asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that officers stationed in Egypt are charged full British income tax on their British dividends when they are non-resident in England, and that they have no concessions made to them for travelling home on leave such as are given to officers at home; and whether, as some regiments are kept out there for eight years or more, he will consider altering the regulations and treating them by the same rules that apply to officers on foreign service or, alternatively, give them the same travelling concessions when coming home on leave as apply to those at home?

As regards the first part of the question, I understand that income from sources in the United Kingdom is, in general, liable to Income Tax whether the recipient is resident in the United Kingdom or not. As regards the remainder of the question, officers serving in Egypt come under the same regulations governing facilities for leave as officers serving in other garrison stations abroad. Except in the case of leave granted on the specific recommendation of a medical board, all travelling concessions to officers on leave are granted by the railway arid steamship companies concerned. Officers in Egypt may obtain concessions from the Egyptian State railways and from certain of the steamship companies, and the concessions made by the railways in this country are the same for officers on leave from Egypt as they are for officers serving at home.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether exactly the same Income Tax rules are applied to officers in India on foreign service as are applied in the case of officers in Egypt?

I understand that they are.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is prepared to have the whole of the evidence in the Lieutenant Baillie-Stewart case submitted to a legal committee of Members of the House of Commons, and provide an opportunity for the taking of fresh evidence, which is now available, in view of the growing belief in Baillie Stewart's innocence both in and outside the fighting services?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am not aware of any fresh evidence having become available. I have no reason to think that there is any growing belief in any quarter in Mr. Baillie-Stewart's innocence. In point of fact he made a full confession of his guilt soon after he was convicted.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that four generals, nine colonels and 61 other officers have already written expressing their complete belief in his innocence, and that Baillie-Stewart within the last fortnight has completely denied that he made any confession of guilt, and still maintains his innocence of this charge?

I am not aware of either of those facts.

Can the hon. Gentleman produce a written statement signed as to a confession of guilt by Baillie- Stewart?

I do not think that it would be in the public interest to publish that.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that concern exists in Scotland on account of the fact that after 31st December, 1933, a number of unemployed men and women will cease to receive medical benefit as hitherto Administered under the National Health Insurance Acts; and whether he will initiate the necessary legislative steps to provide for a continuance of this medical benefit?

As my hon. Friend is aware, this matter was the subject of a Debate on the 10th instant, and I would refer him to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on that occasion. In view of the need for maintaining the National Health Insurance Scheme on an actuarial basis, I regret that it is not possible to take the course suggested in the latter part of the question.

May I Ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the serious financial position of these persons, this very important subject will receive further consideration at his hands?

I am afraid that I cannot give any undertaking in reply to the supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can now announce the Government's proposals for preventing further damage to pastoral and arable farms by red deer?

I am not yet in a position to announce the Government's proposals for the control of red deer. A draft of a Bill on the subject has been prepared, but a further consultation 'at an early date with the parties interested will be necessary in view of the difficulties of framing a workable Measure.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that fully six months ago the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland announced that this Bill was under consideration, and, in view of the very serious damage done by this nuisance, will he give us an assurance that all expedition will be shown in preparing and submitting this Bill?

Since the former answer was given, the Bill has been drafted, but several legal difficulties have arisen in regard to the drafting of the Bill, and we are very shortly to see the parties interested, because we realise the desirability of proceeding.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will prepare a statement of the losses at present being incurred by the local authorities with a, rateable value of less than £250,000 on schemes being operated under the various Housing Acts since 1918, giving the losses for each local authority separately?

A statement containing the information desired is being prepared, and I shall send a copy to my hon. Friend as soon as it is available.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that, owing to the methods of marketing, stock-owners in Scotland are faced with charges which amount on an average to 5s. for a sheep, 10s. for a pig and 40s. for an ox; and if he will consider finding ways and means by which these charges can be reduced?

I am aware that the existing system of marketing live stock is regarded in many quarters as unduly expensive, but I must not be taken as accepting without question all the figures mentioned by the hon. Member. A scheme regulating the marketing of pigs for the manufacture of bacon is in force throughout Great Britain, and the Scottish Reorganisation Commission is preparing a scheme for regulating the sale of fat cattle and sheep in Scotland. The report of that commission will doubtless deal with methods and costs of marketing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take speedy action in this matter if I present to him figures substantiating the figures in the question?

I shall be very happy to receive the figures referred to.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state whether the estate of Balmedie, near Aberdeen, has been acquired by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the constitution of smallholdings; how many holdings it is proposed to create on this estate; how many holdings have already been offered to applicants; whether any applicants have refused to accept such holdings and, if so, on what grounds; and whether the conditions of let offered included security of tenure and fair rents as defined by the Small Landholders Acts?

Part of the estate of Balmedie was acquired at Whitsunday, 1933, for land settlement. A scheme for 36 holdings is under consideration. No holdings have yet been offered to applicants. The remaining parts of the question do not therefore arise.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the case that applicants have been invited, that the rent has been indicated to them, and that they have stated or indicated that they could not accept the smallholdings on the terms suggested?

I should require to have notice of that question.

Have I not given sufficient notice already to enable the right hon. Gentleman to answer my supplementary question?

I have told my hon. Friend that the scheme is under consideration, and no holdings, so far as my knowledge goes, have been offered.

Does that mean that they have not been offered in writing? Is not the suggestion made by me correct, that they were shown the holdings and that the rent was indicated to them and that they said that they simply could not take over the holdings?

I hesitate to contra diet my hon. Friend but this information has been placed at my disposal this morning. The answer I have given, but, in view of the hon. Member's representations to me, I will make further inquiries.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that application has been made to the Miners' Welfare Fund Committee for a grant towards the equipment of a children's playground at Wood End, Staffordshire, and that both the Cannock Chase committee and the South Staffordshire committee have declined to consider the matter on the ground that the place in question is within the area of the other authority; and whether he will take steps to see that a decision shall be reached as to the correct authority to which application should be made?

I have referred this question to the Miners' Welfare Committee, who are consulting the two district committees concerned. I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary for Mines if His Majesty's inspectors have drawn his attention to the high temperature prevailing in the deep mines, in some instances exceeding 100 degrees; and will he consider amending the Coal Mines Act so as to prevent men working where the temperature exceeds a certain point?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to his previous question on 11th July, when I said that the question of high temperatures in some of the deeper mine workings is constantly engaging the attention of the inspectors, and is also being studied by the Hot and Deep Mines Committee. It is true that the air—dry bulb—temperature in some deep workings reaches, and may slightly exceed 100° Fahrenheit, but the associated wet bulb temperature seldom exceeds 80° Fahrenheit, and it is the latter that is the more important when considering the effect of temperature upon the health of the workers. The investigations of the Hot and Deep Mines Committee have shown that acclimatised men can work without undue fatigue in wet bulb temperatures of over 80°, and there is no evidence that such work does any serious injury to the men's health or shortens their lives.

May I take it that the hon. Member holds that men should work in a temperature of 100° Fahrenheit, and that he is telling the House that men can work in comfort in that kind of heat?

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if this is not the temperature in the stokeholds of His Majesty's ships in the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea?

I cannot give a general answer to a supplementary question of that kind. It depends upon many circumstances. My hon. Friend will remember that there have been 17 reports by the Committee of the Institute of Mining Engineers on this complicated and very difficult subject, and there is a general statement by Dr. Haldane in 1929, which I shall be very pleased to discuss with him, but I cannot do it by means of supplementary questions.

When may we expect a definite reply and when will the report be given to the House?

There is a misunderstanding. This is a committee of experts under the direction of Dr. Haldane and not under my Department. It is a committee set up by the Institute of Mining Engineers that is carrying out research in this matter.

Does the hon. Member intend personally to investigate these hot mines?

I have no objection to doing so if any hon. Member is interested in any particular mine.

Will the hon. Member bear in mind that coal miners sometimes have to work very nearly naked because of the heat, and does he not think that it is very dangerous to work under conditions under which these men have to work?

I am aware that in some cases that is so, and in other cases it is an advantage to have clothing on. It depends upon the circumstances. If my hon. Friend will refer to the report, he will find those things discussed in detail.

asked the Secretary for Mines how many mines there are over 500 yards deep, 750 yards deep, and how many exceed 1,000 yards deep; and can he say what is the greatest depth at the working face that any mine is at present working?

I would refer the hon. Member to the Tables beginning on page 188 of Vol. 3 of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1925. These give particulars for the years 1913 and 1924 of the tonnage of coal classified according to the depths of the seams worked. I regret that no later general information is available. So far as I am aware, the answer to the second part of the question is about 1,250 yards.

asked the Secretary for Mines if his attention has been drawn to what happened on Thursday, 9th November, at Hulton's Colliery, Chequerbent, near Bolton, where the men working in the three-quarters mine were ordered to stop in the mine from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.; and, as this appears to be a breach of the 7½ Hours Act, will he say what action he intends to take?

My attention has been drawn to this case but I have not yet completed my inquiries, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will put down another question in about a week's time.

Is the hon. Member aware that the men have had to play two days because of the attitude of the management in insisting that they should work from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., and that they have gone to work on the understanding that they are able to come up at 2.30? Does the hon. Member think the employers should be allowed to break the law in this way?

If the hon. Member will put his question down, he will find that I shall give him a definite answer, as the result of my inquiry, in about a week's time.

Will the hon. Member be good enough to tell the House whether his Department has power to take action against the management of a colliery for ordering men to break the law?

There are powers in the Act of 1908, but, as the hon. Member and the House know, it is not easy to decide, in modern circumstances, what is and what is not illegal overtime. I am making inquiries into the allegation in this case, and it is in regard to this specific case that I shall give my reply.

I press my question. Has the Department power to take legal action against the manager of a colliery for ordering his workpeople to break the law?

The hon. Member knows that just before the House rose I announced prosecutions in certain cases. I would point out that this is not a question of overtime, but whether it is illegal under the Act. If it is illegal, we have power.

asked the Secretary for Mines the total quantity of coal exported from the port of Goole during the nine months ended September, 1933, and the comparative figures for the same period in 1932, 1931, and 1930?

The quantity of coal exported from the port of Goole during the nine months ended September, 1933, was 512,127 tons, as compared with 548,139 tons, 764,509 tons and 1,097,032 tons during the corresponding periods in 1932, 1931 and 1930, respectively.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any complaints that boats going into Goole cannot get coal?

I have had complaints, but the complaints have not been by any means substantiated. I would point out that the high shipments occurred during the period 1928–30, when the Collieries Central Commercial Association operated a scheme providing for a substantial export of coal from the Humber. If the hon. Member will invite me to supply figures back to 1928, he will find that in the state of the export trade Goole has not had an unfair share of the trade, as the figures he asks for tend to show.

Is it not a fact that Goole's export of coal is down, while that of other ports is up, compared with a year ago?

That may be so, but there are many circumstances underlying it.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what effect the General Strike had upon the export of coal?

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs when the operations of the Empire Marketing Board as at present constituted will terminate; and if he has yet decided upon the organisation which will undertake the continuance of the work performed by the board on behalf of British agriculture?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement on this matter which appeared in the Press on the 9th August, of which I am sending him a copy. The report of the recent Imperial Committee on Economic Consultation and Co-operation (Cmd. 4335) was accepted by all the Governments concerned at the end of July and steps were taken to carry its recommendations into effect. This involved the discontinuance of the Empire Marketing Board as such after the 30th September. As regards the latter part of the question, as indicated in the Press statement, certain of the services carried on by the Board are being continued, but it would be appropriate, I think, for any specific inquiries concerning the continuance of the work carried on by the board on behalf of agriculture in the United Kingdom to be addressed to the Ministers responsible.

While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he realises that it is false economy to cease maintaining the activities of a great organisation of this quality, which was doing so valuable a work for the Empire and for agriculture in this country `I Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put anything in its place?

No words can adequately express the Government's appreciation of the work of the Empire Marketing Board. We clearly pointed out our views to the British Commonwealth as a whole—it was a Commonwealth institution—but they felt that they could not go on, and there was no alternative but to accept the recommendation; but we, His Majesty's Government in this country, are endeavouring to maintain as much of the work for the United Kingdom as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to what extent further preferences have been granted to British exports by British Dominions during the past three months?

In the Australian Budget, introduced on 4th October, proposals were introduced resulting in increased preferences, on a wide range of United Kingdom goods, and many of these proposals are in operation. The details of these changes are very long; and for full particulars I would refer the hon. Member to the issues of the Board of Trade Journal dated 12th and 19th October. Otherwise, so far as I am aware, the position in regard to preferences in the Dominions has not changed during the past three months.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps, if any, have been taken with regard to the denunciation of the most-favoured-nation clause?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the advantages obtained by this country in recent trade agreements are being largely nullified by the most-favoured-nation clause in our commercial treaties, he will take the earliest opportunity to eliminate this clause from existing treaties?

I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer which was given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 17th July last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Chorlton).

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if experience since that time would not cause him to change what he said then; and does he not think we have a great deal to gain by the denunciation of this clause?

My answer to my hon. Friend was given on 17th July. There has been no change since 17th July.

How is it possible to make satisfactory tariff arrangements with one State when consideration has to be given to 30, 40 or 50 other States and to the effect which those negotiations will have under the most-favoured-nation clause?

We must test each case on its merits.

But you cannot do that.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Chorlton.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if any further action is to be taken to help the manufacturers of this country against Japanese competition?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment on Thursday last.

to ask the President of the Board of Trade the volume of Japanese cotton piece-goods imported into the mandated territories in the Congo Basin during the nine months ended September, 1933, or for the latest available period?

Vice-Admiral Taylor.

On a point of Order. May I put a supplementary question to the President of the Board of Trade arising out of Question 34 on the Paper?

We have passed from that question. I would point out that we have a great many questions on the Paper to-day.

Question No. 34 was my own question, and I was very desirous of asking a supplementary question upon it. May I not do so now?

Does the hon. and gallant Member wish to ask Question No. 35? I have called him for that.

Question 35.

The mandated territories in the Congo Basin conventional trade zone comprise Tanganyika, Ruanda-Urundi, and the south-eastern portion of the Cameroons. Separate particulars in respect of the latter area are not published in the trade returns issued by the French authorities, but as regards the other two territories I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the required information for the latest available period.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the importation of Japanese goods should continue at the present volume without special steps being taken to prevent it.

The whole question of Japanese competition is under consideration at the present time both inside and outside the House.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the increasing quantities of Japanese textiles imported into home and Empire markets which are copies of British registered designs; and whether he will take such measures as may be necessary to have such goods confiscated at the ports of entry?

So far as the question relates to Empire markets outside the United Kingdom it is one for the Government of the Dominion or Colony concerned. In regard to the United Kingdom no information is available as to whether the importation of Japanese textiles bearing British registered designs is on the increase. Legal remedies are open to the owner of the registered design against the sale of goods infringing the copyright, but there is no power under which such goods could be confiscated at the ports of entry on the sole ground that they bore a design registered in this country. The enforcement of such a measure in the United Kingdom would present insuperable practical difficulties.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday last the Egyptian customs officials confiscated Japanese textile goods because they bore the label "Made in Manchester"; and will the right hon. Gentleman see that something is done to stop this pirating of our designs?

If similar cases arise in this country, we shall certainly see that action is taken.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that designs which are copies of our English manufacturers are imported into this country at the present time; and what action does he intend to take to stop it?

I have already answered that question in my original answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in order to restore our shipping industry and to conserve our own interests, he will consider making it compulsory that imports into this country for our own market shall be carried in our own ships by taking foreign arrivals at British ports in proportion to the subsidy they enjoy or, alternately, by instituting subsidies ourselves?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 9th November to the hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff South (Captain A. Evans).

asked the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the representations made to him from British shipping interests as to the action of the South African Government in subsidising two Italian shipping lines, what has been the nature of his reply?

The Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee was informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that the question was engaging the earnest attention of the Government and that such action as is possible in the matter was being taken. The Government have communicated with His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa, whose reply has been received and is under consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider an agreed method for the standardisation of the cubic yard as the legal measure when sand, ballast and similar materials are sold by volume; and whether also, for the protection of the public, he will require that the cubic capacity shall be marked on road vehicles used for the conveyance of such materials?

My attention has been drawn to the difficulties which have arisen in the sale of sand, ballast and similar materials, and I am aware that there is a demand for legislation to legalise the cubic yard as a standard of measure for these materials. I am considering what steps should be taken.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in suitable cases, he will operate Section 5 (1) and Article 21 of the First Schedule of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932, to meet the action of the German Government which has created a price for certain German exports by means of the new scrip system under which those exports receive State aid as defined by the above-mentioned Act; and is he aware that the scrip system has brought such German goods, if imported into Great Britain, within the defined prohibitions arising from direct or indirect creation of prices through State action on the part of any foreign country?

Even if the action of the German Government in this matter could be regarded as bringing German exports within the provisions of Section 5 of the Ottawa Agreements Act, such goods could not be prohibited from importation into this country so long as the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924 is in force.

What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do, in view of the fact that this scrip system neutralises the British tariff on the importation of German goods and also undermines British exports to other markets?

I was asked what was the bearing of this on Section 5 of the Ottawa Agreements Act and I have answered that question.

But I have asked the right hon. Gentleman what he proposes to do. Is he aware that the rebate on German exports is an export bounty, and that therefore these goods are dumped goods?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any agreements were made at the Ottawa Conference by the New Zealand and Australian authorities as to the imports of beef into Great Britain during the year 1933?

I would refer my hon. Friend to Article 6 and Schedule H of the Ottawa Agreement with His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia and to Article 4 of the Ottawa Agreement with His Majesty's Government in New Zealand and the letter referred to in that Article. The agreements are set out in the First Schedule to the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether before next year the Government intend to revise the amount of the quotas in view of the desperate state of the trade in this country?

The amount of the quotas is under consideration from time to time and has, I think, been dealt with twice, comparatively recently. We shall watch the tendency very carefully and take action thereon.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the quantities of beef imported into this country in the year ended 30th June, 1932, from New Zealand and Australia, respectively;

(2) the total imports of beef from New Zealand and Australia, respectively, from the beginning of the year 1933 to date?

The quantity of beef imported into the United Kingdom in the year ended 30th June, 1932, from Australia was 1,124,000 cwts. and from New Zealand was 377,000 cwts. The corresponding figures for the nine months ended the 30th September, 1933, are from Australia 821,000 cwts. and from New Zealand 632,000 cwts. These figures do not include tinned, canned, etc., beef, salted beef, nor extracts and essences.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the value per head of population of the domestic exports of manufactured goods in the year 1932 from the United Kingdom to the United States of America, France, and Germany?

The value of the domestic exports of articles classed in the trade returns as wholly or mainly manufactured consigned from the United Kingdom to the United States of America during 1932 was 1s. 11d. per head of the population of that country. The corresponding figure for France was 4s. 1d. and for Germany 2s. 5d.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has under consideration the conclusion of a trade agreement with China and, if not, whether, in view of the importance of China for a market for British textiles, he will consider the advisability of entering into early negotiations with a view to such an end?

In present circumstances it is not possible to undertake negotiations for the conclusion of a general trade agreement with China, but the situation is being watched, and I can assure my hon. Friend that every possible opportunity will be taken for assisting British trade in China.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can make a statement on the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to emigration and settlement of migrants from this country to various parts of the overseas territories of the self-governing Dominions?

The question of the policy to be adopted by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom when opportunities for any considerable migration arise again is at present under consideration. I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that for years this important question of migration within the Empire has been occupying the attention of successive governments, and can he say when we shall have a declaration of a practical policy in regard to the matter?

My hon. Friend must be aware that before you give any encouragement to people in this country—I may say that we have thousands ready to go—the Dominions themselves must be equally ready to receive them. The Government are not going to be responsible for sending people to the Dominions unless the Dominions themselves are ready to give them a fair chance.

Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate any early negotiations with the Dominions to bring this question into the region of practical politics?

Every opportunity is taken to discuss the matter with the Dominions. At the last conference, when representatives of the Dominions were here, discussions took place. In addition, I have a committee sitting continuously to consider this subject, but it must be fully considered and dealt with when there is real practical work to do.

Is it not a fact that if any great scheme of migration is worked out it, will take at least two years to prepare the plans, and, in view of that fact and in view of past deplorable results of migration, will the right hon. Gentleman not give us same encouragement to believe that the Government are now thinking two years ahead in the matter?

Yes, I unhesitatingly say that the Government are now considering it, but I only emphasise the harm that would result from an announcement that there was likely to be migration now. That is the point that I wanted to emphasise, in justice to the Dominions as well as our own people. Larger plans will be considered on a much broader and wider basis than anything that has ever been considered before.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, as a result of the communications that have passed with his Department during last summer concerning the Hornby scheme, settlers are likely to proceed to Canada in the near future?

No, Sir. I understand that in the papers which he has circulated regarding his scheme, General Hornby makes it clear that he does not advocate any immediate migration to Canada from this country?

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if during the Parliamentary Recess he has had any further negotiations with the Irish Free State for a conference on the matters under dispute between the Government of the Irish Free State and His Majesty's Government; and if any measures are in progress to dispose of the existing difficulties?

I think it will be convenient, in reply to my hon. Friend's question, to state the position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with regard to the most recent developments in the Irish Free State and in particular to the three Bills, now before the Irish Free State Parliament, for the amendment of the Irish Free State Constitution. I am sure the House will forgive me if my answer is rather long.

We are advised that the legislation conflicts in important respects with the Treaty of 1921, and its passage therefore involves a further repudiation of the obligations entered into by the Irish Free State under that Treaty. We have already made perfectly clear the view which we take of action of this kind. Quite apart from any question of legality we look upon it as a repudiation of an honourable settlement. No modification of the Treaty can properly be made except by agreement between the two countries. But that is not the only aspect of the matter.

The real significance of the Bills is that they clearly indicate an intention gradually to eliminate the Crown from the Constitution of the Irish Free State. Mr. de Valera has told us (as I said in the House of Commons on the 17th June, 1932) that his ultimate aim is the recognition of a United Ireland as a Republic with some form of association with the British Commonwealth in some circumstances and for some reasons and the recognition of the King as the head of the association. Any such proposals would be totally unacceptable to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Our view can be clearly stated. The Declaration of the Imperial Conference of 1926 as to the relationship of Great Britain and the Dominions under the Crown must be accepted as the basis of the constitutional position of the Irish Free State within the Empire. That Declaration is clearly inconsistent with a state of things under which the Irish Free State would be a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations for some purposes and not for all, and would cease to be united with Great Britain and the Dominions by a common allegiance to the Crown.

Our conception of membership of the British Commonwealth is something entirely different. The Irish Free State as a member of that Commonwealth is, as Mr. de Valera himself must now have learned, completely free to order her own affairs. Membership of the Commonwealth confers great advantages, which by her own action the Irish Free State is tending to lose; the privileges of common citizenship, economic advantages in trading with the rest of the Empire, and the opportunity of powerful influence in international affairs, in concert with the other members of the Commonwealth, in the cause of world peace.

Those privileges carry with them responsibilities, respect for the Crown, loyal observance of engagements, the spirit of friendship and co-operation with the other members of the British Commonwealth. It is our desire to see the Irish Free State taking her full part art a member of the Commonwealth, not grudgingly, but of her own free will, accepting the responsibilities and enjoying the privileges. If she renounce the one, she cannot hope to enjoy the other.

On a point of Order. I should like to know whether, when there are so many questions on the Order Paper, such a long reply should not come at the end of Questions.

That is not exactly a point of Order.

In view of the momentous character of the answer, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take any steps, in consultation with the Dominions or in consultation with the Irish Free State, to emphasise the outline of the policy of His Majesty's Government as indicated to the House this afternoon?

The dispute between the Irish Free State and ourselves is a dispute which affects the two countries only. We have never dragged, and do not intend to drag, any one of the Dominions into the internal dispute between ourselves and the Irish Free State. The other issues involved in my answer are matters which are separate and apart from that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take any concrete steps? Is it not possible to end this dispute by raising the import duties on produce from Southern Ireland?

May I ask whether this very important statement does or does not indicate any action that His Majesty's Government propose to take?

It clearly indicates, and was intended to indicate, not only to the people of this country but to the Irish Free State as well, the unanimous decision of His Majesty's Government. No provocative action of any kind is being taken by us, but, although the original dispute on the annuities was an issue between us prior to the Recess, the three Bills introduced by the Irish Free State Government, the purpose of which I have indicated in my answer, show clearly the determination of the Irish Free State Government in this matter. It is unfair and unwise not to indicate clearly to them and to the country the serious view which His Majesty's Government take of the matter.

Does it mean that if any of three Bills becomes law we shall be free from the bondage of Ireland?

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to state to the last convenient date the extent to which the Irish Free State is in default on its obligations to this country and the amount the Irish Free State Government has expended by way of export bonuses on those Irish goods which are now subject to special import duties in this country?

The total default of the Irish Free State up to the 1st April, 1933, was £4,774,000, and for the period 1st April-31st October, 1933, £2,473,000. As regards the second part of the question, according to statements made in the Irish Free State Parliament, the total expenditure of the Irish Free State in bounties on agricultural exports was for the period ending 1st April, 1933, £1,345,000 and for the period 1st April to 27th May, 1933, £256,000. I have seen no later figures of actual expenditure; but the amount provided in the Irish Free State Estimates for the current financial year for expenditure on bounties is £2,450,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps he is taking to improve the administration of the Protectorates as to education, agricultural progress, and personnel of the administration?

As my right hon. and gallant Friend is aware, Commissions have recently reported on the financial and economic position of Swaziland and the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and their recommendations, so far as they have not already been carried out, are receiving the most careful consideration. It will be appreciated that all these territories are passing through a period of severe economic depression, which in the case of the two already mentioned has necessitated recourse to grants-in-aid from the United Kingdom Exchequer, and that there are consequently difficulties in the way of taking any steps which would have the effect of increasing their current administrative expenditure. I can however assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that the problems to which he refers are not being lost sight of and have, in fact, lately formed the subject of discussions with Sir Herbert Stanley, the High Commissioner, during his visit to this country.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of recruiting for positions in these Protectorates on the same lines as the Colonial Office recruits its staff?

That is one of the most urgent of the matters now being considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what were the difficulties apprehended on the occasion of the suspension of Chief Tshekedi Khama which required the transport of 200 Royal Marines from Cape Town to maintain order?

I understand that the High Commissioner for South Africa considered that the presence of a naval escort was desirable as a precautionary measure and by way of safeguard. I may mention that the Bechuanaland Protectorate Police Force were at the time largely engaged on special work, from which it was impossible to release them, in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the Protectorate.

Is it not a fact that the Bechuanaland people are especially distinguished, and have been for many years, by their loyalty to the Crown?

I certainly appreciate that fact, but they are more loyal since my decision, if that be possible, than they were before.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say now who is to pay the bill for sending these marines up to Bechuanaland?

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, I will answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in what respects and on what dates Chief Tshekedi Khama has flouted His Majesty's administration, as stated by the Acting High Commissioner in announcing his suspension?

I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by detailing the past differences between the Bechuanaland Protectorate Administration and the Acting Chief Tshekedi. I hope that in view of the recent promise by the Acting Chief that he will at all times work in harmony and loyal cooperation with the administration, such difficulties will not recur.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is grossly unfair to bring forward all these charges without attempting to substantiate them?

I deprecate raising an issue of so important a character when, having regard to all the circumstances, the whole of the parties were satisfied. I cannot see what useful purpose is to be served by referring to the matter again.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the reinstatement of Chief Tshekedi Khama involves the withdrawal of the serious charges on which his suspension was based; and what steps have been taken to make it clear to the chief's people and to the public what is the present position?

The ground on which Acting Chief Tshekedi was suspended was that he claimed, in a document read by him to the Commission of Inquiry, that he was entitled to exercise jurisdiction, civil and criminal, over all inhabitants, including Europeans with their consent, in the Bamangwato Territory. The High Commissioner took the view, a view with which I fully concur, that so long as that claim was maintained, it was not possible to permit the Acting Chief to continue to exercise his functions. As soon, however, as the Acting Chief, in a letter which was publicly read to the tribe on the occasion of his reinstatement, made it clear that he with- drew this claim, the High Commissioner recommended, and I was able to advise His Majesty, that the period of suspension should be terminated. The grounds on which the Acting Chief had been suspended, and the fact that he withdrew the claim to which I have referred, were made clear to the members of the Chief's tribe in the announcement made by the High Commissioner at the formal ceremony of reinstatement of the Acting Chief.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs for a statement as to the present position of negotiations with the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments regarding the British settlers; whether the contractual rights of the British Government have been safeguarded; and whether he is satisfied that the terms of settlement are equitable?

The position is that certain proposals have been agreed upon between the Victoria and Commonwealth Governments and that those proposals are embodied in legislation which is now before the Victorian Parliament, and will, I hope, be passed into law at an early date. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have informed His Majesty s Government in the Commonwealth that they regard the arrangements proposed as in all the circumstances a reasonable adjustment of the matters inquired into by the Royal Commission and that, on the assumption that those arrangements will be promptly carried into effect, they arc prepared, in relation to the migrant settlers involved, to waive the contractual rights which are vested in them under the Migration Agreements against His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Did the Government have it within their power to influence the settlement in any way? Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a flat rate contribution by the Governments in question to the settlers, irrespective of the amount of capital involved, is satisfactory?

Immediately the Government heard of the distress of these settlers we took steps to press for an inquiry. We pressed for years for an inquiry. Immediately the inquiry concluded and recommendations were made we pressed the Victorian Government for a prompt settlement. It is not for me to argue the merits of the settlement, but it is clearly for me to indicate that throughout we have always had a moral obligation to the settlers and that we have done our best to promote the best settlement possible.

The right hon. Gentleman says that he is satisfied with the settlement. Has he taken any steps to ascertain whether the migrants affected are satisfied? They are British subjects.

I know, but it would be impossible for me to ask every migrant whether he is satisfied. It would be like asking my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied with the Government.

In view of the fact that through the ordinary channels, intimation has been made that this matter can be discussed, and as the details of the settlement are not in the possession of the House, would it not be better to have the question discussed on the Adjournment?

I gathered through the usual channels that there was a desire to discuss this matter to-night, and I understand that that arrangement stands. The Government are quite ready for the discussion to take place.

The right hon. Gentleman had a man on the spot; the British Government had a representative on the Commission. Has that representative of the Government taken steps to find out how this settlement is being received by the migrants themselves? Has he reported?

We are well aware of the strong feeling of the migrants and that numbers of them are dissatisfied. That is obvious. But the question that affects the Government is this: Having regard to all the circumstances and the fact that there are other settlers concerned was this the best settlement that in our judgment could be made? Obviously, we would have liked the settlement to be better, but it is the best settlement that was possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the admission by the Premier of Victoria, on 9th November, that real justice had not been done to the British settlers, the terms offered to them with the concurrence of the Home Government are to be regarded as final?

asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, in view of the admission by the Premier of Victoria that real justice had not been done to the British migrants settled in that State, under arrangement with the British Government, by the proposals for compensation, lie intends to take any further action in the matter

I understand that, in that part of his speech to which these questions relate, the Premier of Victoria was referring solely to the question of a flat rate of compensation to all settlers as against a rate varying according to, the amount of capital originally possessed by each individual settler. As the House has already been informed, I have reached the conclusion, after the most careful consideration, that the arrangements proposed constitute, in all the circumstances, a reasonable adjustment of a very difficult matter.

In view of the severe condemnation passed by the Royal Commission on the treatment of the British ex-service migrants by the Victorian Government, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with the migrants who are unanimous in thinking that the terms offered to them are miserably inadequate?

I understand that this question is to be raised later this evening, and I would not like to anticipate my reply.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are taken by his Department to see that those liners which cater for the holiday-cruise traffic provide medical staff of qualified surgeons and physicians, dispensers, and certified nurses proportionate to the number of passengers and crew of the ship?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a physician as well as a surgeon is provided by the ship for the service of passengers and crew of cruising liners; and how many surgeons, physicians, dispensers, and certified nurses are provided, either optionally or by regulation, for the protection of a complement of 750 persons consisting of 500 passengers and 250 crew carried by a liner on a holiday cruise?

Vessels employed on foreign-going holiday cruises, and having 100 persons or more on board, are required by law to carry a duly qualified medical practitioner. Such practitioners are qualified both in medicine and surgery. The law does not require dispensers and certified nurses to be carried in any ship, but I am informed that a nurse is usually carried in a cruising vessel and that in a number of cases a hospital attendant is also carried and sometimes a second doctor.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the figures of emigration and immigration from and into this country during the years 1931 and 1932, specifying separately the number of those of British nationality?

As the answer in eludes a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Prime Minister if he will give consideration to the appointment of a suitably constituted trade development advisory council to investigate and recommend what industrial development and reconstruction can be immediately undertaken within the British Empire with the object of effectively putting the idle funds to work which are now lying in the banks and thereby increasing purchasing power and the price level?

There is no obstacle to new capital issues for expenditure within the Empire, whether these issues are made on behalf of borrowers in the United Kingdom or borrowers in any part of the Empire. As my hon. Friend is aware, statutory provision already exists for encouraging development within the Colonial Empire in particular, through the Colonial Development Fund, subject to the recommendations of the Colonial Development Advisory Committee. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the establishment of an additional advisory body.

asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that no steps will be taken to grant Dominion status to any part of the Empire which does not at present enjoy the same without the concurrence of the self-governing Dominions?

My hon. Friend asked me a similar question two years ago, and I gave him the best answer I could, bearing in mind the ordinary limits of a reply to a Parliamentary question and the fact that his question raises a matter of constitutional practice, namely, that if and when any other British Possession comes under the Statute of Westminster, it will be by precisely the same machinery and precisely the same method as I he Dominions which have already come under it.

Are we to understand that a part of the Empire might be given Dominion status without the other Dominions being asked or consulted?

Well, within the limits of the answer that I have given, I think that is rather unlikely, but in any event when the actual case arises it will be time to give a specific answer as to how it is to be treated.