, the Austrian Minister called on the Permanent Under-Secretary of State to inform him on the instructions of his Government that the German and Austrian Governments had decided that negotiations for a customs union should be entered upon immediately; that both were ready to enter into negotiations for a similar agreement with any other European State; and that the basis of negotiations must be the maintenance of the full sovereignty and independence of participating States. On Monday morning of last week, just as I was leaving for Paris, the German Ambassador saw me at the Foreign Office. Among other points mentioned was the proposed customs union between Germany and Austria. The Ambassador confirmed and endorsed the statements made by the Austrian Minister on Saturday, 21st March. Later on the same day the Austrian Minister said that his Government in no way intended to face foreign Governments with a customs union as an accomplished fact. On this day also (Monday the 23rd) the Austrian Minister and German Ambassador left at the Foreign Office copies of the preliminary agreement concluded between Austria and Germany. I am circulating a translation of this in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The French Ambassador also handed to me at Victoria Station and left at the Foreign Office a memorandum to the effect that the French Government considered the proposed agreement to be a violation by Austria of Protocol No. 1 of October, 1922, and by both Germany and Austria of the commercial treaties between France and these countries, and had so informed the Austrian and German Governments.

The method and the time chosen by the Austrian and German Governments for conveying the information to the other interested Governments has rightly provoked widespread comment.

Hear, hear.

I will content myself with saying that this method is calculated to raise suspicions and to nullify the advantages for the frank exchange of ideas offered by the now frequent meetings at Geneva and elsewhere between the representatives of the various Governments.

The initial reception given by me to the various statements and memoranda to which I have referred was one of reserve. It was at once apparent to me that hurried decisions were not compatible with the nature of the case, but on the contrary that points of law were involved which demanded expert advice and mature deliberation. On my arrival in Paris I found French opinion in a state of very natural perturbation. After carefully considering the issues involved, I came to the conclusion that the matter was eminently one which came within the competence of the Council of the League of Nations. Accordingly I decided on Wednesday the 25th to inform the German and Austrian Governments that they should be under no misapprehension as to the serious misgivings aroused by their action in many countries and in France in particular. Though there might be two opinions as to the exact conformity of the proposed treaty with the existing obligations of Austria, and indeed of Germany, the widespread state of feeling to which I have referred caused me great concern, and I felt that if nothing were done to calm existing apprehensions the task of those who were anxious that the Disarmament Conference should meet under the most favourable conditions would be seriously compromised by any apparent disregard by unilateral action or interpretation of any treaty obligations.

I caused these considerations to be submitted to the German and Austrian Chancellors with all the emphasis which the circumstances in my opinion demanded, and I appealed to them that before they proceeded further an opportunity should be given to the Council of the League of Nations, under whose auspices the protocol of 1922 was negotiated, to assure itself that the proposed treaty was not contrary to the obligations undertaken by Austria in that instrument. I informed M. Briand at once of the action I had taken and he assured me that the procedure which I contemplated would fully meet the views of the French Government.

On the following day, 26th March, I received the reply of the Austrian Government. It was to the effect that they were of the opinion that the proposed agreement was quite in conformity with the Geneva Protocol of 1922. They did not object to the legal aspect of it being examined by the Governments which signed the Geneva Protocol. To examine the agreement from the political standpoint would however be out of the question considering its economic character. The Austrian Government had had no intention of facing us with a fait accompli.

The German Government replied that the Austro-German agreement was entirely within the framework of the Geneva protocol of 4th October, 1922. Therefore, in their opinion there was no reason why the Council of the League of Nations should take up the matter. The two Governments had nothing to fear if the other Governments proceeded to an examination of the juridical aspect of the question, but the German Government could not admit an examination of the Agreement by the Council of the League from a political standpoint, as the Agreement was of a purely economic character. The negotiations would naturally have to take their course, and, having regard to the numerous technical details which had to be settled, could not be concluded before two or three months had elapsed.

I regarded the Austrian answer as less open to question than the German answer, which might be held to imply that an examination of the juridical aspect of the question would have to be conducted without their co-operation, and expressed the intention of continuing negotiations with Austria in the meantime. Thinking that the German Government had perhaps misapprehended my suggestion, I telegraphed to Berlin on the 26th of March, saying that my suggestion had been simply to the effect that, before the two Governments proceeded further, an opportunity should be given to the Council to assure itself that the proposed treaty was not contrary to the 1922 Protocol. It was possible that the Council would be reluctant to pronounce on so technical and juridical a question without seeking an opinion from the Permanent Court of International Justice, and I should support such a procedure.

The German Government replied on the same day that they had perfectly understood my proposal; that the negotiations contemplated between the two Governments would take two or three months at least; that the German Government, for their part, saw no reason to refer the proposed treaty to the League Council since they were satisfied that it was not contrary to the Protocol of 1922; that the Powers signatory to the Protocol were, of course, at liberty to refer the Treaty to the Council, but that the German Government must reserve complete liberty of action with regard to any procedure which may be suggested to the Council. The German Government did not understand my proposal to refer the Treaty for examination to the Council as suggesting its examination from a political standpoint, but wished to make it clear that, in their view, an examination from such a standpoint was not admissible.

That is how things now stand. It is my intention to give notice to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations of my wish to discuss at the next Council meeting the compatibility of the proposed Agreement with Austria's treaty obligations, particularly under the Protocol of 1922; and if there is a general desire that the Council should be assisted by an Advisory opinion from the Permanent Court of International Justice, I shall certainly support a reference to that Court. The Austrian Government will, of course, in accordance with the standing rules, be invited to participate in these discussions, and the communication from them which I have just quoted implies, I am glad to say, that such an invitation would be accepted. The German Government's response to my explanations recognises, as I understand it, the propriety of a reference to the Council while reserving their rights in respect to any procedure there proposed to be followed.

I am glad from this to infer that the other members of the Council will have the benefit of the German view of the question submitted—a question, I may add, so eminently and incontestably suitable for such procedure; and I earnestly hope that it may be found, when the time comes, that negotiations between the Austrian and German Governments will not have been so advanced as to prejudice the friendly atmosphere in which matters are normally dealt with by the Council. In the confident expectation that my hopes will be realised, I ask you, in passing, to direct your particular attention to the inestimable benefit which the existence of the League machinery confers on States Members confronted, as we all have been, during the last few days, with a situation which might, in other circumstances, have continued to generate hotter feelings and harder words.

There are four points of interest and importance arising out of these events, on which the House will wish to receive information. In the first place, a divergence of view has been revealed as to whether the Council of the League or some special subsidiary organ is the proper forum for discussion in the first instance of the legal aspects of the proposed Agreement. I have the best authority for saying that the constitution and rules of the League require that this should be the Council, under whose auspices the Protocol of 1922 was negotiated; and I have framed my proposal accordingly. As I have already said, Austria will presumably be represented ad hoc.

Secondly, there is the question of what view His Majesty's Government take of the various legal questions involved. These have been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and it would not be proper for me now to anticipate the opinion that will be given. I must repeat that, as I have already informed the German and Austrian Governments, the attitude of His Majesty's Government must be one of complete reserve.

Thirdly, there is the question of the relation of the proposed Customs Union to the most-favoured-nation clauses in our commercial treaties with Austria and Germany. So far as the latter is concerned, no doubt can arise. Article 4 (2) of the Anglo-German Treaty of Commerce of 1924 specifically excepts from the provisions of the Treaty any benefit accorded to any country linked or to be linked with Germany by a Customs Union. A similar clause does not, however, figure in the Franco-German Treaty. The Anglo-Austrian commercial treaty of 1924 contains no such clause.

Finally, there is the question of how British trade would be affected should a Customs Union on the lines so far planned come into existence. Any answer to this must be speculative, at least at present. At this stage, and on the scanty information hitherto available, I can only say that the matter is being carefully studied by the Departments concerned.

In conclusion, I would reiterate and emphasise that the pursuit—I hope the unanimous pursuit—of the line that His Majesty's Government has already laid down offers the best, indeed the only proper, solution of an episode that has caused a regrettable perturbation in Europe.

Following is the translation of the preliminary agreement:

PROTOCOL.

"In the course of the conversations which took place in Vienna at the beginning of March, 1931, the German Government and the Austrian Government agreed to enter forthwith into negotiations for a treaty to assimilate the tariff and economic policies of their respective countries on the basis and within the limits of the following principles.

I.

(1) The treaty is destined to mark the beginning of a new order of European economic conditions on lines of regional agreements, of the two countries being fully maintained and due respect being paid to the obligations undertaken by them towards third States.

(2) More especially both parties will in the treaty declare their willingness to enter into negotiations for a similar agreement with any other country expressing such a desire.

II.

(1) Germany and Austria will agree on a tariff law and a customs tariff which shall be put into force in both customs territories concurrently with the treaty and for the period of its validity.

(2) During the validity of the treaty amendments to the tariff law and the customs tariff may only be effected in virtue of an agreement of both parties.

III.

(1) As long as the treaty remains in force the exchange of goods between the two countries shall not be subject to any import or export duties.

(2) The two Governments shall agree in the treaty whether provisional tariffs will be necessary, and, if so, for which specified categories of goods and for which period.

IV.

(1) The two Governments shall agree to stipulations in the treaty concerning a provisional arrangement regarding interchange in respect of the turnover tax and as to such goods for which, at the present time, monopolies or excise duties are in existence in either of the two countries.

V.

(1) The Customs Administration of each of the two countries shall be independent of that of the other and shall remain under the exclusive control of the Government of its respective country. Furthermore each country shall bear the expenses of its own Customs Administration.

(2) Both Governments whilst fully respecting the above principle, will assure by special measures of a technical character the uniform execution of the tariff law, the customs tariff and the other tariff regulations.

VI.

(1) In the German customs territory the customs duties shall be levied by the German customs authorities and in the Austrian customs territory by the Austrian customs authorities.

(2) After deducting the special expenses arising out of the application of the treaty the amount of the duties received shall be apportioned between the two countries according to a quota.

(3) In the agreements to be made regarding this point care will be taken not to prejudice the liens on customs revenues existing in either country.

VII.

(1) No import, export or transit prohibitions shall exist between Germany and Austria. Such exceptions as may prove to be necessary for reasons of public security, public health or similar grounds shall be specified in the treaty as precisely as possible.

(2) In place of the Convention on Animal Disease concluded between Germany and Austria on 12th July, 1924, the two Governments will conclude as soon as possible, not later than one year after the entry into operation of the treaty, and put into force a fresh agreement regulating the traffic of animals and animal products between Germany and Austria under the same conditions in accordance with the same regulations as govern internal traffic in Germany and Austria.

VIII.

The rights appertaining to individuals and juridical persons of the one party in the territory of the other in respect of settlement, industry, taxation, etc., shall be regulated in the treaty on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Austro-German Commercial Treaty now in force. On the same basis regulations shall also be agreed upon concerning railway and shipping traffic between the two parties.

IX.

(1) Each of the two Governments, even after the entry into force of the treaty, shall retain in principle the right to conclude commercial treaties with third States on their own behalf.

(2) In such negotiations with third States, the German and the Austrian Governments will take heed that the interests of the other contracting party are not infringed by the text and object of the treaty to be concluded.

(3) So far as it seems opportune and possible with a view to effecting a simple, speedy and uniform settlement of the commercial relations with third States, the German Government and the Austrian Government will conduct joint negotiations for the conclusion of commercial treaties with third States. Even in this case, however, Germany and Austria will each sign and ratify a separate commercial treaty on their own behalf, and will only arrange together for a simultaneous exchange of the ratifications with the third State in question.

X.

The two Governments will take the necessary steps in due time to bring into accord with one another and with the contents and object of the treaty, the existing commercial treaties concluded by Germany and Austria with third States so far as they contain obligations respecting customs tariff rates or so far as they might impair the execution of the existing import and export prohibitions and other regulations on the exchange of goods.

XI.

(1) To ensure a smooth working of the treaty an Arbitral Committee shall be provided for therein composed on the lines of complete parity of members of the two parties. This Committee will have to deal with the following matters:

( a ) settlement by arbitration of differences of opinion arising between both parties as to the interpretation and application of the treaty;

( b ) to bring about a compromise in such cases where the treaty provides for a special agreement between both parties or in which according to the text of the treaty the realisation of the intentions of the one party depends upon the consent of the other, provided that in such cases agreement cannot be reached between the two parties.

(2) A decision of the Arbitral Committee in cases ( a ) and ( b ) referred to above shall have binding effect on both parties, a majority of votes being sufficient. The President of the Committee shall have a casting vote. Complete parity in choosing the President from time to time shall be provided for in the treaty.

(3) Should either of the two Governments be of the opinion that the decision of the Arbitral Committee in any of the cases mentioned under 1 ( b ) infringes its vital economic interests, it shall be entitled to terminate the treaty at any time on giving six months' notice. Such notice of termination may also be given during the first period of three years mentioned under XII (2).

XII.

(1) The treaty to be concluded shall be ratified and shall enter into operation at the end of a period to be fixed in the treaty which extends from the date of the exchange of ratifications.

(2) The treaty may be denounced at any time upon one year's notice, but not before the end of the third year after its entry into force except in the case mentioned under XI (3).

(3) Notice may only be given in virtue of a law to be enacted by the country denouncing the treaty.

If I may say so, I entirely agree with the course which the right hon. Gentleman is taking in endeavouring to secure that the matter shall be discussed at Geneva. I want to ask one supplementary question; whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to raise the question by itself under its own title, so to speak, at the Council of the League, or whether he proposes to refer to any particular Article in the Covenant in connection with the discussion, for instance Article XI?

No, I simply propose to give notice that I am going to raise the question. I am not quite sure at the moment, until I have had legal advice, as to which Article, if any of the Articles, it is necessary to quote.

Arising out of the question which I have on the Order Paper, may I ask whether, according to Article 264 of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany is not precluded from allowing Austrian goods to enter free of duty, and, if she persists in doing that, would not Great Britain be entitled, under Article 264, to obtain the same privileges?

I think I must ask the House, until legal advice is obtained, to leave the matter where my statement left it.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether any other country desired or has shown any intention or desire to come into this Pact between Austria and Germany?

I think most of the information I have is that other countries are not at the moment inclined to come in, but rather inclined to quarrel.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the announcement made by Mr. Molotov, chairman of the Council of People's Commissars in the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, on the 8th March that representatives of foreign States in Moscow are free to visit the forests and to ascertain for themselves whether the labour is forced or not; and whether he will issue instructions to our Ambassador in Moscow to avail himself of this privilege?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he proposes to take in view of the announcement by the trade representative of the Soviet Government in this country that it has been decided by the Soviet Government to throw open all the areas in Russia where timber camps exist to all the embassies at present established in Russia?

Statements have appeared in the Press of Monsieur Molotov's announcement. This, however, was limited to an inquiry by members of foreign missions and foreign Press correspondents in the Soviet Union. I am informed that several Press correspondents are proceeding to the timber camps. I have consulted His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow, and am convinced that no investigation other than one carried out by fully qualified experts would be effective, and to such an investigation the Soviet Government maintain their objection. I do not propose, therefore, to instruct His Majesty's Ambassador to undertake an inquiry of the nature suggested.

Would it not be possible for the British Ambassador to go accompanied by experts?

I have tried to make it clear that I think it highly inadvisable that officials of the Embassy should be used for such a purpose as this, especially against the will of the Government to whom they are accredited.

Did not M. Molotov state that representatives of foreign States, which means the foreign Ambassadors, were invited specially to go and make inquiries?

I have already answered that question.

Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained that the Soviet Government still objects to the visit of experts, that is since the date when the statement was made that they would permit the representatives of foreign Governments to go?

I do not know that the Ambassador has put it in that way. He is very firm in his position that no such investigation would be effective. I would have to communicate with him afresh if the right hon. Gentleman presses that point.

I am asking whether the Ambassador is still of opinion that an examination by experts would be ineffective, and, if not, whether the right hon. Gentleman would now make a second request as to whether an examination by experts would be allowed?

I will look into that side of the question.

According to the Blue Book published—

Sir Kingsley Wood.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the decree of 20th March, issued by the People's Commissars of Soviet Russia, relative to the State bank returning to the methods of capitalistic bankers; and whether he will obtain a copy of this decree and give this House a summary of its provisions?

The decree to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was published in "Izvestiya" on the 21st of March. It is lengthy and difficult to summarise, but I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a translation.

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, given on 2nd September, 1930, as well as the result of any subsequent negotiations?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to give further information with regard to the payment of the Lena arbitration award?

My Department continues to be in close touch with the company, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow is at present engaged in negotiations with the Soviet Government on their behalf. While these negotiations are still proceeding, I do not consider that any further statement would serve the interests of the company.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly seven months have now passed since the award of £13,000,000 was given, and the company has not received a single penny? Will he press the Ambassador to expedites matters?

I do not know that I can do more by way of pressing the Ambassador. I have been myself on several occasions in touch with the representatives of the company, and I can assure the hon. Member that we are doing everything we can.

In view of the very heavy export credit guarantees that we give to Russia, has the right hon. Gentleman not considerable powers, and will he not exercise them?

I do not think that that arises from the original question.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether there have been any exchanges of views with Canada in regard to co-operation in our mutual diplomatic and economic relations with Soviet Russia?

There has been no recent correspondence with His Majesty's Government in Canada of the general character indicated by the hon. and gallant Member.

Is it not desirable that the British Empire should act as one unit in these matters?

We would be delighted, but, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, the Dominions often take views of their own in all these matters.

As the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be delighted, will the Government take the same steps as Canada has done to preclude the importation into this country of timber obtained under conditions with which we in this country do not agree?

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of ships and total tonnage which have been chartered at Cardiff by Russian Soviet agents; the terms upon which the ships are chartered; and when the negotiations are likely to be completed?

From such information as I have been able to obtain, I understand that among the vessels recently chartered by Soviet agents there were some 10 Cardiff owned vessels of about 48,000 tons deadweight chartered at Cardiff. I am not in a position to give information as to the terms or the negotiations.

Will the hon. Member make inquiries of the captains of these vessels as to the conditions obtaining in the timber trade in Russia?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the attitude of the Government towards the proposal for the formation of an European Economic Union?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make a statement to the House on the proceedings of the conference at Paris for the federal union of Europe which took place on the 24th instant, and at which he was present as the representative of His Majesty's Government?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of the results of the conversations on European union which took place last week in Paris?

Meetings were held on Paris, on the 24th and 25th of March, of the Sub-Committee on Organisation of the Commission of Inquiry for European Union. The sub-committee was able to agree upon a draft agenda for the next session of the commission, which is fixed to begin on the 15th of May at Geneva. The agenda calls for the examination of certain proposals for the better organisation of the future work of the commission, and of various economic questions, such as the disposal of grain surpluses in Central and Eastern European countries, agricultural credits and unemployment.

Will this involve any denunciation of the commercial treaties that we have with European countries?

I do not think so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement in regard to affairs in Dominica and as to what are our trading relations with the Republic since the dismissal of judges who ruled in favour of the Bank of Nova Scotia in the action brought by the Michelina family?

So far as I am aware, complete order prevails in Santo Domingo, whose relations with this country are both normal and friendly. Any reorganisation that may have occurred in the Dominican judiciary is not a matter which concerns His Majesty's Government.

Are not the Government proposing to take any action, seeing that the judges have been dismissed because they ruled in favour of the British company?

The matter has been very closely watched by the representatives of His Majesty's Government, but they are not proposing to take any action on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

We make the suggestion that you should take action.

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will make a statement on the success achieved by the British Empire Trade Exhibition at Buenos Ayres; and if it is intended that the exhibition shall be extended beyond 27th April?

Reports received from Buenos Ayres indicate that the British Empire Trade Exhibition has achieved a great success. In a telegram received by the London management of the exhibition, after the departure of Their Royal Highnesses, the Prince of Wales and Prince George, it was stated that the exhibition had been universally pronounced to be the most arresting event which Buenos Ayres has ever witnessed. In addition, I may say that Sir Herbert Gibson, the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the exhibition, spoke to me on the telephone on Friday last from Buenos Ayres, and informed me that the exhibition was enjoying an unqualified success. He informed me that up to that date the attendance had already exceeded 300,000. I understand that the exhibition management do not at present contemplate the extension of the period of the exhibition beyond the 27th April.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his very satisfactory reply, may I ask if he will undertake, following upon that expression, that the activities of the Department in the development of trade with the Argentine will be intensified as much as possible?

We are already doing so, and shall continue to do so.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will, in view of the fact that the British Government holds 44 per cent. of the shares and certificates of the Suez Canal Company, request the appropriate economic committee to ascertain and report whether the scales of the Suez Canal dues are of such a nature as to act as a restriction on the export of British goods to the East?

The whole question of the level of the Suez Canal dues is at present under consideration, but I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by instituting a special inquiry of the kind suggested in the question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the officials of the Suez Canal issued a statement last week, in which they said that, owing to the aggressive manner in which claims of British traders for a reduction of the dues had been presented, they were not disposed to reduce the dues; and will he ask His Majesty's representatives on the Board to protest against such language, as its tone is regarded by British traders as an impertinence?

I have seen the notice referred to, but I do not think that it will disturb the answer which I have given, that it is still under consideration.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell our representative that language of the kind referred to will not be tolerated by British interests, who are the largest customers of the Canal?

Does not the hon. Gentleman see the great importance attached by British shipping interests to this matter, and is he not satisfied that in any action he sees fit to take he will have their full support?

The Board of Trade are fully seized of the importance of this question, but we have not absolute control.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will obtain from the international committee of bankers, who signed the supplementary debt agreement with the Mexican Minister of Finance on 29th January last, an explanation of the condition that the silver coin deposited in the bank of the city of Mexico for the Mexican debt services is to be totally immobilised during the validity of the supplementary agreement, and an explanation of a similar arrangement concerning $5,000,000 (United States) in silver deposited in the National Bank of Mexico?

I would refer the hon. Member to the very full reply given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) on the 18th March, to which I have nothing to add.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the date upon which the Mexican congress approved of the supplementary debt agreement signed by the Mexican Minister of Finance on 29th January last?

The new Agreement has not yet been submitted to the Mexican Congress.

What good, therefore, is the reply about the agreement referred to in Question 34, if it is not confirmed?

We have to wait and see whether it is confirmed.

But this vague agreement is part of a default which has been running for the past 17 years.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the progress of the Franco-Italian Naval Agreement?

A drafting committee, on which France, Italy and Great Britain are represented, has been sitting for the purpose of putting into final form the bases of agreement already decided upon.

Is the United States of America in agreement with regard to that settlement?

They are being kept informed, but they are at present not represented on the committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any information in the possession of his Department or of the League of Nations concerning the number of people belonging to the Ukrainian minority in Poland who were imprisoned during the pacification of the Ukrainians in September, October, and November, 1930, and who are still in prison?

I have at present no detailed information on these points, but the whole question of the treatment of the Ukrainian minority will be considered next month by the Committee of Three, of which I am a member.

asked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government has ratified, or intends to ratify, the draft convention concerning forced or compulsory labour adopted at the fourteenth session of the International Labour Conference held in June, 1930; and whether any and, if so, what other States have ratified?

I understand that this Draft Convention has already been ratified by Liberia and the Irish Free State. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be in a position to announce the intentions of the Government in regard to it.

asked the Minister of Labour whether she has considered the representations received from the National Council of Women that the Government delegates to the forthcoming International Labour Conference at Geneva should propose the postponement until June, 1932 of any decision on the revision of the Washington (1919) Convention concerning the employment of women at night, and should also propose placing on the agenda of the 1932 conference a full discussion of the question of prohibiting night work to women only; and whether the Government are prepared to carry out this suggestion?

The Government have had these proposals under consideration, but are not prepared to accept them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, at the conference to be convened by the League of Nations at Geneva in May next on the limitation of the manufacture of dangerous drugs, the production and distribution of opium will be included in the purview of the conference?

No, Sir. The question of limiting the production of raw opium is outside the scope of the Conference.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that quantities of opium and its derivatives are being sent into China from Soviet Russia; and whether he will endeavour to obtain information from the League of Nations on this matter and communicate to the House the measures taken to check it?

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is not aware that it is the case, as stated in the first part of the question, that quantities of opium and its derivatives are being sent from Russia into China and, in the circumstances, he does not see that any action is called for on the part of His Majesty's Government. If the hon. Member is in possession of any information and would like to forward it to my right hon. Friend, he would be happy to consider it.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the repeated statements that intensive smuggling of opium goes on in China from Russia?

My right hon. Friend says that he has no evidence.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether the board of control of the institutions dealing with cases of severe mental and nervous disorders have further considered the question that the male nursing staff employed in such institutions under his control should have the additional qualification of possessing a certificate; and can he state the present number of qualified male nurses employed in the institutions under his direct control?

In the temporary absence of my right hon. Friend, I have been asked to reply. The general position as regards the nursing staff in institutions of the kind referred to does not differ from that stated in the answer given to the hon. Member on the 15th December last, of which I am sending him a copy. My right hon. Friend points out that the standard which my hon. Friend suggests is one which the Board of Control have not found it practicable or desirable to advise in the case of the mental hospitals.

Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. Friend that where necessity occurs in future certificated nurses should replace those who do not hold the necessary certificates?

The hon. Member's suggestion will be conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of applications submitted from ex-service men to the Ministry of Pensions for pension since the decision of the Government to abolish the seven years' limit; what is the number of such applications which have been admitted and pensions granted; and whether the Government will make a further notification of their decision in respect of the over seven years' cases in order that ex-service men may know that notwithstanding the lapse of seven years they may, if satisfied that they have good grounds, apply for disability pension?

During the 15 months which have elapsed since November, 1929, some 22,800 applications have been received in respect of fresh disabilities, including an undetermined number of renewed applications. During the same period 1,210 cases have been recognised by way of medical treatment or the award of compensation in the form of pension or other pecuniary grant. Full publicity has been given to the decision referred to, which my right hon. Friend has every reason to believe is well known, and a further announcement at the present time would, in his view, serve no useful purpose.

Will the hon. Gentleman communicate to his right hon. Friend the suggestion contained in the last part of the question, as many ex-service men are still unaware of the advantages to be gained in respect of "over seven years" cases?

Certainly.

asked the Prime Minister whether it has been decided by His Majesty's Government to ratify the Washington Hours Convention as it stands without any reservation, condition, or statutory interpretation?

The Government's policy is to ratify the Convention without reservation or condition. The Convention requires legislation to give it statutory effect, and the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill has accordingly been introduced.

Is it the fact that the Convention is only to be ratified subject to the statutory interpretation to be contained in an Act of Parliament?

The statutory interpretation depends on the interpretation of the Convention itself. The Act of Parliament is regulated by the wording of the Convention.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the last Socialist Government the ratification of this Convention was promised?

Yes. It is still going.

Will the interpretation of some of the most important terms of the Convention be agreed with the other signatories or ratifying countries?

I have taken this question on account of the responsibility for finding time. I think the details had better be put to the Department which has the matter in hand. I am sure that any question like that will be answered by the Ministry of Labour.

With all deference, may I still put it to the Prime Minister that the uniform interpretation of the most important terms is the most vital matter in the whole business?

asked the Minister of Labour whether the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill is required to be passed into law before the Washington Hours Convention can be ratified; and, if so, whether, in so far as the Bill is intended to control the operation of the Washington Hours Convention, the Convention will be interpreted and applied in the same way on the United Kingdom as in Italy and France respectively?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, all nations ratifying the Convention assume identical obligations.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether these identical obligations will be interpreted in the same way by the different nations?

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that two of the nations mentioned here have ratified conditionally, but in those particular countries the Convention will not operate until others begin to operate it.

That is no answer to my question. The question was whether the terms containing the obligations in the Convention will be interpreted in the same sense by different countries which are ratifying.

That remains to be seen, but a country has a right to criticise its operation in other countries only when it ratifies.

Will the hon. Gentleman take care that this country is not prejudiced in the interpretation put upon the Convention?

asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to take any further stages of the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill at an early date; and whether he can make any statement as to the obstacles which have prevented any progress with the Bill since its re-introduction last November?

The Government proposes to take the further stages of the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill at the earliest practicable date. The hon. and learned Member may be aware that pressure of other business has made it impossible hitherto to proceed with the Bill.

Who is the main cause of the delay?

asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to make any changes in the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill as a result of the decision of the House upon the question of university representation; if so, what the changes are; and to what extent will the time-table be amended to ensure an opportunity for their adequate discussion?

I am not yet in a position to add anything to what I have already said on this subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House due notice before the discussion of the Bill is resumed, as he will see at once that the action of the Government materially affects the Schedules and the time-table in connection with this Measure?

I am sorry to say that I fail to see the point of the last part of the question. The next day on which the Bill is put down will be announced in the usual way.

Does the Prime Minister not remember that one of the early days in the next stage of our discussions deals with the Schedules and that the Schedules are materially altered by the decision of the House, in reference to University representation?

Yes, but consequential changes will be made as consequential changes.

I am sorry to press the Prime Minister upon this matter, but does he not see that the House is acting upon a time-table and that the time-table is based upon the Bill in its original form? The decision at which the House arrived the other day materially alters that time-table, and the House must have any Government change in mind before we can deal with it under the time-table at all.

The block which includes these consequential alterations is a rather substantial one, and will provide, I am sure, to judge by our past experience, plenty of opportunities for discussion.

asked the Prime Minister whether there is any alteration in the duties of the Lord Privy Seal; and whether questions affecting plans for relieving unemployment should be addressed to the Lord Privy Seal or to the other Departments concerned?

There has been no change in the position indicated in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend on the 25th June last. Questions relating to particular measures for the relief of unemployment should continue to be addressed to the Departmental Ministers concerned, while those of a more general character may be addressed to the Lord Privy Seal.

To whom are questions to be addressed in regard to the industrial field—in regard to industrial affairs, as far as this subject is concerned?

I should say, generally, that questions relating to such matters as industrial reorganisation would be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade as hitherto. It all depends on the question itself.

I am asking about questions dealing entirely with industrial affairs. Industrial reorganisation is simply a matter of dealing with what already exists in the industrial field, but, if we are to make any advance, these questions must refer to something else besides the reorganisation of what exists. To whom are such questions to be addressed?

asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the reason for the number of typists required by his Department for 1931, so that out of a total staff of 429, of whom 58 are employed in non-clerical labour such as messengers and storekeepers, 73 are typists, or approximately one-fifth of the entire clerical staff?

The Department of Overseas Trade differs considerably from other Government Departments in that it is largely a clearing house of information obtained from its overseas officers throughout the world. It has therefore heavy requirements in the way of typing staff and these requirements have, as a matter of fact, only recently been carefully reviewed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the proportion of typists employed in his Department is much greater now than when he took it over?

The percentage of typists employed is much the same as that of some larger Departments doing similar work.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the response of the business people, exporters and manufacturers, in this country has been greater under his control of the Department than heretofore?

Yes, that is so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if his attention has been called to the resolution adopted by a conference on pollution held at Swansea, at which his representatives were present; and whether he will state what steps he is taking to prevent the further pollution of rivers?

I have been asked to reply. The resolution referred to by the hon. Member has been brought to my right hon. Friend's notice. The responsibility for taking steps to prevent the pollution of rivers rests with the local authorities, and my right hon. Friend is constantly pressing for action in the matter and also encouraging the formation of joint bodies for the purpose. During the last eight years loans of nearly £43,000,000 have been sanctioned by my Department for sewerage and sewage disposal, of which it is estimated that one-half was for sewage disposal and therefore for the protection of rivers from pollution.

Is the hon. Lady satisfied with the results of the work to which she refers; and is there not still a scandalous state of pollution of these rivers?

I think there is no doubt that the work has had a good effect.

But is the hon. Lady satisfied that it has been enough? Cannot more be done?

asked the Minister of Agriculture what action he proposes to take to protect the potato and other vegetable crops in this country from the ravages of the Colorado beetle?

I have decided after full consideration that it is necessary to take further precautions against the introduction of the beetle into this country. The present regulations prohibit the importation from France of potatoes, tomatoes and living plants grown within 40 kilometres of any place where the beetle has been known to exist; an Order under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts will be issued shortly extending the radius from 40 kilometres to 75 kilometres.

Is this pest increasing, or is it decreasing, like the Socialist majority?

asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of applications to purchase made by tenants of small holdings to the Salop County Council since 1920, the number of applications granted and refused, and the reasons given for refusal?

I am informed by the county council that seven such applications have been made. Four have been granted and three refused, in one case because the price offered could not be accepted, and in two cases because the holding in question is in the centre of the council's estate. In one of these latter cases I am informed that the cultivation of the holding is not satisfactory. This case is before me at the present time and the council's refusal will not be final until my consent is given.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that, generally speaking, reasonable opportunities are being given to these smallholders to purchase their holdings, because my information is that there is considerable dissatisfaction among these men?

Yes. I think the record shows that reasonable opportunities are given, and more than half the applications have been granted.

asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of eggs packed under the national mark in February last and in the corresponding month of 1930; and whether he is satisfied that poultry keepers are giving adequate support to this scheme?

The number of eggs graded and packed under the national mark was 17½ millions in February of this year as compared with 11 millions in February, 1930. This represents an increase of 59 per cent., showing that poultry keepers are realising the value of the scheme. There are still certain areas where packing stations are few, and I hope that as the benefits of the scheme become better known, and egg producers in those areas appreciate the strength of the public and trade preference for national mark eggs, they will establish their own packing stations for the grading and selling of their eggs under the mark.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will arrange for the posters issued in connection with the allotment scheme to be displayed in the Tea Room for the information of Members?

My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works will be happy to consult the proper authorities on the matter with a view to complying with my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of new potatoes imported into this country in 1930 during the months of March, April, May, and June, respectively?

Separate statistics relating to the imports of new potatoes are not available, but the total weight of potatoes imported into the United Kingdom and registered during the months of March, April, May and June of last year was 79,844 cwts., 163,480 cwts., 974,318 cwts., and 2,438,393 cwts., respectively.