asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of making it clear that the subject of the treatment of minorities in all countries can, in the opinion of the British Government, be most effectively dealt with through the machinery of the League of Nations, and that it is not desirable to isolate particular minorities for special treatment?

His Majesty's Government have on many occasions made known their interest in the observance and effective working of the procedure laid down by the Council of the League of Nations for the operation of the minorities treaties in force.

May I assume that the Government are not in favour of some particular minority such as the Sudeten-Deutsch being picked out for the purpose of hostile propaganda?

The Government will consider each problem as it arises, but the hon. Member may take my answer as representing the general view of the Government to this problem.

asked the Prime Minister whether Spain has fully met, up to date, her financial obligations as a member of the League of Nations?

Spain is in arrear with the payment of part of her contribution to the League in respect of the year 1937.

Is it because of those arrears that the Spanish Government have received so little support from the British Government?

Are we not in arrears in carrying out our obligations?

asked the Prime Minister what action His Majesty's Government propose to sustain the authority of the League of Nations over the Free City of Danzig?

His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are represented on the Committee of Three charged by the Council of the League of Nations with the task of following the situation in Danzig. The representative of the United Kingdom will continue to play his full part as a member of this Committee, and as rapporteur to the Council for questions relating to Danzig.

Has not Danzig in practice been completely handed over to the Nazis?

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government propose to resume conversations with the German Government; and, if so, when and on what basis?

asked the Prime Minister when His Majesty's Government intend to re-open conversations with the German Government?

I have at present no statement to make on this subject.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make a further statement with regard to British interests in the Mexican oilfields?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the present position with regard to the expropriation of British oil interests in Mexico?

Acting on instructions, His Majesty's Minister at Mexico City presented a note to the Mexican Government on 8th April stating that His Majesty's Government regarded the expropriation of the properties of the Mexican Eagle Company as inherently unjustified and must formally request their restoration to the company. I will circulate the text of this note in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the hon. Member say when he expects to receive a reply?

I understand that a reply came in just before I answered this question, and that it is now being deciphered.

Will His Majesty's Government follow strictly a policy of non-interference in this matter?

May I ask whether as British financial interests are concerned the Prime Minister has no longer any interest in a policy of non-intervention?

asked the Prime Minister what treaty undertakings exist between this country and Portugal; which is the instrument governing them; and whether the commitments involving, in certain circumstances, the use of our arms for purposes other than our own defence extend to Portuguese possessions overseas?

The undertakings are contained in a number of treaties, a list of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The hon. Member will see that some of the instruments in question refer specifically to the Portuguese possessions overseas.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether this is one of the obligations for which this country may use its arms, and whether, as these treaties date back to 1373, this is not an appropriate moment to have them brought up to date?

These treaties were confirmed as a whole in 1899, and the preamble to the treaty with Portugal, 1901, known as the Treaty of Windsor, referred to the alliance between the two countries, and thus recognised the validity of the old treaties.

Are we going to war with Portugal?

asked the Prime Minister whether any claims for compensation for damage to British property in Shanghai other than those already reported to the House have been presented to the Japanese Government and, if not, when it is proposed to present them; and whether he will take steps to do so without further delay, in view of the fact that the war has moved away from Shanghai and of the serious suffering inflicted on innocent British subjects?

I have at present under review the whole question of the procedure to be followed in regard to the claims which have been filed with His Majesty's Consular Officers in China. If it appears that immediate presentation is in the best interest of claimants themselves and is generally feasible, I shall certainly be willing to give instructions for this procedure to be adopted.

When the hon. Member is considering this matter will he pay particular attention to the claim for damages done to British property in view of the occupation of the northern and eastern parts of the country as a base for military occupation?

I will certainly consider all relevant facts.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will issue a White Paper containing full information concerning military and economic conditions in Ethiopia since the abandonment of sanctions against Italy in June-July, 1936, including reports received from the Governments of the Sudan, Kenya, and British Somaliland, and from His Majesty's consular and other representatives in Abyssinia and French Somaliland?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received reports upon the conditions now obtaining on the Abyssinian-Sudanese boundaries; whether he will inquire as to the extent of unrest on the Abyssinian side; and whether he will publish reports at an early date?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that recent reports from Ethiopia indicate that Dankali country and Aussa and Gojjam provinces are completely free of Italians; that in Wollega province and in Begemder territory there are only two or three Italian garrisons, and in Tigre garrisons in only five towns; and whether in view of these conditions, as the military occupation of Ethiopia by Italy is not complete, he will reconsider his decision to raise the question of the recognition of the Italian conquest before the Council of the League?

Information about the situation in Abyssinia has from time to time been communicated to the House since 1936 in answers to questions, and I made a statement containing our latest information, including the position on the frontiers, last Monday. In the light of these communications His Majesty's Government are not prepared to issue a White Paper or to reconsider their decision to raise the question of the Italian occupation of Abyssinia before the Council of the League of Nations.

In view of the Italian negotiations, is it not essential that the House should have the fullest possible information as to the actual position in Abyssinia? Is it not the case that the information hitherto afforded has been meagre in the extreme?

Arising out of Question 21, have we not patrols on the border, and have they not sent us information?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on Monday last. He will see that the status quo on the frontier has been maintained.

Have not the people of this country the right to know from the Government the real truth about the situation in Abyssinia before the Government commit the nation to a recognition of the Italian conquest of Abyssinia?

That is why so many answers have been given to so many questions on this subject.

Is it not a fact that the resistance in Abyssinia at the moment is very much greater than at any time before?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the proposed recognition of the Italian conquest of Ethiopia, consequent upon Italy's unprovoked aggression, cannot be reconciled with Article X of the Covenant of the League nor with the terms of the Briand-Kellogg Pact of Paris; and what action he proposes in the matter?

I do not accept the position as stated in the first part of the question. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

May I ask why His Majesty's Government agreed to a resolution against the recognition of the Japanese conquest of Manchuria? Is not the principle precisely the same?

Does the hon. Gentleman say that the conquest of Abyssinia is not a breach of the Covenant?

I said no such thing, but what I said was that I did not accept the position as stated in the hon. Member's question.

rose——

This is an abuse of supplementary questions.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, may I give notice that I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that, in the course of the present negotiations, no proposals have been or will be discussed involving permission to the Italian Government or Italian financiers to obtain loans or credits from financial houses in Great Britain for the financing of military or economic developments in Abyssinia?

As stated by my right hon. Friend yesterday in reply to the Leader of the Opposition no statement can be made at present concerning the subjects of the Anglo-Italian conversations.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that a substantial area on the southern part of Abyssinia comes within the Conventional Basin, he is able to give an assurance that nothing in the proposed Anglo-Italian agreement will be done which would in any way prejudice the rights and privileges of all nations in this region; and whether he can state that an assurance will be obtained that the special sections of the Convention of St. Germain, which make the welfare of the inhabitants the first consideration of the administration, will be preserved?

I am aware of the points raised by my hon. Friend, but pending the conclusion and publication of the proposed Anglo-Italian agreement I am not prepared to anticipate the provisions of that agreement.

When does my hon. Friend expect the agreement to be published?

I must refer the hon. Gentleman to previous replies given by the Prime Minister.

Will it be made clear to the Italian Government that nothing conclusive can be agreed on until the House has given its assent?

I have already said that any agreement to be made will have to be considered by the House.

That is not my question. Will the Italian Government be told that no agreement will be conclusive until this House has consented to it?

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether any communication has been received from the Secretary-General of the League of Nations with reference to the request of His Majesty's Government that the consequences arising out of the existing situation in Ethiopia shall be placed on the agenda of the Council of the League of Nations for its session next month; if so whether he will publish the text of this communication and whether he will give an undertaking that the Government will act in conformity with resolutions passed by the Assembly on 11th March, 1932, and 24th February, 1933, relating to the non-recognition of conquests effected in violation of the League Covenant?

The answer to the first part of the question is that the Secretary-General has addressed no communication to His Majesty's Government on this subject. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Government have in no way changed their view of the importance of the principles enunciated in the Assembly Resolutions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but in their application to any case His Majesty's Government must be entitled to take into account the attitude of other Members of the League and the facts of the international situation.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the danger to the peace of Europe that would result from any settlement in Czechoslovakia which did not implement to the full the rights of the German, Slovak, Hungarian and Polish minorities in accordance with the Peace Treaty and the Benes Memorandum of 1919, an assurance can be given to this House that His Majesty's Government will not be a party, directly or indirectly, to any initiative the object of which is to secure their support for a settlement not fully implementing the provisions of those instruments?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement which the Prime Minister made in the House on 24th March to which I have at present nothing to add.

Is the Minister aware that the treatment of minorities by the Czechoslovak Government has been exemplary, and that the present Czechoslovak Government intends to go to the limit of reasonable concessions in this matter, and that if there is a refusal of those concessions, that refusal can only be dictated by Berlin?

Is it not a fact that every other country treats its minorities better than does Germany?

On a point of Order. With regard to the answering of Foreign Office questions to-day, are we to understand that none of the questions was important in view of the fact that the Prime Minister answered none of them?

I did answer one. The hon. Member could not have been here.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement as to the result of his inquiry into the Power Boat Company's contracts?

Yes, Sir. The statement I have prepared is rather lengthy, and I will, with your permission, read it at the end of Questions.

The following is the result of the full and detailed inquiry, which, as promised by the Civil Lord in the Navy Estimates Debate on 17th March, has been made into the allegations made on that occasion by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) regarding motor torpedo boats supplied to the Admiralty by the British Power Boat Company.

It should at the outset be made clear that a considerable difference exists between the coastal motor boats used during the War and the new motor torpedo boats. The latter are designed, as the former never were, to be comparatively independent of shore bases. In other words, two of their prime necessities are good sea-keeping qualities and habitability.

It was in October, 1934, that Mr. Scott-Paine, whose record with high-speed boats was well known, approached the Admiralty with his plan for a new type of boat, namely a 60-foot boat with 500 horse power "Power-Napier" marine engines, the speed of which was given as between 30 and 35 knots. A 72-foot boat was not proposed by the British Power Boat Company nor was it ever claimed that the boats they offered to supply would be capable of a speed of 42 knots.

The Admiralty thereafter approved the purchase of two experimental boats, and the order had actually been given when the emergency connected with the Italo-Ethiopian hostilities arose, and owing to that emergency the order for two boats was increased in the autumn of 1935 to six, all of which were to be capable of higher speed.

It would not be in the public interest to state the war function assigned to such vessels, nor to give figures for speeds and their corresponding endurances under varying conditions. No such information has been given by other Naval Powers possessing boats of this nature. The figures quoted in the House were in many respects inaccurate. These boats were constructed experimentally, in accordance with the desire of the naval staff. Since the despatch of the First Flotilla to the Mediterranean, requests for an increased number of such boats have been received from stations abroad, including a request from the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, containing, naturally, proposals to improve some of their present characteristics.

The reports that have been received of the behaviour of the boats of the First Flotilla, both in home waters, on the long passage which they made under their own power from Plymouth to Malta, and during service on the Meditarranean Station, speak highly for their sea-keeping qualities, which are remarkable for boats of their size. There have been no complaints as to engine-room ventilation. There has been no report of structural deficiency and there is no more tendency to "hog" in these craft than is found in other seagoing vessels, and certainly no signs of a permanent "hog" or "sag." Their structure was fully tested before acceptance; the trials including manoeuvring, rough weather and sea-keeping tests.

The allegation has been made that the Flotilla, when exercising in the Mediterranean, failed to carry out orders through running out of petrol. It is alleged that they were ordered to proceed at 30 knots to a rendezvous 200 miles distant. No such order was incorporated in the orders for the exercise. They were ordered to locate and intercept a part of the Fleet. As easily may happen in such exercises, they failed, with one exception, to make contact, and returned to port. One vessel did make contact and delivered an attack 200 miles from the point of departure. It is incorrect to say that they cannot do 200 miles at 30 knots. Their actual endurance at this speed is, in fact, considerably higher.

Criticism has been directed to the fact that the boats are armed with 18 inch torpedoes rather than with 21 inch. For use in this type of boat, torpedo supply considerations made the 18 inch weapon a necessity at the time of the first order, but it was decided then that the eventual torpedo armament should be of 21 inch diameter. Experiments are being made with Admiralty torpedo tubes and discharge gear for these larger torpedoes, and are approaching finality with what appear to be satisfactory results. The statement that the firing gear in these boats has been unsatisfactory is not in accordance with the facts.

It has been alleged that the Admiralty have given a virtual monoply to the British Power Boat Company, to the exclusion of old-established firms who might have submitted competitive tenders. For a new vessel in the experimental stage, the ordinary arrangements for contract after comparison of tenders are never appropriate. This applies not only to the British Power Boat Company's boats but to the boat which was purchased from Messrs. Vosper in October, 1937. The requirement which the British Power Boat Company's boat was the first to meet was for a boat that should be independent of daily return to a shore base, having therefore the necessary habitability and sea-keeping qualities. None of the firms of whom mention was made in the De- bate, other than the British Power Boat Company, had at the material dates a design of boat of the requisite size which offered the characteristics required by the Admiralty. Certain experimental work in that direction has since been carried out by some of them, and the Admiralty have just taken delivery of such a boat built by Messrs. Vosper, the purchase of which was referred to above. Messrs. White also have a boat of their own design with somewhat different characteristics under trial for the Admiralty.

The question was raised whether the Admiralty costings branch had investigated the price of £23,000 quoted in Navy Estimates of 1937 as paid for each of the boats of the 1936 programme. The 1937 Estimates showed a total estimated cost for six boats of the 1936 programme, but for three of these, which are being tried out for special purposes, prices have not yet been finally fixed. The other three boats will be paid for on the basis of the agreed prices of the first six boats, namely those of the 1935 programme. These prices as agreed were considered fair and reasonable by the Admiralty. In forming this opinion, the Admiralty had before them information regarding the price paid by the Air Ministry for somewhat similar hulls after competitive tender. The prices of engines for 1935 and 1936 programmes were also agreed, on the basis of what was considered by the Admiralty to be fair and reasonable. The engines for 1937 programme, which contained only slight improvements on those for boats of the two earlier programmes, were, however, the subject of technical cost investigation and the price worked out at £87 10s. per engine above the price previously paid. This supports the conclusion that the amounts paid for 1935 and 1936 engines were reasonable. Torpedo discharge gear and various extras to the contract were technically costed by the Admiralty. It may be added that the actual price for the boats, for which the estimate of £23,000 was given in Navy Estimates, 1937, was slightly lower than this figure.

It is necessary to deal with certain statements that have been made with reference to the suitability of the Napier Sea Lion Engine with which the boats are fitted. This engine is a type arrived at by the modification for marine use of the latest pattern of the Napier Lion aero-engine. The modification consists in the main of incorporating cylinders of more robust design, of redesigning crankshafts and connecting rods, as well as introducing the installation items necessary for marine use.

It is alleged that these engines have been bought for from £5 to £10, and yet Mr. Scott-Paine has been charging £3,800 for them. There is no truth whatever in the allegation.

The Admiralty are naturally concerned only with the engines put into the boats supplied to the Royal Navy and not with the condition of any engines bought by the British Power Boat Company for experimental or other purposes of their own, or with the price paid for such engines. It has, however, been ascertained from the Air Ministry on inquiry, that the British Power Boat Company did purchase from them some used Napier Lion aero engines at about the price mentioned. These engines were, of course, not among those installed in the motor torpedo boats taken over by the Navy.

All the engines supplied to the Admiralty were new ones based on the 1934 type. They were of the modified aero-engine type described above, and were built under Government inspection. The cost of these new engines has already been shown to be fair and reasonable and was much below the £3,800 alleged. Any allegation that second-hand engines or engines from unused Air Ministry stock, were put into the boats as supplied to the Navy is untrue. This false impression may possibly have arisen from the fact that, in order to expedite matters, the first boat carried out its initial trials with partially converted aero-engines, or else from the fact that some such engines were used in the workshops of the British Power Boat Company for the training of naval personnel on this type of engine.

It should be clearly understood that as soon as new engines of the completely modified type were available, the partially converted aero-engines referred to above were removed from the experimental boat and replaced by the new.

The suggestion that engines with reground cylinders were initially installed in Admiralty boats is not true. The fact is that three engines which were taken out of boats some time after acceptance were returned to Messrs. Napier for overhaul because water had got into the cylinders. It was in the course of this overhaul that regrinding was carried out.

As was to be expected with machinery of a new and experimental type, a certain number of difficulties were encountered in the early stages.

In normal circumstances, these would have been discovered by running trials over a long period in a prototype boat, and any necessary remedial measures taken. Time did not admit of this course being adopted. These boats were required at once, and there was no other suitable British-made engine available.

The main troubles experienced were those resulting from torsional oscillations at certain speeds and through failures of certain of the installation items.

With the object of reducing the effects produced by the torsional oscillations referred to, experiments have been carried out with dampers, and the results obtained so far are satisfactory.

The recurrence of the other defects is similarly being prevented by improvements in design.

With regard to the allegation that the engines were grossly over-revved and specially tuned to obtain their maximum speed, the continuous rating of the Napier Sea Lion is 1,800 revolutions per minute as for the aero engines, but engines of this kind are not expected to run continuously at the maximum power of which they are capable. The normal maximum revolutions at which these engines can run for short periods of time is 2,500, but engines were run satisfactorily at 2,600 revolutions per minute during some of the measured-mile runs.

The engines were, of course, tuned, this being the normal procedure with engines of this type when it is desired to ascertain the best performance of which they are capable.

Brief reference must be made to the statement that an alleged incident at the works of another firm was reported to the Admiralty by the police and that the person concerned was interviewed at the Admiralty. Full inquiry has been made, both in the Admiralty and from Portsmouth. There is no trace of any communication having been made to the Admiralty or to the local Naval authori- ties, either by the police or by the firm in question.

It has been asked why the latest order, placed near the end of the financial year 1937, could not have been divided amongst several firms. It is clear from what has been stated above that, apart from the desirability of having flotillas homogeneously constituted, no other boat has as yet passed out of the experimental stage. While it is only fair that the original designer of this type of boat should have received initial orders proportionate to his enterprise and to the success of the design, it can be categorically stated that it is the intention of the Admiralty to invite competitive tenders for motor torpedo boats the moment they feel they are in a position to do so. The Admiralty have followed their general practice, and have throughout maintained the position that the British Power Boat Company could not be allowed to consider themselves immune from competition. At the same time, this opportunity must be taken of stating that the Admiralty, which must be largely dependent on the initiative, resource and inventive capacity of private firms, are highly appreciative of these qualities as displayed by the British Power Boat Company; and are gratified that a new company which can supply essential Service requirements has thus been started in this country.

In conclusion, I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton for having brought to the notice of the House rumours which were both prevalent and mischievous, and for having given me this opportunity of stating the facts.

We are obliged to the First Lord of the Admiralty for the statement which he has made, and particularly for the acknowledgment he makes to the public service rendered by my hon. and gallant Friend in the statements he brought to the notice of the House. But may I ask the First Lord whether, in view of the necessarily lengthy and technical nature of the statement he has made, he will recognise that the Opposition require some time to compare paragraph by paragraph with the considerable volume of information which has also been supplied to us, and that, therefore, it must not be taken to-day that we withdraw from the representations we have made for a judicial inquiry, and that it might still be necessary to press for the legal type of inquiry originally asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneation (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher)?

In view of the fact that a judicial inquiry has not been made, does not the statement read by the First Lord merely amount to the fact that the Admiralty and Mr. Scott Paine have made an investigation into the conduct of the Admiralty and Mr. Scott Paine?

It is nothing of the kind. I have myself gone very closely, with my colleagues, into all the facts of the matter and have made full inqury, and I am satisfied that the statement I have made to-day is accurate in all respects. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), I fully appreciate the position he takes up. It would not be fair to expect him to make a statement as to his future attitude at a moment's notice. I think the position he has taken up is perfectly reasonable, and the House will understand it.

May I ask whether, in compiling the statement which he has read to the House, the First Lord had any independent evidence laid before him or only evidence from Mr. Scott Paine and Admiralty officials, and Admiralty papers on which either approval has already been given or action taken? Has he had any independent evidence?

I made every effort to find out the true facts of the matter from every source available to me.

May I press my question? Has the First Lord actually had any independent evidence laid before him in the course of compiling this statement?

Certainly I have. I do not consider that members of the staff at the Admiralty are anything but independent. I have also consulted officers serving in the Fleet who have had firsthand experience of these boats.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many and which capital ships are at present under reconstruction; how many and which are undergoing refits; by what dates is it anticipated the ships under reconstruction will be completed; and at what notice the ships undergoing refits can be ready for sea?

As regards the first and third parts of his question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to his question on this subject on 22nd December last. The names of the ships concerned are "Renown," "Queen Elizabeth" and "Valiant." In addition, two capital ships, "Barham" and "Resolution," are now undergoing refit. They remain at short notice for sea while refitting.

As it is clear from the First Lord's answer that no less than one-third of the capital Fleet is out of commission at the present moment, can the date for reconstruction of the three ships in question be expedited?

Everything possible is being done to expedite the completion of the reconstruction of these ships.

When will that reconstruction be effected in each case?

I do not think it is desirable to give a date.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the hardship and consequent discontent arising out of the lack of provision of allowances to naval ratings under 25 years of age who are married or have dependent relatives; and whether he will give this question his sympathetic consideration?

As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on 8th December last, the special difficulties of men serving in the Navy who have married under the qualifying age for marriage allowance, 25, have always been realised. The Admiralty have arranged that cases of real distress will be assisted by the Admiralty family welfare sections at the home ports, if necessary with the help of the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman as head of the senior service make an advance upon that position, which is causing great hardship in many cases? Surely in these times of trying to improve service conditions, something better could be done?

The hon. Member is aware that this is a question which concerns all the services, and it would not be possible for one service to act separately.

That is why I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that he is the head of the senior service.

rose——

I must remind hon. Members that we have a large number of questions on the Paper.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the conversion of the island of Sylt, on the west coast of Schleswig, into a fortified naval and air base, including provision of a naval harbour; and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?

Yes, Sir. I have received a report to the effect that a fortified naval air base is being established on the island of Sylt.

Were the Board of Admiralty aware of these developments at the time the Anglo-German Naval Treaty was signed; and have they considered the import of these developments?

I could not, without notice, say how far these developments had gone at the time of the signature of the London Naval Treaty, but the Board of Admiralty have considered all the implications arising from them.

May we take it that these developments have taken place without notice to the British Government?

I would not like to commit myself to that, but I will make further inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has a statement to make as to the progress of stamping out terrorism in Palestine and the situation there?

There has been no material change in the situation since my last answer to a similar question by the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the troops in Palestine and the police organisation are amply to maintain order; and, if not, will he consider supplementing them?

The police continue to be supplemented. More men are being sent out, while improvements are continually being made in the organisation, and the military are very active.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many further assassinations have taken place?

Not without notice.

As the information given a week ago was of a non possumus character, can we have some details about the very serious situation and the endangerment of British and other lives in Palestine?

It is very difficult to give a detailed answer to an oral question, but if the hon. Member puts clown an unstarred question, I will try to give him the particulars.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where the Arabs get all the money to carry on this propaganda?

On a point of Order. The information for which I ask has been given on previous occasions by Colonial Secretaries. Is there any reason why the practice of giving such information should be departed from in this case?

. That is not a point of Order.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any plans for an amended scheme of partition are in his possession, whether drafted by the Palestine administration or other persons; and what is their nature?

I have been informed of certain individual suggestions for modifying certain features of the plan for the partition of Palestine which is out- lined in Part III of the report of the Royal Commission. Pending the report of the new Commission, the whole matter must be regarded as sub judice and it would not be appropriate, nor would it serve any useful purpose, to discuss any suggestions that have been made.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the so-called Wauchope Scheme or similar schemes are in any way accepted or binding?

I have not heard of any Wauchope scheme; in fact, I am sure there is none in existence. A suggested scheme is the Malcolm scheme.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the recent Royal Commission on Palestine recommended that the need of Tel Aviv for a substantial loan should be promptly and sympathetically reconsidered, he can state why it has been necessary to impose further delay on this matter?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the average per capita municipal indebtedness of the city of Tel Aviv is approximately only 3os. as compared with over £30 in the case of many English towns; and whether, in these circumstances, he can give approval for the raising of a loan by Tel Aviv to carry out important public work?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that three years have now elapsed since the Government gave its consent in principle to a loan of £1,000,000 being granted to Tel Aviv in order to enable that city to carry out urgent schemes of sewerage, water supply, construction of hospitals and school buildings; and whether, in view of the urgent necessity for this work now being proceeded with, steps can now be taken to make the necessary arrangements?

I have nothing to add to the full reply which I gave on 16th March to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

How soon will it be possible to make a statement?

I have said that inquiries are now proceeding in regard to the possibility of raising a loan for a smaller amount in order to meet the most immediate and pressing needs.

Seeing that this loan has been required for such a long time, and that there is grave danger of an epidemic at any moment in Tel Aviv, in the absence of any sewerage or drainage scheme, when will permission be granted for this loan?

It is not merely a case of permission being granted. Permission would gladly be granted if the loan could be raised.

Is it not the case that a large insurance company in this country expressed willingness to take up this proposal?

I answered that question some time ago, and I said then that negotiations had broken down.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, owing to the operations of private meat combines, the price of cattle for slaughter imported from Balkan countries is, approximately, three times higher in Tel Aviv than in Egypt; and why, in these circumstances, consent has been withheld by the Government for all remedies which the municipality of Tel Aviv has sought to introduce with a view to protecting the population of that town against profiteering?

No, Sir; I have no information regarding the matters referred to in this question and I have received no report from the High Commissioner on the subject. The matter is clearly one for consideration by the authorities in Palestine.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to ascertain whether or not the administration have prevented the council of Tel Aviv from safeguarding themselves?

I shall be glad if the hon. Member will give me any information he may have at his disposal. If he does, I will make inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that of the projected Palestine loan of £2,000,000, some £440,000 has already been expended in anticipation mainly on works in Haifa, Jerusalem and Hebron; and for what reason no expenditure in connection therewith has been provided in the case of Tel Aviv?

I am aware that a considerable sum has already been expended out of the surplus balances of Palestine in anticipation of the issue of a projected loan of £2,000,000. No provision for works in Tel Aviv was included in the schedule of the contemplated £2,000,000 loan, the reason being that other services of greater urgency had to take precedence.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that a large municipality like Tel Aviv demands more careful attention than smaller municipalities, particularly in regard to sewerage?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me about the £2,000,000 loan which was arranged before the request came for the raising of the loan for Tel Aviv sewerage. I have already said that matter is being considered.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the need of immediate measures; and if the projected large loan cannot be negotiated, could not steps be taken to allocate part of that 2,000,000 for this purpose?

No, because the £2,000,000, as I have said cannot be raised. The separate loan for Tel Aviv sewerage and drainage is now under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the parents of a Jewish resident in Palestine, who is in a position to assure their maintenance there, will be prohibited from entering the country as dependants after the quota of 200 for this category laid down for the current six months has been exhausted; and, if so, whether, in view of the situation of the Jews in Austria as well as elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe, the decision to limit this class of immigrants to 200 for six months can be reconsidered?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, while sympathising with the situation of Jews in Austria and elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe, I should not feel justified in reconsidering the decision which has recently been taken by His Majesty's Government with regard to the admission into Palestine of dependants of immigrants during the next six months.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the places and conditions of detention of political persons arrested under the emergency regulations in Palestine; how they are lodged; their conditions of life; and whether, apart from the magistrates, anyone has power to inflict punishment on any person detained?

The great majority of these persons are detained in a concentration camp at Acre, and the remainder are detained in Acre Jail and a few in various police lock-ups throughout the country. At the Acre camp there is hutment accommodation of a satisfactory standard. No complaints have been received with regard to health and sanitary arrangements in the prisons and lock-ups. I have no special information as regards the point raised in the last part of the question, but I assume that prison officers have authority to deal with any breaches of discipline.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries into these very grave charges in regard to the conditions, particularly in the prison, of people who have not yet been charged at all, but are merely under preventive detention; and will he also make representations that the warders in charge should have no authority to inflict punishment except by order of the district magistrate?

The vast majority of these people are detenus, people not charged, but suspected. They are in a special camp, and only a few are in the jail, which is the Acre Jail, a long-established jail. I am quite sure that the supervision and the conduct of warders in Palestine is very carefully watched.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to announce a decision as the result of his inquiries into the judicial arrangements, including the question of the representation by counsel, in British Somaliland?

After consultation with the Governor I have decided on a re-organisation of the judicial arrangements in the Protectorate. The legal secretary will become a member of the Protectorate Court when sitting either as a court of original jurisdiction or as a court hearing appeals from district magistrates. Advocates will be allowed to appear before the Protectorate Court in cases of murder and manslaughter. The reorganisation will be put into effect as soon as the necessary new arrangements can be made.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the particulars supplied by the Governor of Sierra Leone of the number of applications received and granted for prospecting licences in connection with platinum in that Colony?

The figures requested are not on record in the Colonial Office, but inquiry will be made of the Governor. According to the last published report, that is, for 1936, there were five licensees, who between them won 480 ounces of platinum in that year.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these licensees had exclusive rights?

I expect so. You could not give several licensees the right to go prospecting in the same stream.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the shortage of platinum blondes out there?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the exports of sugar, refined and unrefined, respectively, from British Guiana for the years 1936 and 1937, respectively; how much of the unrefined sugar was shipped to Greenock; and what are the prospects of the current sugar crop in that Colony?

Exports of unrefined sugar from British Guiana in 1936 amounted to 176,503 tons, valued at £1,427,682, and in 1937 amounted to 181,569 tons, valued at £1,584,933. I have no record that there was any export of refined sugar. No information is available as to how much unrefined sugar was shipped from British Guiana to Greenock. As regards the last part of the question, I understand that, so far as can be judged at present, the prospects are good.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the situation has been affected by the recent heavy fall in the price of raw sugar?

Yes, throughout all the sugar-producing Colonies. There has been a heavy fall in the world price of sugar, and they are all affected.

In what way does the right hon. Gentleman mean?

There is not the money to raise the standards in the industry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate total value of armaments material, including military aeroplanes, exported to foreign countries during the year 1937 and the countries to which such exports have gone?

I regret that it has not been possible to compile the desired information in respect of exports of arms, ammunition and military and naval stores in the time available, but I will circulate these particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible. As regards exports of military aeroplanes, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Watkins) on 5th April.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of blast furnaces situated in the Midlands and the United Kingdom, respect- tively, that have been blown 30th September, 1937?

I am informed that between 30th September, 1937, and the end of last month, there was a decrease of 14 in the number of blast furnaces in operation; of this number, 10 were situated in the Midlands.

Is it not the fact that the high cost of coal and the very cheap and large imports of foreign iron and steel are the cause of the closing down?

asked the President of the Board of Trade the average price of industrial coke during the month of March and comparative figures for the last eight years?

As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of motor cars and commercial vehicles imported during each of the last three months from Germany and the United States of America, respectively; and also give comparative figures for the first quarter for the last four years?

I regret that it has not been possible to compile the desired particulars in the time available, but I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of auto- matic machine tools Entering this country duty free during 1937, and also the country of origin?

In 1937 licences under Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932, were issued for the importation free of duty of 710 automatic machine tools, of which 422 came from the United States of America, 160 from Germany, 108 from Switzerland and 20 from Czechoslovakia.

Why is it that while two makers in this country were putting their workers on short time or putting them off work altogether we went abroad for machine tools which can be made here?

The procedure under the Act is perfectly well known to the hon. Member. A certificate is not given if there are grounds for supposing that the tools can be produced in this country.

Can the Minister say whether, when machinery is being made for export, the tools which are necessary may be imported into this country free of duty?