asked the Minister of Labour the number of ironstone miners and quarrymen unemployed on any convenient date in February, 1932?

At 22nd February, 1932, there were 5,202 insured persons in the iron ore and ironstone mining and quarrying classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of prosecutions during the past two years under the Auction Bidding Agreement Act, 1927; and whether he is aware of the increasing prevalence of rings in public auctions?

So far as England and Wales is concerned, the answer to the first part of the question is that no prosecutions under Section 1 of the Act referred to have been taken. As regards the second part of the question, I have no information that rings at public auctions have become increasingly prevalent.

In view of the fact that the corruption at public auctions is becoming very prevalent, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the Act is enforced?

I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

asked the Home Secretary if he will reconsder the decision communicated to chief constables on the 27th May, 1929, whereby chief constables were authorised to demand a payment as a condition of permitting a police constable, who has witnessed an accident, to be interviewed and a note, proof, or precognition of his evidence to be taken with a view to tendering him as a witness in a civil claim for damages?

No, Sir; the amount of police time occupied by interviews of this nature fully justifies the making of a charge.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see how it injures the course of justice if a private citizen were not to do his duty unless paid in advance? If you were asked a question in the witness box and you demanded some money before you gave an answer, you would be discredited. Why should a policeman not do the duty of an ordinary citizen without being paid for it?

The police are not primarily concerned with civil litigation, and, if the private parties to civil proceedings require police evidence and take up the time of the police, it is right in the public interest that a fee should be paid. If in any particular case hardship is involved on account of poverty, the requirement of the fee is waived.

Why should a policeman be different from the ordinary citizen? Is not his duty to testify to the truth greater than that of ordinary citizens?

Yes, if he is summoned as a witness undoubtedly he has to attend in the ordinary course, but for interviews beforehand with solicitors and so forth a public servant, such as a policeman, is entitled to be charged for in the interests of the public purse. I am not prepared to waive this fee.

Would any sane person call a witness without knowing what he was going to say? It is a very important point in the interests of justice.

We cannot fight it out now.

I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory answer, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment on the first possible occasion.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that as a result of the provisions of the poisons schedule, which restricts the sale of full-strength disinfectants to registered chemists, the public are being put off with low-grade disinfectants bought at small stores and shops; and whether he will take steps to allow such establishments to sell efficient disinfectants?

This matter was dealt with in the report of the Departmental Committee on the Poisons and Pharmacy Acts, which reported two years ago, and in the Bill, based upon the recommendations in that report, which was introduced last year. The question of introducing the Bill again next Session will be considered in due course.

asked the Minister of Health if he can state how many of the local authorities in Great Britain now make it a condition that all tenders for contracts to be given by them shall include a statement that preference will be given as far as possible to materials and articles of United Kingdom or Empire origin?

I regret that the figures desired by my hon. Friend are not available. I have, however, no reason for thinking that local authorities generally are not complying with the advice contained in the Circular, a copy of which I have already sent him.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that they are complying? Many are not.

My opinion is that they are complying with the Circular.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the number of teachers who have taken advantage of the financial assistance given by local authorities for training at teachers' colleges during the past five years; and what has been the cost incurred?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will cause to be minted small perforated nickel coins of the denomination of pence and halfpence concurrently with the present copper coins which, owing to bulk and weight, are unsuitable for carrying about to meet the daily requirements of the people?

I can see no sufficient reason to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Has my right hon. Friend not found it very inconvenient to carry an adequate supply of coppers for omnibuses and tubes in London? Taximen never have any change.

I see no reason to suppose that taximen would provide themselves with these small perforated nickel coins.

Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not realise that Members of the House of Commons who are of a thrifty nature will then be able to carry an abundant supply for themselves?

I would deprecate any suggestion of hoarding and increased carrying of coins by Members of the House of Commons.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that thousands of people would like a chance of carrying coppers?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now make any statement with regard to the present position of the Hoover moratorium proposals?

A resolution was adopted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in December last to authorise the postponement of amounts payable to the United States from foreign Governments during the year ending 30th June, 1932, and their repayment over a 10-year period beginning 1st July, 1933. A similar postponement of intergovernmental debts due to Governments other than the United States was effected by the Protocols signed at London on 11th August, 1931 (published as Command Paper 3947).

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that each judge of the county court is only provided with one set of law reports, which are only available at one court on the circuit, in consequence of which judgments are frequently reserved; and, as this occasions delay and expense to litigants, will he consider the advisability of providing judges with additional sets of such reports?

I am aware that each judge of the county court is only provided with one set of law reports. I am not aware that this frequently causes judgments to be reserved which would not otherwise be reserved; but in any case the cost of providing additional sets of law reports would be disproportionate to any benefit to litigants.

In view of the general outcry for cheaper litigation would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not consider granting at least some additional facilities to assist our very hard-worked judges of county courts in their efforts to reduce the delay to a minimum?

I would point out that there is also a very general demand for economy.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the price of a set of law reports is very small, and that a few hundreds of pounds would provide the whole set?

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that such a set of law reports is available in each and every assize town, for the use of His Majesty's judges?

Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consult with the Law Officers about this matter, as it is impossible to argue important questions of law before a county court judge who has not available a report of the cases to which he is being referred?

If hon. Members will provide me with any instances in which inconvenience has been caused, I shall be glad to look into them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any information to show to what extent the grading and marking of beef under the National Mark Scheme has proved successful in increasing the demands for the home-fed product?

The scheme referred to has been the subject of investigation recently by an Inter-Departmental Committee. I understand that the Committee's report, which will be published shortly as a Command Paper, contains information as to the effect of beef grading and marking on the demand for the home product, and perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will await this report.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will cause inquiry to be made as to the desirability and practicability of applying a marking order to distinguish foreign from British oysters?

The statutory procedure for an inquiry such as that suggested by my hon. Friend is regulated by the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926. Under the Act an inquiry cannot be initiated unless an application substantially representative of some interest concerned has been made to the appropriate department. I have not so far received any such application.

asked the Minister of Agriculture how large a staff is employed in the marking of meat under the National Mark Beef Scheme; what is the total cost of the salaries paid; and whether, in view of the number of senders who mark their own beef, he will consider making a reduction in the staff employed?

The staff employed in the marking of meat under the National Mark Scheme consists of 13 meat graders and 11 meat markers, the annual cost being £8,796. So far as I am aware, there are no senders in England and Wales who grade and mark their own beef.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the constituency which I represent there are two Government officers, salaried to mark beef, while 75 per cent. of the senders mark their own beef; and in the interests of that national economy about which my constituents in Aberdeen are so anxious, is he not prepared to consider the matter?

That question should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now snake a statement as to the inclusion of additional products under national mark schemes?

I have arranged for the extension of the national mark scheme to plums, bottled fruits and vegetables, and honey, during the present year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can explain the reason for the reduction in the number of allotments in 1930; how these figures compare with those in 1931; and how many requests for allotments are still unsatisfied?

The main reason for the decrease in allotments is that the enhanced value of land in the vicinity of towns brings about its diversion to other uses, and it is difficult to acquire other land equally convenient to the allotment holders. I have no information as to the position in 1931 as compared with 1930, as returns were not collected last year. The number of unsatisfied applicants at the end of 1930 was 9,868. Most of these would be accommodated in due course, either on new land then in course of acquisition or on existing allotments as vacancies occurred.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what arrangements are being made for full details with regard to the manufacturing costs of sugar from sugar-beet being made available to the Departmental Committee now investigating the whole beet-sugar question?

The Committee referred to by my hon. Friend has had at its disposal all available information with regard to the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many of the beet-sugar factories in Great Britain are so designed that it would be possible for them to cease operations at the raw sugar stage; and whether he has any information to show whether factories which carry their operations through to the white sugar stage have been able to operate more profitably than the others?

I understand that it would be technically possible to stop the sugar production process at the raw sugar stage in British beet-sugar factories, but in the case of factories which carry the process through to the white sugar stage this would, of course, involve the disuse of part of their plant. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if, in view of the dissatisfaction in the Service at the General Elections in 1929 and 1931 with the existing provisions of the law governing the exercise of the franchise by those serving in the Army, he will cause inquiry to be made as to the advisability of amending these provisions?

I have been asked to reply. As a result of numerous complaints after the General Election in 1929, the whole system of Parliamentary Registration of Army personnel was overhauled and revised. As far as is known the system worked smoothly and satisfactorily during the 1931 Election, and no complaints have reached the Department.

If I give the hon. Gentleman specific instances to show that the system has not worked smoothly and well, will he give the matter sympathetic consideration?

I am certain that my right hon. Friend would be pleased to receive those representations.

Does not the result of the last Election show that it worked admirably?

The House has listened to a number of Debates on the Indian situation during this Session, and I regret having to delay the departure of Members for the Easter vacation, by calling attention, once again, to the serious position which prevails in all parts of that unhappy country. There does not appear to be any lack of goodwill on the part of the Government, or the Secretary of State for India. I have read the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman during the Debate of 2nd December, and I am confirmed in the impression which I received at that time, that he has a generous sense of his responsibility to the Indian people and the larger view which entitles him to justice in his responsible position. It must cause him pain and disappointment at the delay in what he described as a vigorous approach to the goal of India's ambition. Those speeches more than three months ago, following the Prime Minister's friendly leave-taking of the Indian Delegation at the Round Table Conference, had raised our hopes that the long negotiations had not been fruitless.

This House expressed approval of the White Paper and the Prime Minister's words by an overwhelming majority, and I am sure there is an equally overwhelming number of Members who deplore the failure to continue the negotiations after the Delegation had returned to India. We have never been told quite clearly why Mr. Gandhi failed to get into conference with Lord Willingdon, and why the amnesty proposed by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, and so cordially endorsed by the Prime Minister in his speech to the Delegation, did not operate. We now appear to be further back than we have been for years, not because there is any absence of desire for settlement, but apparently because the machinery of conciliation has broken down. When we compare the parting words of the Prime Minister with the recital of recent events in India., we feel that there is something which is incompatible with the wishes of the Government and of this House. It is becoming universally acknowledged that even moderate opinion in India is more profoundly anxious than it has been for a very long time, and Britain's best friends are disturbed and alarmed at the course of Indian events.

I shall not quote information that has reached me, because I know that the House does not wish to be detained too long, but I want simply to give reasons why the Secretary of State should give the House satisfaction, and that his words may travel beyond this House and give hope to those who are striving for happier conditions in India. The Secretary of State has given the House week by week an official report of the disorders and the penalties and deterrents which have been substituted for the law in India. It all seems so different from the picture to be drawn from the speech of the Prime Minister. Let us recall those words. The Prime Minister, speaking to the Delegation, said:

"Now I want you to take it from me that the attitude of the British Government…. is nothing more than an overpowering desire to leave you to settle your own affairs. We are not pro-Hindu, we are not pro-anything else. If we are animated by anything, it is by the conception of India herself—India a unity, India feeling behind and below and above and beyond her communal differences that mystic bond of unity which the great poets, the great philosophers, and the great religious teachers of India have always felt. Believe me, the British Government has no desire to use your disagreements for any ulterior purpose. Quite the opposite. Our one ambition is that, being in a sense kith and kin with you (since history, whether you liked it or whether we liked it has woven our destinies somehow together), we may use that unity with you in order to pave your way and smooth your path to that much required internal unity amongst yourselves."

11.30 a.m.

A great deal has happened since then, only three short months ago. Members have been supplied with copies of the East India Emergency Measures, and I find that exceptional powers have been taken by the Government in Ordinances of one form or another. It is very difficult indeed to reconcile those generous statements of the Prime Minister with the terms of those Ordinances. In Ordinance No. 11 of 1932 the Government have taken powers of a very special character, and in reading this I realise that British rule as we knew it in the past no longer obtains in India. Something has been substituted for the ordinary machinery of law which restricts and confines the Indian people to limits that are perfectly intolerable. In paragraph 4 of Chapter 2 of Ordinance No. 11 I find that power to control suspected persons has been given in these words:

"The Local Government if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any person has acted, is acting, or is about to act in a manner prejudicial to the public safety or peace [or in furtherance of a movement prejudicial to the public safety or peace], may, by order in writing, give anyone or more of the following directions, namely, that such person—

(a) shall not enter, reside or remain in any area specified in the order;

(b) shall reside or remain in any area specified in the order;

(c) shall remove himself from, and shall not return to, any area specified in the order;

(d) shall conduct himself in such manner, abstain from such acts, or take such order with any property in his possession or under his control, as may be specified in the order."

I really do not know what all this means. I do not think there is any Member of this House, whether of the legal profession or a layman, who can tell me what that means. The English of the paragraph does not convey very clearly to any ordinary reader what is intended, but I can imagine every phase of personal liberty being taken away from anyone in India under that Section. There is hardly the right to breathe. I will skip over the Ordinance, but there are many objectionable features in it. There are powers to issue search warrants, general powers of search, and so on. Offensive, inquisitorial, restrictive provisions of all kinds are coming into operation because there is a movement in India asserting itself, possibly unwisely in the opinion of many people in this country, but a movement to which response is made by very large numbers of Indian people, and which is growing and spreading all over India, despite all the powers taken by the Government in these Orders.

Then I find that there are definitions of offences in Ordinance No. 5 of 1932, and it is really astonishing to read the definition of molestation, which is as follows:

"For the purposes of this Chapter, a person is said to molest another person who—

(a) with a view to cause such other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a right to do or to abstain from doing, obstructs or uses violence to or intimidates such other person or anyone in whom such person is interested or loiters at or near a house where such person or anyone in whom such person is interested resides or works or carries on business or happens to be, or persistently follows him from place to place, or interferes with any property owned or used by him or deprives him or hinders him in the use thereof, or

(b) loiters at or near the place where such other person carries on business in such a way or with intent that any person may thereby be deterred from entering or approaching or dealing at such place or does any other act at or near such place which may have a like effect."

Lower down there is a definition of "boycott." India has many debts to Britain, and she has borrowed a word which is very British, but it is a long step from Captain Boycott to the Ordinances in India. This offence originated in Northern Ireland, and it is now defined for the purposes of British rule in India in these words:

"A person is said to 'boycott' another person who refuses to deal or do business with, or to supply goods to, or to let a house or land to, or to render any customary service to such person or any person in whom such person is interested, or refuses to do so on the terms on which such things would be done in the ordinary course, or abstains from such professional or business relations as he would ordinarily maintain with such person."

How many Members of this House would retain their freedom for one hour if an Ordinance like this was in force in this country? The whole thing is intolerable, and such an Ordinance is very bad for the future relations between Britain and India. I received yesterday—and I am sorry that I did not give the Minister notice of this last night—a copy of a telegraphed dispatch which was stopped in transmission from India to this country. It was signed by Madon Mohan Malaviya. It was a long telegram, and I shall read only extracts from it. It gives the view of the Ordinances from the other end. It is the view of an Indian Nationalist who is counted of moderate opinion and a man of great ability. He refers to the Secretary of State by his surname, but this is not to be taken offensively in a telegram:

"Reply Hoare circulated House of Commons 15th inst., on political situation India which indicated improvement from Government point view several respects incorrect and misleading. Hoare admitted boycott now chief activity Congress. This been so since commencement civil disobedience movement this time and it has shown no sign slackening contrary been deepening penetrating interior all parts country. In towns generally large numbers merchants not placing orders foreign cloth British goods. In number places they separated sealed up such goods in stock at others this work proceeding with help peaceful picketing quiet house to house persuasion. As things going on may safely assumed unless great change public sentiment such as brought about Gandhi-Irwin pact despite all ordinances measures repression sale British cloth other goods will continue running downward course.

Women playing most important part this phase movement. Other directions also movement growing stronger spirit resistance unjust oppressive orders stiffening extending.… According reports daily press published under ordinance regime total number arrests all over India to date 46,531 which in nature of the circumstances cannot include large number of arrests in far off villages in the interior.… In two places Gujerat villages not allowed carry water to wash after attending calls nature which is lifelong practice. Police tore off clothes and left people naked.… In Bikar volunteers stripped and one man's moustache pulled out. National flag removed several municipal buildings. Father sentenced six months rigorous imprisonment for refusing payment sons fine … Shopkeepers, hotel keepers arrested warned against providing Congress wallas food and shelter.…

I am informed volunteers Peshawar been subjected such brutal revolting repression that finding it absolutely unbearable and yet determined to keep their vow nonviolence under gravest provocation many left Peshawar to carry on work elsewhere. This can hardly be called improvement in the situation.… Properties relations seized by police for fines of volunteers. Ladies taken in lorries several miles dropped out of the way uninhabited places. Volunteers beaten half dead then left on road stripped of all clothes. Two persons tied behind a horse cart mercilessly dragged long distances and whipped on demanding water. Persons beaten even after their becoming senseless. Hospital closed patients turned out. Educational institutions also declared illegal even small boys whipped. Some persons interned their own houses. 80 years old lady jailed. Belongings of the Swadeshi League Allahabad forcibly seized. Films featuring Gandhi, Sardar, Patel banned."

And so on. I come to the latter part of the telegram, which shows that the man who sent it is not hopelessly biased:

"Impossible convey complete idea present repression but the very large number of persons arrested and imprisoned and reports in Press show far from having cowed clown people severe and rigid measures adopted and suffering inflicted upon people have only stiffened their backs and aroused spirit of resistance among them to join movement in unprecedented numbers. Country as a whole seething with bitter discontent. Even those who not Congressmen and who so far never concerned themselves with politics are sympathising with movement and helping it where they can. Trade and business ruined. Prestige of Government lowered as never before. Financial bankruptcy overtaking Government. Present policy has now been sufficiently tried proved be utterly ineffecive for suppressing determination people win freedom their country. Not only on grounds of humanity justice but also lower selfish grounds trade relations Britain and India Parliament should insist immediate abandonment present policy and on undoing so far as possible the wrong been done India in pursuit that policy and on resumption policy conciliation anti co-operation on footing of real equality to establish full… at earliest possible date."

That is a report from India. Though I have never visited that country I have imagination enough to visualise that great country, with its primitive conditions, and its great mass of poverty-striken people, who are seeking some way out of their present conditions, believing that even for them there is escape from poverty and misery. Oppressive measures may be successful here and there. There are Members in this House who may derive satisfaction from the way in which the firm hand has been shown, but they are very few. Whether the policy of Ordinances can be justified on any ground is another question. What is the effect on the national consciousness of India of these widespread scenes of revolt and suppression, of the tales that are spread from mouth to mouth, and, wherever print is allowed, from village to village, from one end of India to the other? Sometimes the Ordinances contain provisions for the suppression of rumours and false news, but who can stop them? The tongue works freely in moments of excitement. We hear rumours inside this House. People give way to irresponsible utterances even here. In a country like India, without education and without the discipline that centuries of education have given to western people, it is far more difficult to prevent garbled reports being spread about.

Anyone who has had experience of Nationalist movements knows what occurs. There are Irish Members in the House, possibly, who will not be offended when I say that I have listened to most irresponsible interpretations of the historical relations between Great Britain and Ireland. Memories are long, and assumed injustices of long ago have become permanently impressed upon their memories. I am partly Welsh and partly English by descent, but I have lived in Wales and have inherited the Welsh tradition, and I recall from my childhood days the songs and tales of Saxon oppression over the Welsh hundreds of years ago. No doubt they are based upon unsubstantial evidence, but memories are long. In India similar stories circulate, and build up a tradition of wrong and injustice in the hearts of the Indian people which is not a good augury for the fulfilment of the hopes which the Prime Minister has expressed time and again in this House. There is a feeling that the British Government is not to be trusted, that the British people cannot be held to their bond. I have travelled widely for a man in my situation of life and I deplore the fact that our people, the most generous and most kindly people on earth, are held responsible for happenings far away from home such as no ordinary body of British people would tolerate if they had control over them. The kindly omnibus conductor and the workman we see in London streets do not believe in that kind of thing, and would not allow it if they were responsible.

The Indian people must be told that we do not wish India to remain for ever under this oppression and tyranny, for tyranny it is, in its application to the everyday life of the Indian people, those millions of people labouring under disabilities of all kinds, especially the great disability of poverty. We here know something about unemployment and economic depression, but the British workmen can still spend in shillings where the Indian workman spends in pennies. He has at least 12 times the purchasing power of the Indian worker. I am sorry I have been delayed so long on this subject, but I would like the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for India and the Lord President of the Council to take note of these things. The Lord President is a good Englishman. If I were to criticise him the only fault I should find in him is that he is too English. I believe that in his heart he firmly believes that God is an Englishman. He has almost said so in this House. He did once say that wherever there is a specially difficult piece of work to do God calls upon an Englishman to do it. I doubt whether a Welshman, a Scotsman or an Irishman would be allowed even to hold the tools for the Englishman while he does the job. The Lord President of the Council believes in mahatma and pandits. [Interruption.] They do not happen to be Indians. They were Greeks, and they have been dead a long time. He is not void of that spiritual sense which is required in the handling of this problem. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have spoken fair words, but the leaders of Indian nationalism are more and more getting into conflict with police of their own nationality, with Indian police who carry out these Ordinances, and English officers who are carrying out onerous and disagreeable duties.

I do not know exactly where the power of the Secretary of State begins and ends. I understand that he has considerable responsibility, and I do not want to add to the difficulties with which he has to contend, miles away from India, as the head of an administrative machine which he must operate and which is a complicated and intricate machine. The main thing which has kept India and Britain apart is a failure to concede to each other that measure of respect which is the basis of all good relations. There are people who believe that no measure of accommodation is possible between East and West.

"East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

That idea cannot stand. We meet, we live together, we are under the same general rule. The English race has given many services to the world. One of the services which it has given, perhaps involuntarily, is the spreading of the great English language. The English language is rapidly becoming the language of ordinary intercourse in India and all over the East. There we meet on common ground. We have met in conferences and fair words have been spoken and worthy ideas have been expressed on behalf of this country. In words we have already conceded almost all that India wants of us, and I hope the Secretary of State will be able to go one stage further and implement those promises. He should extend an invitation to further conferences between the leaders of Indian Nationalism and the Government of this country, and withdraw at the very earliest possible date the obnoxious, oppressive and un-British Ordinances to which I have referred.

I believe the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy are just as eager that the repressive measures referred to by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) should be withdrawn at the earliest possible moment as he is. But where there are murders, violence, picketing and suchlike happenings daily it is in the very interest of the people themselves that the Government should preserve law and order, so that business and the procedure of everyday life can go on undisturbed. However, I rise to deal with another matter. For a long time past I have taken a great interest in propaganda in India. From my own long experience of the East I know what a devastating effect the vernacular Press can have in such a wide-spreading country as India. During the last civil disobedience campaign I cannot trace that there was any Government campaign to counter the seditious lies and exaggeration of the Indian vernacular Press. A couple of days ago I received an extract from the "International Press Correspondence" of 10th March publishing in full the Draft Platform of Action of the Young Communist League of India, and with the leave of the House I will give a quotation from it:

"Young workers, organise Young Communist League cells in the mills, factories and mines! Every mill, every factory must become a stronghold of the Young Communist League.

The Young Communist League, together with the trade unions, appeals to its organisations and members. … to organise and lead strikes of young workers. … A real improvement of the situation of working youth is impossible while British Imperialism dominates. Only a workers' and peasants' revolution, and eventually a proletarian revolution, can carry out this task.

The Young Communist League of India calls for the spreading of revolutionary propaganda among the soldiers and police, and the explanation of the necessity for an armed insurrection, together with the toiling masses of the country, against British rule.

The Young Communist League of India calls upon the revolutionary young workers to explain to the soldiers and police that the only way to receive land and work, to abolish indebtedness, is the way of the revolutionary overthrow of British rule."

The most signficant admission of Soviet Russia's intention to bring about a revolution in India by means of an armed insurrection is shown in the following paragraph taken from the same article:

"The Young Communist League follows the instructions of the great leader of all the toilers—Lenin—who said to the toiling youth going into the army:

'You will soon be grown up. They will give you a gun. Take it and learn how to use it. This knowledge is necessary for the proletariat, not in order to shoot down their brothers, the workers of other countries, but in order to fight against the bourgeoisie of their own country.'"

12.0 n.

That is an extract from a document which has been spread throughout India, and I should like to see such propaganda stopped. I understand that in certain districts the district officers are making arrangements to explain these matters to the populace, and I sincerely hope that this policy will be more widely carried out throughout India, especially in the rural areas where it is difficult for the ordinary person to get about, and where comparatively few white men ever penetrate. I read the other day a statement made by Lord Curzon to the effect that in one district containing 62,000 Indians there was not one white man, One can imagine an officer being sent to such a place where there is nobody to contradict the wild rumours which are circulated in India. I believe that in such districts British firms could do a good deal to help the Government propaganda. Arrangements might be made, for instance, not to send advertisements to newspapers which are known to be anti-British in their propaganda. We might also withdraw orders for printing from such newspapers, and I am perfectly sure if that were done it might help matters considerably. Another aspect of the question is the anti-British campaign by Indians in America.

I desire to draw the attention of the House to a contract which has recently been concluded by a newly formed company called "Timber Distributors, Ltd.," for the supply of 450 standards of sawn soft wood from Soviet Russia, and I wish also to draw attention to the temporary commercial agreement concluded between the late Government and the Government of the Soviet Union in April, 1930. In ordinary circumstances, I should not wish to trouble the House with a question of a contract with a foreign Government for the supply of timber to this country. Russia is a country of boundless and magnificent timber supplies, from which before the War we were accustomed to receive a large proportion of our timber imports. There are two reasons, and two only, why I draw attention to these matters. The first is on account of the labour conditions prevailing in many, I am inclined to believe most, of the timber camps of Soviet Russia, and the conditions under which much of that timber is transported and exported; I also wish to draw attention to the contract because of the cutthroat prices at which timber from Soviet Russia is being placed on this market and the very disturbing influence that it has on our home timber industry and on the timber industry of other countries from which we have been accustomed to take a considerable annual supply.

The evidence is unquestionable for the existence of various forms of forced labour in the Russian timber industry. A little over a year ago our late Government published a Blue Book containing extracts from the Russian labour laws of the last few years, which gave us most valuable and absolutely authoritative information with regard to the subject. The first that I wish to mention is what is known as the self-imposed task system. The, Blue Book gives us a decree which describes this method of forced labour. A village meeting, convened by a Communist agent, may carry into force, by a bare majority, even if the meeting be a small one, a vote which commits the village to carry out in the neighbouring forest a definite task of timber felling and hauling. This resolution once passed, every member of the village has to take part in the so-called self-imposed task and has to perform the part of it which is allotted to him. The Blue Book says that, if he refuses the allotted task, he may be fined five times the value of his work, and, if he refuses to pay that fine, he is liable to have all his goods confiscated.

The pay that is given for this kind of forced labour can be very small. I have seen a sworn statement to the effect that last winter—I do not mean this winter, but the one before—in one area where this method was being carried into force the pay of the fellers was about 1s. 8d. to 2s. a day, taking the Russian rouble at its full value at par, and the pay of a man who was only carting the timber was not mare than 30 roubles for three or four months' work. That this method was actually in operation was officially proved by instructions issued in the winter of 1930–31 to judges in the North of Russia to watch how this system of local forced labour was being carried out and to see that it was prosecuted with the utmost vigour. That is one method of forced labour, the local method, which does not imply sending the worker away from his home.

A second method is revealed in decrees of which several were published early last year. It was stated at the time in the Soviet Press that 1,000,000 more workers were needed in the timber industry, and various decrees called up workers from collective farms or from industrial co-operative societies to go off at once to the timber camps. That was a form of forced labour which took the worker away from his home and his family. Then the Blue Book to which I have alluded contains several decrees conscripting labour for floating timber down Russia's great rivers. These decrees run from February, 1930, onwards. In the first of these, it is stated than an 80 per cent. increase was required in personnel for floating timber on account of the very great increase of timber felling in the previous winter. These three methods of conscription of labour to which I have referred are all applicable to the ordinary worker who has not made himself objectionable to the authorities or come within the arm of the law.

In addition to measures of this kind, there is evidence of the existence of a widespread system of prison labour in the timber industry on a commercial basis. As long ago as 1924, this Blue Book tells us, a system of correctional labour was introduced under which it was frankly stated that the labour of prisoners was to be employed commercially. The labour of prisoners was to put on a commercial basis rather than that they should be kept doing nothing in prison. On the 1st June, 1929, according to another decree in this Blue Book, this system of correctional labour was extended to the timber industry. According to the decree the labour in this industry might be given by prisoners sentenced to forced labour with or without detention. Such labour might be given either within 10 miles of the sentenced person's residence or else much further afield. The second part of the decree speaks of work to be selected in the various areas of the vast Soviet Union which was to be suitable for the mass application of unskilled labour. The wording of the decree makes it clear that a large amount of unskilled labour was to be supplied to the timber industry. As a result, there is official information to the effect that what were termed forestal exploitations—no doubt a euphemism for timber camps—rose from six in 1929 to 25 in the summer of 1930. The pay, the same decree states, was to be 25 per cent. of the normal wage which the workers would have received had they been working on a free basis in the industry.

This Blue Book contains information m regard to yet another type of forced labour. It contains a decree or regulations for what are termed penal camps under a "penal" code. To these were to be sent prisoners sentenced for over three years, whereas the correctional labour code regulated the labour of persons sentenced to less than three years forced labour. Like the correctional labour code, the penal code contains articles discriminating against political prisoners as compared with criminal prisoners. It also contains a clause saying that the ration of food allowed to the prisoners will be varied according to the work done—a very dangerous provision to be included in any penal code. These camps under the penal code which was promulgated in April, 1930, as we learn from the Blue Book, are, I believe, the camps which have become notorious in this country, the United States and other countries from the sworn statements made before public officials, some in this country and some in Finland, by ex-prisoners. These statements corroborate each other in speaking of the constant overwork, the atrocious underfeeding, the lack of clothing, and the crowded and in-sanitary conditions, and in consequence the terrible mortality from disease, exposure and exhaustion.

It may be said by hon. Members on the opposite benches that we should not believe statements made in Finland because Finland's export of timber to this country has suffered so severely from all the Russian timber that we have been buying in the last few years. I wish to say, in reply to that objection, if it be raised, that I have seen statements made by ex-prisoners in Finland before public officials, with holograph signatures of two witnesses testifying that they are a true translation and a correct version of what was said, and these statements began to be made before public officials in Finland as long ago as February, 1930. As far as I know, however, none of them were published, none at any rate reached this country in any public form or for publication, until we had received here sworn statements from ex-prisoners who had made their way to England and whose statements were published by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Health in December, 1930. Therefore, the Finnish authorities clearly showed that they did not want to make political capital out of these statements, or they would have published them long before any ex-prisoners' statements had been published in this country.

Again, it has been suggested in some quarters that these statements are being offered by ex-prisoners for sale. Mat was said the other day in a Press correspondence with myself. I can only say, in reply to that, that I have seen, I believe, all the statements of ex-prisoners that are extant—anyhow, I have seen a good many—and not one has been offered to me for sale nor have I offered one penny for any statements that I have seen. Those that I have seen were shown to me by a thoroughly reliable source. I should add that the statements of the ex-prisoners who escaped to England were most meticulously examined by a committee set up by the Anti-Slavery Society and the Howard League for Penal Reform last year, and they reported that the prisoners' statements were in the main true. Since that report was published, we have been able to see a very interesting hook by Mr. Hessell Tiltman, who is well known for his biography of the Prime Minister. In that publication he gives an account of a prisoners' camp by an Armenian who was sent to the North of Russia, and it confirms in every particular the statements of ex-prisoners made either in England or in Finland. This therefore is another form of forced labour of the existence of which there is official evidence—besides a considerable amount of evidence from ex-prisoners who have been at different penal camps and who corroborate each other in a very remarkable manner.

There is, however, yet another form of prison camp in Soviet Russia, the camps under what is termed the new penitentiary code. Those camps were first heard of last September from a statement made by Mr. Krylenko, Minister of Justice for the Soviet Union. In an official publication he spoke with considerable satisfaction of this new penitentiary code, under which labour gangs, chiefly composed of non-proletarians whose removal from their home districts was considered advisable, were being sent to remote forests and peat bogs, usually for two or three years. The statement went on to record with satisfaction that the new code was proving a source of profit to the State. The "Times" Riga correspondent in that paper on 21st March, gave us further information about this new penitentiary code, from which it appears that there are varying grades of severity in the way in which prisoners may be treated and that the yield of prison labour for the year 1932 was estimated to be some £30,000,000 sterling.

There are, then, no fewer than six forms of forced labour in which either the ordinary worker or the prisoner sentenced by law may be obliged to take part. I believe that these camps, particularly those which contain sentenced prisoners, have been largely filled with members of what are known as the kulak class, that is, the most industrious, thrifty and prosperous peasants. They are peasants, however, who, though they may seem well off as compared with the other and more numerous peasants of Russia, are in many cases only what we should term a type of smallholder rather than what we used to know as the well-to-do farmer of this country. It is difficult to get official figures, but a report made by the Minister of Labour of the Soviet Union last May, which was quoted in a Russian moderate Socialist newspaper published in Paris, spoke of some 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 persona having been sent to the camps, and stated that the mortality in the camps in the last two years had fluctuated between 60 and 70 per cent., a figure which, I may add, was also given by the Armenian whom I have already quoted whose statement appears in Mr. Hessell Tiltman's recent book. I say without hesitation that this process of "liquidation" or sending the kulak after the expropriation of all his goods and possessions, and with or without his family, at an hour or two's notice, to any part of the vast realm of Russia to work on any kind of labour the State may require, but more especially, I believe, in the timber industry, is one of the most terrible crimes ever committed by the Government of any country.

I have detailed these various forms of forced labour in the timber industry in Russia because the chairman, I understand, of the new company which has concluded this great timber contract with the Soviet Union was the leader of a delegation from the British Timber Trade Federation which visited White Sea ports by invitation of the Soviet Government last summer They found no prison labour in the saw mills or on the wharves of the ports they visited, but there is the attested evidence of British seamen to vouch for the fact that prison labour had been employed in those ports a few months before. There is also the evidence of an American newspaper correspondent who visited Archangel in March, 1931, to the effect that as a result of the feeling caused in this country and the United States by the stories of ex-prisoners, the Soviet Government had cleared all prison labour from Archangel. It was, therefore, not surprising that the delegation from the British Timber Trade Federation found no prison labour in the ports they visited, but I think they were much too ready to accept the assurances which they were given by the Soviet officials that there had not been any labour of that kind employed there. They also seem to have been ready to believe that there was no reliable evidence as to the existence of forced labour in other parts of the timber industry.

I want to say, in regard to the delegation's report, that the delegation only visited some four or five ports in one part of Russia's vast timber area. They did not visit Murmansk, on the Arctic Ocean, a port which is open all the year round, and a port near which or on the way to which, according to the statements of some of these ex-prisoners in Finland, a great deal of prison labour had been employed in the timber industry, and a port where, some of these ex-prisoners said, prison labour was actually being used in loading timber. Nor did they see anything of prison labour at ports further east. Only the other day I received a letter from an American lady in Shanghai who had lived for 36 years at Vladivostok—up to about a year before. She said:

"When I left Vladivostok the prisons held hundreds of peasants, mostly those who had objected to being forced away from their farms. In the spring of 1930 an ordinary morning sight was large groups of these wretched farmers from the gaol, under a military guard, being taken down to work at the docks, a thing well known to British and foreign captains of ships discharging or loading there."

That the British Timber Trade Delegation found no prison labour in the White Sea ports they visited was therefore purely negative evidence as regards ports in other parts of Russia from which a great deal of timber is coming. Only on 3rd March last "Pravda" mentioned that at Vladivostok there was an export timber trust, so no doubt prisoners are or may be loading at Vladivostok timber which is being sent away for export.

The second point I wish to observe in regard to the report of the British Timber Trade Delegation is that they did not visit any of the forest camps, and that the stories of the ex-prisoners themselves mostly relate to events in those camps. It is obvious that the statement I have quoted from the Minister of Justice made in September was made subsequent to the visit of the Timber Trade Delegation in June and July, and that his statement cannot possibly be challenged by anything that the Timber Trade Delegation says. Then, recently, we have had in the "Morning Post" a heartrending letter smuggled from a German exile in Siberia. The writer says:

"In this Siberian village, engaged in the timber industry, we live in barracks. We all work, and we know well what that word. means. All men and women must work from early morn till late at night. There is no such thing as an eight-hours day for us. Our wages for the day are a plate of vegetable soup without meat and half a pound of stale, sour bread. We are all famishing here. There were in this area about 7,000 families, who are dying off at an average of about 10 a day."

I do not know that I should have read that extract if it were not that I have seen several letters of the same kind from persons working as exiles in the timber industry in various parts of the Soviet Union. In timber camps in the east and north of Russia there are not only men working but also women. In one or two camps there are also children working of the ages of 12 and 13. Recently I met a young Englishman who was in Russia last year who managed to reach some places rarely seen by visitors, and he can testify that near Novo Sibirsk, in Siberia, he and his companion saw a train guarded by men with rifles going due east. It contained 55 trucks—big trucks of about 40 tons each. Each truck had two small windows at which the desperate faces of deportees could be seen. This young Englishman made inquiries, and he was told that three trains of that kind ran through that district every week to a place 500 miles further east where timber is being worked. Again I lately received a cutting from the "Harbin Times," which states:

"The coast from Vladivostok to Nokolaievsk, on the Amur, constitutes the main district for timber collecting in the Far East. Enormous forest areas from which rich supplies of timber are delivered, mainly for export purposes, are divided into districts containing the 'lishentsi' camps, which are guarded by strong detachments of special Ogpu troops."

2.0. p.m.

It will be seen then that the report of the timber delegation tells us nothing whatever about conditions in timber camps far removed from the north, which alone was visited by the delegation. An attempt was made in the report of the timber trade delegation to discredit a prisoner's statement made in the report of the Anti-Slavery Society, but that attempt utterly failed. Hon. Members will find correspondence on this point the "British Timber Trade Journal" of 13th February last. It is not alone on account of the report of the timber trade delegation that I have gone into these details. I have done so also on account of an exhibition held recently at the London School of Economics which purported to give an idea of labour conditions prevailing in Soviet Russia. I visited that exhibition and found a screen containing some half-dozen placards devoted to the timber industry. One of these bore the announcement that there was no compulsory labour in the timber industry. Another stated that most of the workers engaged in the industry were employed on seasonal labour, which was merely a source of additional income for them. I was staggered to read these announcements in an exhibition arranged by a society which purports to exist in order to promote cultural relations between this country and the Soviet Union. The society has not carried its members very far in cultural relations if they have ignored all the available evidence in regard to the existence of forced labour in this industry. Mr. Stalin stated last June that the Five-Year Plan would have to be based on conscript labour—it could not be carried out otherwise. If the head of this great State admits that the plan requires conscript labour generally, is it possible to conceive that that conscript labour will not be required in the timber industry when we remember that much of the Russian timber grows in far distant and isolated regions like the Archangel and the Kekem districts, to which few people would go of their own free will? Those who knew Russia before the war will tell you that Archangel and other districts of the far north were very unpopular because of the climate, and that it was always difficult to get people to go there even for seasonal work. Surely it would be equally difficult to get people to go to the far east, the Urals, or into the heart of Siberia. Therefore, the statement which is made in the report of this exhibition by the Society for Promoting Cultural Relations with Russia must be regarded as utterly untrustworthy, and I must express my conviction that an exhibition showing postcards and posters of the nature I have described is a most unreliable way of arriving at any knowledge of a vast country containing 160,000,000 people, and my astonishment that such an exhibition should take place in one of the constituent schools of one of our largest universities. Though, however, it was officially admitted a year ago in this House that forced labour was employed in the timber industry, it was stated at the time that it was not employed upon timber for export.

It must be very difficult to know what labour has been employed on any particular consignment of timber, but there are certain broad facts in this connection to which I would like to refer. In the year 1927–28, which was the last year before the introduction of forced labour in forestry, the exports of timber from Russia were 2,500,000 tons. In the next year after the system of forced labour had been introduced, the exports of timber from Russia jumped to 4,770,000 tons. In the following year, 1929–30, the exports of timber from Russia jumped still further to 7,300,000 tons. I contend that such a huge increase in the Russian exports of timber, corresponding as it does with the period in which forced labour began to be developed, is very significant, and leads to the conclusion that the great development of forced labour must have had a great deal to do with this result.

There is another circumstance. It is notorious that there is a great housing shortage in Russia, and there is also evidence of a shortage of furniture and a shortage of firewood. The Soviet Press has been full of complaints as to the shortage of firewood, and a statement appeared lately in one of the Soviet. journals to the effect that in Moscow even hospitals had no heat. That all points to a shortage of timber for domestic use. Does it not lead one to conclude that a great deal—probably the greater part—of the energy which is being put into the great timber industry is being devoted to producing timber for export? There is a further point. Whether this consignment of timber or that consignment of timber has been produced by forced labour or not, there is evidence of the use of forced labour in handling timber in transit. There are the decrees of which I have already spoken for conscripting labour for timber floating. There was also a decree requiring conscription for ships in rivers and ships sailing by sea. Floating, moreover, in itself suggests export. Russia's great rivers seem to be intended for that purpose. The timber is floated down from the interior to the ports, where there are great sawmills, and, once having reached the ports, it is not likely to be turned backwards into the interior of the country. Therefore, one is obliged to conclude that a very large proportion at any rate of the timber coming to this country from Russia must either have been produced or handled, or both, by forced labour, often under conditions the horror of which it is very difficult for us here to imagine, and I believe that we shall not be acting up to the obligations which we undertook when our country became a member of the League of Nations if we continue officially to shut our eyes to this fact.

Then I come to the economic effects, with which I will deal more briefly, of this continued import of Russian timber under these conditions. As a result of the cheap, often unpaid, labour in the timber industry, and the overmastering desire of the Soviet Government to procure foreign currency to help to purchase machinery for the Five Years Plan, there has been great price-cutting by Russia in our market in the last three years. Whereas she was sending us sawn softwood timber in 1928 at 94s. a load last year her average price was not more than 61s. a load, or about £9 or £10 per standard. This drop in price has destroyed or severely damaged the home market, both for producers and for those who work sawmills, and it has also severely affected other countries, such as Sweden, Finland and Canada, which have been accustomed to send us large quantities of sawn timber. They have had to cut their prices severely, and yet to see their quantities severely reduced on our market. The result is great depression in Finland, Sweden and Canada. In this country, of course, we want cheap timber, though I think we should like to see more timber coming to us in hewn form rather than sawn. We want cheap timber, but we do not want timber cheap at the price of the conditions which prevail in many Russian timber camps, and there is no question that the purchasing power, the power to purchase from us, of countries such as Finland and Sweden, Norway and Canada has been severely restricted by the quantity of Russian timber which we have purchased in the last few years.

Other countries have recognised, in a way that we have not done hitherto, the economic danger of these continued large imports of timber from Soviet Russia. In France and Belgium Soviet timber is only admitted under licence. Canada has barred her doors to it altogether, and the United States have recognised the danger implied in allowing the products of forced or prison labour to enter a country where labour is free, by passing a Tariff Act which, if put into effective operation, is likely to bar the entry of all Soviet imports. But we here are helpless to take any effective measures against Russian timber, because our hands are bound by the temporary commercial agreement concluded in April, 1930, between this country and the Soviet Government, under which we are obliged to give that Government the benefit of the most-favoured-nation Clause. I believe that, when that agreement was signed, little or nothing was known, even in official circles, about the conditions in the timber camps of Russia, or about labour conditions in Russia generally. Indeed, the conscription of labour to which I have referred was only beginning in April, 1930; it has developed tremendously since.

Now the situation is changed. The Government have the benefit of this Blue Book, published by their predecessors over a year ago, to show them what the system is. They must have fully as much information as any private individual can have as to how that system is operating, and I beg them to give the six months' notice that is necessary in order to ter- minate this agreement, so that they may no longer be tied as they are at present. In any case, they will probably wish to terminate the agreement if they arrive at successful arrangements at Ottawa. Six months from now will carry us well beyond the date of the Ottawa Conference, and, if early notice be not given to terminate the agreement, it is possible that it may still be in existence at a date when this newly formed company may begin negotiating another contract for next year. The circular issued by the company states that they hope that the present contract will be a, basis on which contracts may be framed in future years.

It is terrible to think that, by purchasing large quantities of Russian timber, as we have done in the last year or two, we have helped to create the demand for Russian timber which has torn so many peasants and others from their homes and sent them to the camps to which I have referred; but it is intolerable to think that, now that we have official evidence, and a certain amount of other evidence which will bear sifting, as to the conditions in these camps, we should allow these purchases to continue. We have been the chief buyer of Russian timber among the countries of the world, and we cannot escape, therefore, a considerable share of responsibility for the sufferings which these camps entail on the Russian people, so long as, with the information in our possession regarding the conditions there, we allow such purchases to continue. I most earnestly ask the Government to look into this matter closely at an early date, because I feel that it is really a stain on the honour of this country, and a stain on the commercial practice of this country, that we should continue to make these large purchases in spite of all that we know, and that it is a lamentable departure from the finest traditions of this country, established nearly a century ago, when we first began to stand up officially among the nations for freedom of labour.

I desire to support my Noble Friend's plea that, largely on moral grounds, notice should be given to terminate the trade agreement with Russia. No less than my Noble Friend, I think the moral grounds are extremely strong. Within the British Empire we have done away with slavery, and, until this House sees to it that Great Britain ceases to support great industries carried on by slave and forced labour, this House will not be truly representative of the people who sent us here. British people are constantly surprising the world because they refuse to take the materialistic point of view and adopt the idealistic one. Let it not be said that hon. Members of this House continue to allow a small percentage of their fellow-citizens to make large profits out of this trade, which is a stain on the world.

I do not wish to detain the House too long, but I want to look at the matter from the economic point of view. Probably most hon. Members are aware that there is a Russian Trade sub-Committee working and open to all hon. Members who support the National Government. There seems to be a curious view among those who call themselves friends of Soviet Russia that some underhand work is going on. In the Anglo-Russian Press I see headlines alleging that there is a "London plot." I can assure hon. Members that there is nothing underhand about the committees of the National party or of any other. They are open to any hon. Member to come and listen. Our only object is to look at the matter from the economic point of view and to see whether it is worth while for Britain to go on supporting Soviet Russia. They owe us many millions of pounds, and we have a perfect right to look into the matter and see if we are likely to be paid back. It is only common sense, and there is nothing underhand. I hope we shall continue to look at it from that point of view.

Because of the difficulties of arranging for the importation of Russian timber, a company has been formed which calls itself Timber Distributors, Ltd. They publish a very cleverly-worded prospectus, and to the casual observer the company is a most interesting one which offers very favourable terms to those who take shares. I understand that some 170 firms of timber importers in this country have already been bluffed. They imagine that they are in for a good thing. I am just going to examine some parts of that prospectus and show what this firm of timber distributors really mean. I come from the Border and if I had been asked to take shares I should have said that the offer was too good to be true. We are asked to take 5s. shares and pay 1s. for them. When one takes shares in a com- pany whose object is to import, one would imagine that the members of that company would have some sort of liability for the sale of the articles imported. These are the facts: the company has been set up with a capital of £113,000. As the members are only to pay 1s. out of every 5s., that means that four-fifths of the £113,000 is not found by the members of the company. It is to be found by the Soviet Government, because they are the promoters of the company. From the start, although the capital of this alleged British company is so small, four-fifths of the capital is put up by the Soviet Government, under the guise of shippers and brokers and Russian importers into this country.

Having formed their company, the directors, one would imagine, would have some say in the allotment of shares. Not at all. The normal work of the directors is already done. They are to be directors, but the shares are allotted, and more than that, the timber is already allocated. They propose to import 450,000 standards of timber. I understand that that represents a value of £4,500,000, £1,000,000 of that being the cost of shipping to this country. Does any sane person really believe that a company with £113,000 of capital is in a position to make itself responsible for the purchase of £4,500,000 of timber. The bankers have already refused to finance Russian imported timber, so that the company need not look to the bankers. I have the names of the directors here. Each of them has one A share worth 5s. What is going to happen when this company fails to sell, as it very likely will, about a third of their import? Already in this country there are enormous supplies of timber unsold. What is going to happen if a third of £4,500,000 worth of timber remains unsold? Is the company going to pay for it out of the capital of £113,000? Of course not. The Soviet Government are bound to foot the difference, because there is nobody else who can or will, and that clearly proves to me and, to any ordinary, medium brain that this company is merely camouflaged under the guise of a British company to bluff a large number of timber importers, and that the Soviet Government are putting up money to get their timber into this country whether we will or not. It appears perfectly obvious that a, very large proportion of the sale of the timber must be carried out by Soviet money because there is no other available.

What is the actual disadvantage to the people of this country, if they get timber which is much needed for the construction of houses at the cheapest possible price—if, of course, it is of durable quality? The hon. and gallant Member was illustrating the apparent disadvantage to the British buyer; will he please point out what is the disadvantage to the consumer?

The hon. Member has merely forestalled what I was just going on to say. The first disadvantage is that we are definitely disgracing the name of British people by our advantage being gained to the detriment of thousands or hundreds of thousands of poor Russian peasants. [Interruption.] We may rule that point out for the moment, because apparently it does not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

I said it was not true.

The point is one that does appeal to most hon. Members on this side of the House. From the purely materialist point of view, there are many reasons why we do not want this country to be flooded with Russian timber. Our own people in Canada are very largely unemployed. A great many of our unemployed went to Canada for work, and have had to come back because Canada is a new country and cannot give them employment. Take British Columbia: there are 28 sawmills not working, and with a potential output of 300,000 standards of timber. Last year they only sent us 50,000 standards of timber. Without any malice to Russia I claim that it is only our duty to see that we take more from our Canadian brothers than from people in Russia who are working against us. Some may think that Canadian timber is not suitable; to a certain extent that is true. To some extent this is not the normal market for British Columbian timber, but we are supporting the Soviet who are flooding the normal markets of Canadian timber. It is because Russian timber is going to the whole of the East, largely supported by us, that all that mass of timber remains unsold, and 28 mills are idle to-day in British Columbia.

There is another reason. I do not believe it is wise to give Soviet Russia a monopoly, because they quite frankly say their principal object at the moment is to destroy capitalist countries. In the last five years the export of Sweden has dropped 30 per cent., the export of Finland has dropped by 34 per cent. and the export from Oregon 44 per cent., while the export from Russia has risen by 44 per cent. Do hon. Members think it is wise for us to assist the one great country in the world whose object is to destroy the system that we believe in? Do they think it is wise for us to play into their hands and to continue to take more and more of their goods to the detriment of all those friendly countries; I can see very great danger in it and, for that reason, I have the greatest desire to support the Noble Lady's appeal to the Government to terminate the trade agreement with Russia. On moral, economic and Imperial grounds and in every way without any small-mindedness or bitterness towards Russia, I see every reason why, as British people supporting the British Empire, we should give notice to terminate the Russian agreement.

So far as this is a genuine attempt to put down forced or slave labour, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have no greater supporters than ourselves. He used an interjection of mine to infer that we had no regard to the morals of this business and that it was simply material objects that we had in view. I can speak for myself. I have given hostages, not to fortune but to my days of life, in the service of great impersonal causes and it does not lie in the mouth of anyone to charge me with any other than at least as decent motives as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has on the subject.

My remark had no reference to the right hon. Gentleman at all, but he will not deny that there are a large number of Members of his party who pooh-pooh any suggestion that there is slave or forced labour in Russia, and they can well afford to do so because they live under the protection of a sane, decent civilised Government.

I do not want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to think we can accept that last statement at all. In the days of the Tsar I spent years in trying to make public opinion realise what Tsardom meant, but I got no backing then from people of the class to which the Noble Lady and the hon. and gallant Gentleman belong. When we raised the question in 1911 or 1912, the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Grey, said the internal affairs of the Russian Empire had nothing whatever to do with this House, and there was no one here responsible for them. There is no freedom for any individual in Italy except what is permitted by Mussolini, but I am very doubtful whether we should be allowed to make the same sort of statements about the Italian Administration as have been made about Russia to-day. Who are the people who import this Russian timber? It is not the Communist party but the capitalists of Great Britain. You have plenty of power to stop them. It is not for me to stop them. You do not stop them, because you cannot prove the statements which you are making. Further, if we challenge the Russian Government to have an investigation of their forests, they will challenge us to have an investigation into the conditions of native labour in Kenya and the shambles of Bombay and Calcutta. Read the report of the Whitley Committee about the conditions of labour in the mines and the mills of Bombay and Calcutta. You talk about forced labour, but you can be forced by hunger to go to work under conditions to which otherwise you would not submit.

The Noble Lady spoke about Siberia. I have had a granddaughter living in Siberia for a considerable time with an English family, and I should very much like the Noble Lady to hear her version of life in one of the most backward parts of Russia. I have a daughter, who is a Communist—my granddaughter is not—who lived in Soviet Russia for a long time, and I should like to show the Noble Lady private letters written to her mother, in which the sort of stories that we have heard to-day are simply wiped out altogether and proved to have no foundation whatever. Ministers are not here, I understand because they did not have notice. I was challenged when I was First Commissioner why I as a Socialist allowed prison produced timber to come into the country. The officials at the Office of Works said first that it was very difficult to discriminate between one sort of timber and another, but, if it had to be done, the people to do it—you have plenty of power to do it—were the Customs. You have a law now that prison produced goods shall not be allowed into the country. Why is it not stopped? You do not require any more legislation. It is not stopped because you cannot prove it. All the statements that have been made are prima facie and ex parte statements with no real truth about them at all. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why we should not, use Canadian timber, and he answered himself. I was asked that at the Office of Works, and they told me that it was not suitable. It is not the kind of timber that we could use, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted it. Then he said, because you deal with these people they are able to send their goods East. Are you going to say to the Russian nation that they shall not export to other countries and that other countries shall not buy from them? It is absurd. We have no power to do that.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman says, practically, that we should not do any business with these people at all, but there are two sides to that question. Their goods do not come in here for nothing. Something has to go out to pay for it, and it is goods that go out. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman represented a district where engineering was carried on, he would know that people who are carrying on this sort of work want more trade with Russia, and you cannot have trade with Russia unless you take her goods. If there is to be an investigation—and if I had anything to do with the matter I should say, "Yes, let us ask the Soviet Government for an investigation"—let us also be ready to respond to their challenges as to an investigation into the conditions of labour within the British Empire, and that would be all fair and square. I should be willing to vote for that and to stand by the result, but I am not in favour of gibbeting a nation.

Burke once said that you cannot indict a whole nation, but Russia and the Russian Government are talked about in this House as though they were just absolute devils, and people with whom you do not wish to have any truck whatever. There are 100,000,000 people in Russia. It is a great untapped country as far as natural wealth is concerned, and, if you are all so sure that Communism will fail and that Communism is a had thing, why worry about it? Remember what is said somewhere in the Bible that if it is good it will stand, and if it is bad it will fail. That will be the test in the days to come. If Communism is not making headway in Russia, and if the Five-Year Plan is going to fail, you who believe in capitalism have only to sit tight, and you will see it fail. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, after he had done with his altruism really got down to the root of the matter when he said that this nation is going to get on and get trade and business and so on. Well, you cannot have it both ways. They are either succeeding or they are failing. If they are failing, you have nothing of which to complain. If they succeed you will have nothing of which to complain because all that the British people want to do is to succeed also. Each nation in this competitive world wants to get on top, and the Russians have as much right to enter the competitive world and do the best they can as any other nation.

I desire to speak about a matter upon which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Captain Moss) asked a question today. It may have seemed to some hon. Members that I butted in with a supplementary question, but I did not butt in. My hon. and gallant Friend asked me to take up the matter for him because he said that it was, to some extent, a legal matter. The hon. and gallant Member is a mariner and he said that he was like the captain of a ship and that when he got into legal waters he wanted a legal pilot, and he took me to guide him in this particular instance. The question asked was with regard to a practice, which has sprung up apparently quite recently, in regard to civil cases where a policeman has witnessed an accident. In any event a policeman is just a witness. Policemen are in a very good position to be witnesses because they are just like cabmen. They are on the street and see what is happening. If a policeman sees an accident naturally the injured person or his executors, as is usual in motor cases, desiring to get a reasonable account of the affair to see whether they have a possible claim for damages, go to the policeman in order to get from him a statement of what had happened. I put forward the proposition that it is the duty of every good citizen, in fact of every citizen good or bad, to give evidence of what he has seen if he is asked to do so. We may all be involved either as plaintiffs or as defendants, or, as we call them in Scotland, as pursuers, being nearer the primitive and avenging ourselves. It is the duty of everyone to bear testimony which will help to expiscate the facts in any particular case.

It has been laid down by the Home Office that before a policeman can he called, a sum of money must be paid, which varies from 5s., as I have it in a letter, for a constable to 7s. 6d. for a sergeant and so on, and I suppose that if it is a superintendent it may get to as much as a guinea. So that the poor litigant who wants to get at the facts in order to decide whether he has or has not a good case has, first of all, to pay something before he can get the evidence of, it may be, the only witness. This is contrary to the natural duty of citizens. If an ordinary citizen were to ask for a sum of money it would give a shock when that fact came out in the witness box and he would find that he was considered to be rather a discreditable witness. In those circumstances, his word could not be so readily accepted. It is different in the case of a workman losing time or expense. If you are a solicitor and write to him and say that you want his evidence, he will come up and say, "I have lost so many hours' time, and I have had to pay my omnibus and tramway fares. He quite fairly expects that to be made good to him. You are not entitled to ask him to be out of pocket. It is his duty to give evidence, and it is the solicitor's duty, if necessary, to go to a man's house in the evening and try and obtain his evidence.

I suggest that no ordinary decent citizen would ask for payment as a condition of giving evidence. In the accident cases which I have in mind they nearly all are covered by insurance companies, and the more obstacles that are put in the way of claims so as to make it difficult to claim damages the better they are pleased, as is quite natural. But the whole thing is wrong. It is adding to the costs of litigation, which is one of the things of which we have most to complain. The cost of proceedings in the Law Courts is a very serious matter to the citizens. Heavy court dues are exacted, especially in Scotland. These dues are a relic of the old days when the King laid down justice and you had to square the courtiers and King's minions to get access to him. The heavy-dues are the scandal of litigation at the present moment.

Here is this further injustice upon people with small means. A constituent, in a letter which he wrote to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutherglen, states that this demand had been made upon him. The hon. and gallant Member asked me about it, and I said that it was incredible and that he had better write to the particular chief constable, and not pillory him—police constables themselves wish to do their duty—but find out if it was not the Home Office, with the clutching hand trying to get some money out of the wretched litigants. It is difficult to get the facts in accident cases. Imagine what may happen. Two constables are at a crossing. One is going off duty and the other is going on duty. A motor omnibus or a motor car comes along and kills a man, who may be the breadwinner of the family. There may be no other people about and the only competent evidence could be given by the two policemen. What is the widow to do in such a case? She is left in difficult circumstances and she requires witnesses. There are solicitors who take up cases and who are referred to as speculative solicitors. Many of these men who take up cases in order to secure justice for deserving people are entitled to the greatest possible credit. The solicitor does not know whether it is a frivolous or a good case. He will inquire whether there are any people likely to know anything about the case and who can give evidence. The first thing that he finds out is that the police could give evidence, but he is there met with the demand, "Your money for a preliminary note of my evidence." The policeman if he is subpoenaed has to give evidence, and may have conduct money. But you must know beforehand what he is going to say.

One of our Rules of Pleading, which I have always considered highly artificial, is that when you put a witness into the witness box you must treat him as a credible witness. Therefore you do not put any witness in the box until you know what he is going to say. You are not supposed to put any man in the box unless you accept his statement. On one occasion in a matrimonial court I had to bring evidence and put a question to a witness who I knew would be hostile. The judge said, "Do you put forward this lady as a credible witness?" My reply was, "No, sir, as an incredible witness, but I have to call her in order that I might put certain questions to her to enable me to examine another witness." You are expected to regard any witness you call as a credible witness, and that is one of the reasons why you cannot put the police into the box until you know what their evidence is. For wealthy people or people of position this is a small sum of money that is involved, but it is a very bad precedent. It appears to have begun as recently as 1929 with the Home Office Circular 495 055–45. It began with 5s. and it will soon rise perhaps to a guinea. These things begin by small nibbles and they go on and increase. It is entirely wrong.

It is said that this would take the policeman off duty. It would not necessarily take the policeman off duty. Hours could be fixed at such a time as would be suitable and I believe that the ordinary policeman would willingly give his proof. I have never seen an accident without stopping and tendering my name, because I do not know when someone of my own may be concerned, and I should like other citizens to act accordingly. It is the duty of everyone to do what they can in such matters. My view in regard to the police is that the average policeman is a man of high standard of conduct. He has to pass an examination which would trouble most of us and he has to have a physique of which most of us must be envious and a first-class character. I believe that the ordinary policeman looks with disdain upon this proceeding and that he regards it as a proceeding which has come from some official mind. I have no doubt that it is preferred by the insurance companies, but it is certainly an obstacle to justice being done. It is a bad, demoralising practice, and I am sorry that the Home Secretary was adamant at Question Time. I excuse his absence to-day. I told him that I was going to raise the matter and he asked me to abstain from doing so until we came back after Easter. I said that I should take no exception to his going off or to any of his representatives being absent, and that I did not expect a full answer to-day. I said also to him: "You may consult whom you may and take what advice you like, but my advice to you is that you have no answer, because the whole thing is wrong." It is an attempt to obstruct and hinder justice being done between one liege subject and another. The police give proofs or pre-cognitions freely in criminal cases. Civil cases are just as important. A civil wrong done by one man to another may be just as serious as a criminal wrong or more so. It is stated in the letter from the chief constable to the hon. Member for Rutherglen that "It is for their own advantage in civil causes." It is not for their own advantage; at least not for their profit. They are entitled to have a wrong set right, and every possible assistance ought to be given by the police, just as by all other citizens.

I want to associate myself whole-heartedly with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member in regard to the case that he has made out. I thoroughly agree with him in what he has said regarding what may be termed the speculative lawyer. Of course, there are exceptions, but from my knowledge of what occurs in the City of Glasgow I think that these particular lawyers render the poor people magnificent service at comparatively little cost. Nothing should be done to keep evidence from being given on behalf of people who are comparatively poor. I should like to apologise to the Government because I have not given notice earlier of a subject which I desire to raise. I am acting in this matter with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Our reason for not giving earlier notice was that, perhaps, we took a wrong view in regard to the situation. I refer to the Irish question, in which Cabinet Ministers are concerned. We read in the "Times" this morning that a special Cabinet Committee has been appointed to deal with the matter. We thought that the matter was so serious and urgent that the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs would not have left London. Perhaps we ought to have given notice much earlier. I suppose the fact that we did not give the earlier notice is the reason why no representative of the Dominions Office is present.

I am not going to discuss the rights or wrongs of the annuity question or the question of the Oath, but in regard to both those questions I would say to the Chief Whip that when the House reassembles I should like, if we can get time, to have an opportunity of discussing them with the Dominions Secretary. I want to enter a protest on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton and myself against the policy of hush, hush, which it seems the Government proposes to pursue. We do not agree, and cannot agree, that this is a question which can be fobbed off in any way. The House of Commons has a right to discuss this matter, and if we had been continuing in session we should have taken the earliest opportunity of asking for time to discuss it. Every newspaper this morning refers to the seriousness of this question, but nobody has done this more than the Secretary of State for the Dominions. When it was raised in the House yesterday every hon. Member, with the exception of the hon. Member for Bridgeton and myself, possibly agreed with the policy pursued, but hon. Members will not disagree with me when I say that when the matter was first raised in the House the Secretary of State for the Dominions gave it an air of importance. He said that he had been given a document of great seriousness, and he assumed an air which only he can assume; he screwed up his brows and looked wise, as he did in the days of Labour party meetings when he was going to lecture someone for doing wrong. He said that the matter was so serious that he must ask hon. Members to say nothing about it. The next day he made a statement and said that it was so serious a matter that he must plead with the House not to discuss it, it was a matter of such grave importance. Since then, according to the "Times," the Cabinet has met and has set up a committee to consider this question. The Government apparently have taken it seriously, too. I do not wish to say anything with regard to our statement that this is war, but that is our considered view.

I want at the moment to put this question to the Patronage Secretary. In the next eight or 10 days anything may happen if the situation is as serious as we are told it is, and I want to ask the Patronage Secretary whether the Government, before taking any serious step which may embroil the relations between the Irish Free State and this country will consult the House of Commons. The Government have stated their position. The Irish Free State Government have stated their position. The two views conflict. I am not now discussing the relative merits of the case, although when the time comes I shall state my view. It will be probably a minority view, perhaps the view of only three Members, but I shall state it with as much freedom as you, Mr. Speaker, will allow and as the courtesy of the House will permit, and I shall do so as a Member of Parliament responsible to my constituents. All I ask now is that during the next eight days, during which anything may happen, that the Patronage Secretary will at least be able to assure us that the Government will now take no step which will imperil the relations between the two countries and result in serious friction until the House of Commons meets again and can be consulted.

I hope that the House will not take too seriously the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). Hon. Members on this side of the House take the view that far too much importance has already been attached to a matter which, if left to the Irish people themselves, will probably settle itself. Some of us take the view that the Dominions Secretary was rather too histrionic, rather too grave, a little too self important when he made his statement the other day. The House of Commons knows that the leader of the Irish Free State Parlia- 3.0 p.m.

meat only retains his leadership by a small and doubtful majority of the Irish people. There are forces in Ireland which, working against the greatest odds and difficulties, have observed with loyalty to the Irish people the Oath and constitution to which they agreed 10 years ago. The hon. Member for Gorbals seems to have read the leading article in the "Times" to-day, but, obviously, it has not had very much effect upon him, because the suggestion is made—and all right thinking people will agree with it—that this is a relatively unimportant matter. There has been too much hysteria.

Who started the hysteria?

Hysteria is rather catching. It was started on one side and has been taken up by another, and no good service is rendered to this country or to this House. I suggest that this House has dealt with far more important issues, besides which the present issue is infinitesimal, and to show an attitude of hysteria and of actual alarm about a situation which may never develop is not in keeping with the traditions of this great assembly. I trust that the hon. Member will not pursue a matter which has received far more importance than it deserves.

I am sorry to have to disagree with the hon. Member for Denbighshire (Dr. Morris-Jones). It is not possible to exaggerate the importance of this matter and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and myself take the view on this issue, as we do on other issues, that the attitude of the Government of not allowing serious matters to be discussed on the Floor of the House until policies have been decided is one which we cannot accept. The Foreign Secretary comes one day and the Dominions Secretary another day, the India Secretary comes another day and the Home Secretary on another day, and they all say "This is a serious matter and I ask the House of Commons not to discuss it." The suggestion is that the House of Commons is only to discuss trivial matters on which no great decision hangs.

Everyone who has a memory knows that the problem of the Irish relations to this country is a serious one indeed. For 10 years we have been relatively free from a complication in our national life which for years and years before excited political turmoil and led us into a situation in Ireland which was nothing short of deplorable. If that problem of centuries was settled in Ireland in the post-War years, when there was a general feeling of good will, more than had at any other time prevailed, it was solved by the recognition of Ireland's national and democratic rights. Ireland, in pursuance of its national and democratic rights, has elected a certain government in Ireland. Mr. De Valera is the head of that Government, and he was elected to carry out certain policies by the free vote of the Irish people. He proceeds, perhaps that is the fault the has committed, immediately he comes into office to carry out the mandate he has received from the Irish elector, and the Government of this country on the first intimation that he proposes to carry out the policy which he was elected to carry out, makes what the hon. Member for Gorbals and myself regard as a declaration of war. That is an attitude that cannot be maintained unless you are prepared to back it up by force. I am not placing any stress on the histrionic attitude of the Dominions Secretary, or anything of that sort. Behind that there was a cold blooded decision of the Cabinet: behind his statement of yesterday there was a cold-blooded decision of the Cabinet, exactly the same attitude as was involved in the Indian policy of the Government.

The hon. Gentleman made a statement that this was a declaration of war. Does he seriously expect the House to believe him when he says that there is no alternative, in dealing with this matter, but a declaration of war?

There are a whole lot of alternatives, but if the Government attitude as stated yesterday is maintained without modification, there is no alternative, and it is because we dread the wiping away in a day or two of the reasonably good relations that it took centuries to establish, that we want here, before we go away for a Recess, to issue our warning for what it is worth that during these 10 days crucial decisions will not be taken and create a situation that it will be impossible for this House or this nation to rectify when we return after our short holiday. That is our attitude. We regret very much that we had not given the necessary intimation which, I presume, would have retained a representative of the Dominions Office here. We hope and trust that the spokesmen of the Dominions Office have not departed so far away on holiday that they will not be in close touch with the situation, and that during these 10 days any representations that may come from the Irish Government will be met, not by the strong-man attitude, not by the powerful nation attitude that is going to impose its will on the others, but as between the representatives of two equal partners inside the British Empire, about which hon. Members opposite are so fond of talking.

Did not the hon. Gentleman resist the Amendment to the Statute of Westminster?

I do not catch the relevance of that remark. I am afraid that that question does not arise just at the moment.

As far as I understood the hon. Member, he was rather suggesting that the policy of the Government was the policy of those who put down an Amendment to the Statute of Westminster.

I am afraid that I could not accept that interpretation of our attitude at all. As a matter of fact we regard the Statute of Westminster as completely irrelevant to this situation. I conclude by suggesting that it should be recognised that Ireland is a free nation. True it is inside the British Empire, but it is a free nation. It has its right to make treaties and to break treaties, and it is a mistake for the British Government to say, "We shall not be prepared to discuss with you the terms of the Treaty, we shall not be prepared to discuss with you the financial relations which have hitherto existed." A new Government has been elected in Ireland and the Government of this country has no right to say to the Irish people, "You had no right to elect that Government." Since the Irish people have the right to elect their own Government this nation has a right to recognise the policy which that Government has been elected in Ireland to pursue. It is in that spirit that we want, whatever is done in this matter during the Easter Recess, to be carried through, and that is why we have taken this opportunity of raising the question.

With the permission of the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) I propose before answering his question to say a few words in reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). I wish, first, to say that if notice had been given that they intended to raise this question a spokesman from the Department concerned would certainly have been here to reply. I would not have the hon. Members think, for one moment, that any discourtesy on the part of the Government is indicated by the fact that I am standing at this Box instead of a representative of the Department concerned. Equally, I think they will understand that, in the circumstances, it is completely impossible for me to say anything more than, or to add to what the Dominions Secretary said yesterday. It would not be fit or proper for me to give a pledge such us the hon. Member for Gorbals has requested this afternoon, and indeed I am not in a position to do so. Rather would I say to him that he and the House as a whole, and I am certain the country, must give their fullest confidence and trust to this Government, and that the Government will take care of the position and act in what they consider to be the best possible way. Actually, if it should be the case, after the expiration of the eight days' Recess which we are now starting, that some urgent point, some grave issue, arises, the official Opposition would ask for time from His Majesty's Government in order to discuss the new situation which would then come into being, and the Government, naturally, would accede to that request and grant an immediate day for the discussion of Irish affairs. Further than that it would be quite impossbile for me to go this afternoon.

In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Argyll, the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary for the Home Department much regret that they were unable to be in their places, but I understand that the Home Secretary explained to the hon. and learned Member the reasons for his absence and that, after a consultation with him, there was an understanding that the hon. and learned Member would not expect a definite reply to-day, or until there had been an opportunity for further consideration of the matter. In any case, had the Minister been present, he could say no more than that it would be necessary for him to confer with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and with the other police forces and with the Secretary of State for Scotland before he could contemplate making any change in a practice which has been so long established. The Home Secretary has asked, however, that a promise should be given on his behalf that he will take an early opportunity of entering into consultation with the police authorities concerned, and with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that he will consider the matter in the light of the representations mentioned by the hon. and learned Member. I am afraid this afternoon it is impossible for me to add anything to that statement, but I trust that the explanation from the Home Secretary which I have conveyed to the hon. and learned Member and the House will be sufficient.