asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make any statement on the Government's policy with regard to the hydrogenation of coal?

This subject is still being actively considered but I am not yet in a position to make any statement of the Government's policy in regard to it.

Are these negotiations proceeding as rapidly and as fully as they possibly can?

Yes, they are proceeding without interruption.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister said in the Debate on the Address that the Government had been considering this matter for some months? When are we going to get an answer?

The hon. Member is aware that this is a most complicated, difficult and highly technical subject. He cannot expect it to be dealt with at lightning pace.

When are we going to have a reply?

When a definite reply can be given, it will be given.

Is it not a fact that low temperature carbonisation of coal is already a commercial success?

I could not enter into a discussion of these rival processes at Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has any further statement to make on the subject of our relations with the Irish Free State?

I have no further statement to make except that the position still remains that the United Kingdom Government are desirous of a friendly settlement provided that it proceeds on the basis of the acceptance of the validity of existing obligations.

Are we to understand that the Government of the Irish Free State have not yet shown sufficient confidence in the justice of their case to be willing to submit the matter in dispute to the arbitrament of an Empire tribunal?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a general election and that the people of the Irish Free State have expressed their confidence in Mr. de Valera and, in view of the strong desire for a settlement, both in Ireland and in this country, will he not initiate negotiations with the new Government?

The hon. Gentleman has given notice of a question, and I assumed that he would wait for a reply.

I shall not be entitled to put my Private Notice Question in view of the question that has been put.

The hon. Gentleman did send me notice of that question. I saw there was one of a similar kind on the Paper, so I could not allow him to put it.

That being so, out of courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, I will say that the position of the Government is that honourable obligations have been entered into between two parties, and we believe that they should be the basis of any future negotiations. I have never hesitated to say that we are ready to enter into negotiations, but it must be on the basis that, having made an agreement, they must keep their agreement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the results of the policy of the Government up to now?

I have got a few hundred thousand pounds more as the result of the increased duties.

asked the hon. Member for Central Leeds, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, if he can now state the total cost falling on the Commissioners in respect of the recent case in the Norwich Consistory Court?

The total cost has been £8,205 1s. 2d.

Can my hon. Friend say whether any steps are in contemplation to reduce the cost and the publicity, should cases of this sort unfortunately arise in future?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Commissioners are helpless in this matter. The question, I understand, is on the agenda of the Assembly now in session, and it will be for them to deal with it.

asked the Home Secretary whether he can now make any further statement upon the matter of compulsory workmen's compensation insurance?

As regards general compulsory insurance, I would refer to the replies given to my hon. Friend on the 17th November and to the hon. Member for Leigh on the 27th October last. As regards development of insurance in the coal-mining industry, my right hon. Friend heard last month from the Mining Association that, except in Lancashire where proposals for a new scheme were still unsettled, insurance of a comprehensive character is now provided by the Mutual Indemnity Associations in each district, and that marked progress has been made in securing that colliery undertakings obtain cover from a Mutual Indemnity Association or Insurance Company. The negotiations for these arrangements have necessarily involved a considerable amount of work, but the association assured my right hon. Friend that they do not anticipate any difficulty in getting matters on a thoroughly satisfactory basis in the near future.

Can my hon. Friend say whether any of these schemes include provision for past liabilities in mining areas?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the whole of this subject can be debated on Friday on a Private Member's Bill, and perhaps it will be more convenient to leave questions of that kind until them.

asked the Home Secretary if he is now in a position to state whether the Government has decided to introduce legislation at an early date to regularise the position of totalisators on dog tracks throughout the country?

With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, and with Mr. Speaker's consent, I propose to make a statement at the end of questions.

(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether the Government have considered the recommendations of the interim report of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting, and what decision has been reached with regard to the use of the totalisator (a) in tote clubs and (b) on greyhound racing tracks?

My right hon. Friend regrets that owing to illness he is not able to be in his place to answer this question.

As regards the use of the totalisator in tote clubs the Government accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission who were impressed by the spread of the organised facilities for betting and gambling and of the habit of betting and gambling. They clearly state that the use of totalisators for transactions, which in their view are in substance betting transactions, whether in clubs or on greyhound tracks, leads to an enormous growth of facilities for continuous betting and to an increasing exploitation of the gambling instinct of the population at large by persons for their own financial gain. Regarded from this point of view, the totalisator appears to the Commission to be a grave social danger, and their unanimous recommendation is that totalisator betting both in clubs and on greyhound tracks should be brought to an end as soon as possible.

The Government are advised that the use of the tote in clubs is illegal under the existing law, and they propose to put into force the law with a view to die suppression of these clubs. Should changes in the methods of conducting betting operations through the totalisator in these clubs be adopted, and should it be found that the existing law is inadequate to deal with them, the Government will introduce any legislation which may be found necessary to effect the complete suppression of these clubs.

The Government are further advised that the use of the totalisator on greyhound racing tracks is contrary to the existing law, which it is the duty of the authorities to enforce. At the same time the Government recognise that, as pointed out by the Royal Commission, the facilities afforded by the totes are only one form of the betting facilities provided on these tracks and that the Royal Commission will be dealing in their final report with the general question of betting facilities on these tracks. The Government do not propose to come to a final decision as to the legislation, if any, which may be necessary to deal with the use of the tote on greyhound tracks until they have had an opportunity of studying the final recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to other forms of betting. When those recommendations are received the Government will be in a position to review the matter in all its aspects.

I should add that as regards Scotland, the position is at present different. The High Court. of Justiciary in Scotland in 1930 decided that the use of a totalisator on a greyhound racing track was not in contravention of the Betting Act, 1853. That decision, however, did not proceed upon an interpretation of the part of Section 1 of that Act upon which the English decision was based. I am informed that there is now pending in the Courts in Scotland another case which will enable the law as laid down in the 1930 decision to be reconsidered in the light of the English decision, and until that case is finally determined it is not possible to say whether there is any real divergence between the Courts of the two countries as to the interpretation of the Statute.

Arising out of the latter part of the answer, regarding totalisators on greyhound racing tracks, in view of the fact that the decision, one way or the other, with regard to greyhound tracks, will have an important effect on employment, will the House be afforded an early opportunity of debating this question on a Motion for the Adjournment?

That is a question which must be put to the Leader of the House.

Will the Prime Minister be good enough to reply to the question?

Arising out of the original answer, will the Under-Secretary say whether, pending the receipt of the full report of the Commission, the Government propose to enforce the existing law with regard to totalisators on greyhound racing tracks?

Yes, Sir. It is my right hon. Friend's duty to enforce the law as it stands.

For the sake of clarity will the Under-Secretary say whether that implies that no more of these totalisators will be allowed to be erected, pending the Government's consideration of the final report and their final decision in the matter?

I would point out that it is the existing law which my right hon. Friend will enforce, and that that does not deal with the erection but with the operation of totalisators.

Can the Under-Secretary give any indication of the date of the final report which has been so long expected?

I understand that we hope to receive it within a reasonably short time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further statement to make as to the relations between the Persian Government and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company?

The dispute between His Majesty's Government and the Persian Government in connection with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company's concession was brought before the Council of the League of Nations by His Majesty's Government and the Council heard statements on behalf of the two Governments on the 26th of January, Dr. Benes, the representative of Czechoslovakia on the Council of the League, was appointed rapporteur and as the result of his good offices an arrangement has been reached, and has been confirmed by the Council, whereby the Anglo-Persian Oil Company are about to enter into direct negotiations with the Persian Government with a view to a settlement. In the meantime all proceedings before the Council are suspended on the terms that the point of view set out on each side before the Council remains entirely unprejudiced and that, if negotiations fail to produce agreement, the question will again come before the Council for decision. It is further agreed that during the period of the negotiations and until a final settlement is reached, the work and operations of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company will continue to be carried on as they were carried on before the 27th November, 1932, that is before the Persian Government claimed to cancel the concession.

In consequence of the Government being involved in this question, is our Government going to pay part of their expenses?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any statement to make with reference to the present position of the Disarmament Conference and its relation to the problem of the American War Debt?

The General Commission of the Disarmament Conference began a new session on Thursday last, the 2nd February, when the French plan formed the subject of discussion. His Majesty's Government have drafted and circulated to the other delegations a Programme of Work and this has been published in the Press. In their opinion acceptance of this Programme as the basis of the work of the Conference is the best means of pushing on vigorously with the Conference's task. As regards the War Debt question, I have nothing to add to the statements which have recently been made on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if there has been an increase of immigration into Kenya as a result of the recent discoveries of gold and, if so, what are the figures; and what formalities such immigrants undergo and under what conditions they are living and working in the native reserves?

During the last four months of 1932 the number of immigrants into Kenya was very considerably less than the corresponding figure during any one of the previous six years. I am causing the exact statistics to be circulated with the OFFICIAL REPORT. All new immigrants into Kenya who are unable to show that they come to permanent employment are required to deposit £50 or to produce a bond for that amount entered into on their behalf by a reputable resident. Before being granted a permit to seek minerals in a native reserve a prospector must comply with certain conditions prescribed by the Central Lands Trust Board. These conditions include the deposit of a further sum of £25 as a guarantee for the payment not only of wages but also of the compensation for surface disturbance stipulated under the Mining Ordinance of 1931. Those at present engaged in mining operations in the native reserves are to a largely preponderating extent local residents. The mining community lives for the most part in extemporised dwellings, though a few wood and iron houses have been erected. There have been but rare cases of serious illness and visits are from time to time carried out by the local sanitary inspector. The Deputy Director of Sanitary Services has recently made a tour of the mining district and his report is now receiving the attention of the Government of Kenya.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to the

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if an early opportunity will be given for a discussion on the Ordinance relating to the Kenya Goldfield?

I understand that it may be possible to arrange for a

I should like notice of the first part of the question, but I can say at once that, so far as I am aware, not a single native has been evacuated. All the proceedings that have taken place and all the prospecting now going on is taking place under an Ordinance settled during the time of his own Government.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing this matter?

There is a question on that to the Prime Minister.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say to whom the gold that has been found belongs?

All gold in Kenya, whether in the native reserve or in other land, belongs to the Crown.

What does the Crown do with it?

Try to see that it is worked to the best advantage.

Arising out of that reply, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that no further obligations or commitments will be entered into before the House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter?

The Ordinance is in force, as was announced before the House rose for Christmas.

May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there are many rumours current that large commitments are being entered into by the Government in the Colony with regard to licences for prospecting very great areas; and will he give an undertaking that no such commitments will be definitely settled before the House has had an opportunity of discussing them?

That is obviously not a question for me. That is a question for the Minister in charge of the Department concerned. I merely gave an answer on the matter of the time for discussion.

Is it quite fair to the House to make the discussion of this rather important matter a question of the luck of the ballot?

As I have pointed out, there will be two opportunities—as a matter of fact, four opportunities—for discussing this subject, and, as the Government have a very heavy programme of legislation, I hoped it might be possible to dispose of the matter in that way. I can assure the whole House that the very last thing the Government intend to do is to suppress discussion on this subject.

Does not the Prime Minister recognise the amazing nature of the statement which he has just made, that, as a matter of fact, he has no control at all over this matter? Is this not a Cabinet question, and not a question for the chief of one of his Departments?

That was in reference to details of administration. Questions as to details of administration will be answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the questions are put down on the Order Paper.

Is the House not entitled to ask the Prime Minister, in view of this departure from his own policy, whether the granting of further licences will not be suspended until the House has declared its view?

If I may answer that-question, there appears to be a misapprehension. The granting of prospecting licences has nothing whatever to do with this Ordinance. The granting of prospecting licences is being done to-day under the Mining Ordinance which has been in force for a considerable time and its terms were settled while the Labour party was in office.

Does not the granting of mining licences in this case involve separate legislation passed a few years ago, and does not the whole matter arise from that?

No, it does not. The granting of prospecting licences is entirely done under the Mining Ordinance. There are two perfectly different things. One is the granting of prospecting licences and the other is the granting of leases. All the amending Ordinance does is to cover a temporary period, pending the final report of the Morris Carter Commission, and it merely deals with the granting of surface leases.

Is it not clear that if those Members who succeed in the ballot for private Members' Motions are in favour of the policy now being pursued in Kenya, the House will be effectually debarred from an opportunity of discussing the matter?

May I ask the Prime Minister if he considers it, reasonable for the Government to suggest that a question of this sort, which is causing consternation in all parts of the Empire, should be raised on a private Member's Motion; and would he be prepared to give a day for the discussion of it, as between the Government and the Opposition?

Right hon. Gentlemen seem to forget that there was a, discussion of the whole of this matter before the House rose for Christmas. [Holy. MEMBERS: "No !"] What private Members do with their opportunities today and to-morrow is for them to settle. I merely suggest that it would be a saving of time that they should be used partly for this purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House what further action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to secure payment from the Russian Soviet Government of the arbitral award of approximately £13,000,000 in favour of Lena Goldfields, Limited, and the result of such action?

I cannot make any further statement on this subject at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary informed the House shortly before the Christmas Recess, that he hoped the Foreign Office would be able when the House resumed to say what steps the British Government were taking? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect soon to be able to make a statement?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of what my hon. Friend said, and it was quite correct, but I have my own reasons for saying that I cannot make a further statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state the number of licences for ginning cotton given during the last year in Uganda; whether the prices given to the native growers are depressed by any combination between ginners; and whether any licences have been given to Africans for ginning purposes?

One hundred and twenty-three licences were issued in Uganda for the ginning of cotton in 1932. No such licences were issued to, or applied for by, Africans in that year, but two were issued to an African in 1931. No combination between ginners operated in the Protectorate during 1932.

asked the First Commissioner of Works if, in view of the intended destruction of Adeiphi Terrace and the adjacent buildings, he will take steps to get these buildings scheduled for preservation as an ancient monument?

Unfortunately, I do not think that this is a case in which my Department can take any action. The machinery provided by the Ancient Monuments Acts is not applicable to a group of buildings of this character.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman going to take any steps to secure the beautiful Adam decorations in such buildings, which may be of use at South Kensington Museum?

As I have said, I have no power under the Ancient Monuments Act to deal with buildings occupied and with buildings of this character. It is entirely a matter for Parliament, in its own discretion, to say whether they will pass a Private Bill or not, and under what conditions.

Are there no ancient monuments in this House?

asked the Prime Minister if he can now state the date and arrangements for the World Economic Conference; and whether he can give the proposed agenda?

asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has now been arrived at with regard to the date and agenda of the World Economic Conference?

asked the Prime Minister (1) the date of the forthcoming World Economic Conference; and whether the agenda of the Conference has yet been prepared;

(2) if he will take an early opportunity of giving time for a discussion of the economic policy to be advocated by His Majesty's Government at the forthcoming World Economic Conference?

asked the Prime Minister if he can now state which countries will send representatives to the World Economic Conference; where it is to be held; and what will be the principal items on the agenda?

The Preparatory Committee of Experts have drawn up a draft annotated agenda for the World Economic Conference, which has been published by the League of Nations, which I should remind the House is in charge of the Conference. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The Council of the League have decided to transmit the draft agenda to all States invited to the Conference.

As regards the date of the Conference, the Council have decided that the convocation of the Conference should not be unnecessarily delayed; that it could not, in view of the necessity for further preparation and the distance to be covered by some of the delegates, take place for at least three months from the present time; and that it should be left to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as president of the Organising Committee, to convene that committee at some suitable date during this period of three months in order to take a final decision on the eventual date of the Conference.

I have been asked by the Council of the League of Nations to act as President of the Conference. As regards the place of the Conference and the countries to be invited, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on the 18th October last (OFFICIAL REPORT: Vol. 269, No. 133, cols. 14–15). If it is desired that an opportunity should be given for a discussion of the economic policy to be advocated by His Majesty's Government at the Conference, a request will no doubt be made through the usual channels.

Can the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that at this Conference the efforts of the British Government will be directed to the removal of tariff barriers, which are universally admitted to be one of the main causes of world depression?

Do I understand from the reply that the Committee to fix the date may meet at any time in the next three months, and that a further three months must be allowed before the assembly of the Conference, so that it may be six months before the Conference can take place?

No, not that. Invitations will be issued, and three months after the invitations have been issued the Conference may meet. It is a question of travel and preparation. It is not three months after the Committee has decided the date of the Conference.

Do I not understand from the answer that the Committee may meet any time within the next three months? It may be three months before the Committee may meet to come to a decision.