asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amount of opium exported by the Government of India, and the total revenue received from the same for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date, and to which countries the same was imported?

The approximate quantity of opium exported from India during the year ended 31st March, 1938, was 19,227 kilogrammes, of which Burma took 18,478 kilos, Aden and Dependencies 56, French India 682, and Zanzibar and Pemba 11. It is not possible to state the revenue derived from these exports, but the estimated value of the exports was £30,000.

Is it customary to take the full charges from the gross revenue?

I do not quite follow what is the point of the hon. Member's question.

In computing the revenue, is the cost of the opium taken into consideration?

I have informed the hon. Member that it is not possible to state the revenue. I gave him only the estimated value of the exports.

Which European country takes most of that opium?

The exports were to Burma, Aden, French India, Zanzibar and Pemba. I think the exports to French India cannot be called exports to a European country.

Do European countries take any of it?

No. The amount exported is the amount I have given, and the countries are those which I mentioned.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the result of his inquiries into the treatment of the crew of the British steamer "Therese Moller" by the Soviet authorities in Sakhalin, and particularly whether this steamer, driven ashore in October, was prevented by the local authorities from leaving, its propeller being removed; whether the crew were supplied with scanty rations in spite of a large sum of money having been paid by the owner; and what action he proposes to take?

As a result of the consideration which I promised to give to the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend on 13th July, His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai has been requested to furnish a report on this matter.

Will the hon. Member circulate the report when it is received?

Yes, as soon as I receive it, but it will take some time.

asked the Prime Minister whether any protest was made to the Spanish Government concerning the bombing by their aircraft of His Majesty's ships "Kempenfelt" and "Boreas" while engaged on humanitarian work in rescuing seamen in distress on 6th March last?

As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty state 1 on 7th March, the bombing attack in question was made on the Spanish cruiser "Canarias," to which vessel the survivors of the "Balcares" were being transferred by His Majesty's ship "Kempenfelt" and His Majesty's ship "Boreas." In the circumstances His Majesty's Government do not hold the Spanish Government responsible for the damage done to His Majesty's ships.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that prior to the closing of the Pyrenees frontier in June the British Government had drawn the attention of the French Government to the passage of munitions over that frontier, the Government has now drawn the attention of the Governments of Germany and Italy to the shipments reaching the Spanish insurgents from those countries?

The German and Italian Governments are doubtless well aware of the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the strict observance of the Non-Intervention Agreement by the participating Governments.

Do I understand that although during the last two years these munitions have been sent to Spain, the Government have made no protest against this breach of the agreement?

I cannot accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman as being strictly correct. There have, of course, been interchanges of views on the subject between the Governments concerned, and our view has been made clear. There have been no definite representations.

Why should the Government make their view clear to the French Government, and not to the Italian Government or the German Government?

I cannot accept the position as it is stated in the original question. No doubt the French Government are aware of our views, as are the other Governments concerned.

Would the Government consider addressing representations similar to those addressed by the Foreign Secretary to M. Bonnet on 5th June, saying that British public opinion would be greatly alienated if the passage of munitions over the frontier were not stopped?

I would first have to investigate the claims the hon. Member has made.

asked the Prime Minister whether any reply has been received from the Burgos authorities in reply to His Majesty's Government's communication concerning the bombing of British ships?

A reply has been received, and is now under consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the specific allegations by the Spanish Government that there have been numerous breaches of the Non-Intervention Agreement since the signing of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, and with what result?

Yes, Sir. The Spanish Government's Note has been carefully examined. Under the Non-Intervention Committee's rules of procedure, His Majesty's Government can only forward a complaint to the committee if they regard it as being founded on evidence of sufficient weight to afford a reasonable presumption that in fact some breach of the agreement has occurred. His Majesty's Government do not so regard the present complaints and they do not, therefore, feel justified in forwarding them to the committee.

Have His Majesty's Government inquired from the Spanish Government what evidence they have to support the very specific allegations they have put forward?

I do not know what evidence the Spanish Government may have. We have done our best to investigate the allegations, and so far as we have investigated them we do not find them justified.

Is it not a fact that there has been a constant stream of munitions also on the other frontier, and if representations are to be made to one side, ought they not to be made to both, equally?

I think that the stream to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred does not at the moment take place.

Have His Majesty's Government asked the Spanish Government what their evidence is; and, in considering the claims of the Spanish Government, have they taken into account the official statements of the Italian Government in the Italian Press?

All we can do is to consider the Note to which the hon. Member refers, and we have found nothing on which to base a complaint to the Non-Intervention Committee.

The hon. Member says that he can do no more than examine the Note, and he says that they have no evidence. But if they have not looked further for this evidence, how does he know that what is in the Note is not correct?

We have examined all the information in our possession.

Have not the Government notoriously for the last year and a half known nothing about anything?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in regard to the bombing of the British ship "Stanland," in Valencia harbour, on Tuesday last; and what action he is taking with regard to it?

According to a report received from His Majesty's Consul at Valencia, the steamship "Stanland" received slight damage, due to scorching by benzine burning on the quay, in a raid on Valencia on 19th July.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fresh attack on a British ship last week, His Majesty's Government still adhere, so far as they can find practical means of carrying it out, to the policy laid down in the notes sent to the Burgos authorities in February by the then Foreign Secretary, in which His Majesty's Government reserved to themselves the right without further notice to take such retaliatory action in the event of the recurrence of such attack as may be required or appropriate in the particular case?

My Noble Friend cannot accept the hon. Lady's statement that the British ship most recently involved in a raid on the harbour of Valencia last week was the subject of a deliberate attack. The representations referred to in the second part of the question were made in connection with an attack by aircraft on a British ship on the high seas early in February. His Majesty's Government's attitude towards such cases remains unchanged.

Have not His Majesty's Government repudiated the attacks on British ships and said that they would destroy the friendly relations with the Burgos authorities? Would not these warnings be more effective if they were not accompanied by attacks on British ships engaged in lawful trade with Spain?

I think the hon. Lady must differentiate between ships on the high seas, about which the representations in early February were made by the late Foreign Secretary, and ships in port.

asked the Prime Minister whether any report has been given by Sir Robert Hodgson concerning the extent of German and Italian penetration of nationalist Spain, both in the industrial and administrative spheres; and whether he can give the House any information on the subject?

Advantage has been taken of Sir R. Hodgson's presence in this country to discuss with him such matters as those to which the hon. Member refers, but these conversations must of necessity be confidential.

Does this information show that this penetration is extensive and is damaging to British interests?

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a further answer to that which I have given him.

Can we not draw our own conclusions?

The hon. Member can always draw his own conclusions, and I can give my answers.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has requested or received any assurance from the French Government that they are entirely satisfied with the operation of the control on the Spanish-Portuguese frontier in connection with the Non-Intervention Agreement; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to ascertain the views of the French Government on this matter?

No, Sir. It is for the French Government to take the initiative in this matter, if they wish to do so.

Is it possible for the British Government to take as much initiative in closing the Spanish-Portuguese frontier as they have done in closing the French-Pyrenees frontier?

All our reports go to show that the Portuguese frontier is, in fact, closed.

asked the Prime Minister the number of protests sent by His Majesty's Government since the outbreak of hostilities in Spain to the insurgent Government before and since the Nyon Agreement respecting the loss of British lives and property caused by the action of rebel submarines and aircraft; the total number of British lives lost to date through such action; and the total sums claimed and paid as compensation in respect of such losses?

Since the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 20th June, there have been protests in respect of three further incidents, in one of which I regret to state that two British subjects were killed. All protests in question were made since the Nyon arrangements. I made a statement on the subject of claims for compensation in the Debate on the Adjournment on 12th May.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any payments whatever in respect of claims for compensation have been received yet from the insurgent Government?

No, Sir. The reason I described in the Debate on the Adjournment on 12th May.

asked the Prime Minister the sums actually paid to date by the Governments participating in the Non-Intervention Agreement; and the sums, if any, still unpaid by the contracting parties?

I am not in possession of the precise details asked for by the hon. Member, but the French, German, Italian and British Governments have contributed their share at the highest rate which falls to be paid by any individual Government. On the adoption of the observation plan in March last year, arrangements were made by which the total contributions to be paid by the Government parties to the Non-Intervention Agreement in a full year would amount to the sum of £834,000. I understand that by reason of economical administration it has so far been possible to operate the observation plan at a lower cost than was originally intended.

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will propose to the Non-Intervention Committee that control over aerodromes in Spain should be established by the placing of neutral commissions of observers in such aerodromes?

The possibility of establishing an air observation scheme has already been exhaustively examined by the Non-Intervention Committee, which has decided that the matter can best be dealt with in the manner set out in Part 6, Section 5, of the Committee's plan of 5th July. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that section of the plan provides for the appointment of two air staff officers to examine the practicability of establishing an effective system of observation over air traffic entering Spain over the land and sea frontiers.

In view of the fact that that means further study of a subject which it was agreed to study in July of last year, is it not now possible for the Government to propose that there should be observers put in aerodromes?

I think the reason why this subject has been so long being studied is that it is extremely difficult and complicated to find a satisfactory solution. I do not think the hon. Member's suggestion would be a satisfactory solution.

Is it not plain that putting observers into aerodromes is the easiest way of control?

I am informed that the committee considered the hon. Member's suggestion and rejected it.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received the report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo as to the result of the personal examination by the new Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs of the matters raised in the protests made by His Majesty's Government on 31st December, 1937, and 5th, 6th, and 11th April, 1938, in connection with cases of assault by Japanese against British subjects in the International Settlement at Shanghai?

No, Sir. The Japanese Government so far have made no advance towards a settlement in these cases. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo is, however, continuing to press them in the matter.

Will the Government press this matter constantly during the Recess, and try to get some decision?

The Government attach very special importance to an early settlement of these cases.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the declared intention of the Japanese authorities in Shanghai to place Chinese industrial establishments under temporary Japanese control; and what steps he is taking to secure that no British-owned factories are affected by this decision?

Yes, Sir. Reports have reached me that the Japanese authorities propose to take over all the existing Chinese-owned mills in the areas under their control. His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has brought to the notice of the Japanese authorities that in many of these mills there is a substantial British interest. So far as I am aware, there has been no question of attempting to control factories which are wholly British-owned.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received the expected report from His Majesty's Consul-General in Tientsin on the subject of interference by Japanese military authorities with British commercial cables at Tientsin; and what steps he is taking in the matter?

My Noble Friend has received a report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Tientsin to the effect that frequent representations have been made to the Director of the Japanese telegraph office there regarding delays and mutilations in telegrams received. A certain improvement in the quality of the messages received has been noted, but the service is still erratic.

Have the representations been continued?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is yet in a position to report the result of the discussions with the Japanese authorities in Shanghai and Tokyo as to the reopening of foreign-owned factories in the occupied areas inside and outside the international settlement in Shanghai;

These matters will form, among others, the subject of a conversation between His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, which has been arranged to be held during the course of the next day or two. Meanwhile my Noble Friend would stress the importance which he attaches to an early settlement of these questions.

Will the Minister urge upon his Noble Friend that he should point out to the Japanese Government that they are violating almost every known rule of international law?

I have no doubt that every relevant subject will come up for consideration.

asked the Prime Minister what information he has now obtained about the Japanese wool monopoly in North China and, in particular, if the Provisional Government in Peiping set up by the Japanese military authorities has now put a general embargo on the export of wool and hides; and what measures he is taking to protect British interests in respect of this trade?

I have received a report from His Majesty's Consul-General at Tientsin, from which it appears that all wool stocks up-country have been registered by the Japanese and that a permit is required before these stocks can be removed, but there has as yet been no specific instance of a refusal to permit the export of wool. The export of hides and skins from Tientsin was temporarily prohibited as from 1st July. Representations were made to the Japanese Government by His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo, and I now understand that the embargo is being lifted except as regards certain skins of special quality which are stated to be required by the Japanese Army.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a prohibition, in fact, exists because the Japanese prevent any railway freight being made available for British firms and thus put the wool into the hands of Japanese firms which hitherto had nothing to do with that trade?

I will certainly investigate the point my hon. Friend has brought to my attention.

Is wool imported into this country from China, and to what extent?

I should want notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister what is the present position with regard to the freedom of transit for British merchant shipping on the inland waterways of China; and what has been the result of the protests of His Majesty's Government to the Japanese Government with regard to the discrimination that is being practised against British shipping?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the result of the negotiations between the consular body in Shanghai and the Japanese authorities for the resumption of dredging by the Whangpo Conservancy Board?

These matters are among those to be reviewed in the course of a conversation between His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs within the next few days. I can, therefore, make no further statement at present.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a great extent of this great area of inland water transport is very remote from the scene of the fighting and has nothing to do with it?

Yes, Sir.

Is it the fact that the Government cannot expect any better answer from the Japanese than they do from Franco at any time?

I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he cannot expect good answers from everybody. I am aware of the importance of the inland waterways.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a report from His Majesty's Ambassador in Tokyo on the extent to which British interests would be affected by the proposed reorganisation of the Pekin-Mukden Railway and other railway systems in North China by the Japanese; and what steps he is taking in the matter?

As I informed the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) on 27th June, His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo has been in communication with the Japanese Government on this subject. A reply has now been received asserting that the reorganisation was carried out in order to secure maximum efficiency, in view of the damage done to the line and of the flight of many of the railway employés. The Note goes on to declare that there is no intention of infringing British rights and interests by this reorganisation. This reply is now being considered by His Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any reply to his representations to the Japanese Government with regard to the embarrassment suffered by British trade in North China arising from the imposition of an inconvertible paper currency by the Japanese-controlled federated reserve bank with the consequent freezing of all credit facilities?

No formal reply was requested in the representations made, but His Majesty's Government are relying on the Japanese Government to refrain from measures which would have the effect of freezing credit facilities.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the official declaration by President Cardenas that diplomatic relations between Mexico and this country could be resumed at Britain's request, he is now prepared to take the first step in this direction?

President Cardenas is reported to have said that he would have "no objection" to renewing diplomatic relations with Great Britain if an unconditional proposal to that effect were to be made by the British Government. His Majesty's Government are not prepared under present circumstances to make such an "unconditional proposal."

Would it not be desirable to take what steps are possible in order to see whether some arrangement could be come to with the Mexican Government which might lead to a resumption of diplomatic relations, rather than standing on one's dignity?

I do not know what steps are proposed by the hon. Member.

Is the Prime Minister not too much concerned about those who are out for big profits?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the conversations which have taken place between the Egyptian Prime Minister and members of His Majesty's Government?

As conversations are still in progress with the Egyptian Prime Minister, I am not in a position to make any statement.

Does the Prime Minister expect to be in a position to make a statement before the House rises?

I would not like to commit myself.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the recent conversations between the Foreign Secretary and the French Prime Minister and Foreign Minister?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in the course of last week's conversations between the Foreign Secretary and French Ministers in Paris, any views were exchanged in relation to the policy of maintaining control over the Franco-Spanish frontier?

The official communique issued at the end of these talks concluded by saying:

"The Ministers, marking once more their common determination to pursue their action of appeasement and conciliation, found that the complete harmony of views established during the visit of the French Ministers on 28th and 29th April has been entirely maintained."

Did not the French representatives express any regret that the policy pressed upon them by the Note which, with respect to the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) was sent on 5th June, produced such meagre results on the behaviour of the Italians?

I was not present at the conversations myself, and I would not like to answer that question.

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the conversations, and if I cannot raise this matter to-morrow, I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement as to the reply he is making to the message brought to him by Herr Wiedemann from the head of the German Government?

asked the Prime Minister whether the assurances which Captain Wiedemann recently renewed on behalf of the German Government of their desire to achieve a peaceful settlement of outstanding questions, included the Czechslovakian problem on the basis of the maintenance of the territorial integrity and political independence of that country?

I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on this subject on 21st July.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House what are the outstanding questions which are referred to in the communiqué? Are we not entitled to know what the outstanding questions are?

I think that they refer to outstanding questions in connection with Czechoslovakia.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will name the countries eligible for membership who have never joined the League of Nations; the countries who joined and have since left; and the countries now in membership who have stipulated that they are not prepared to apply sanctions at the request of the League?

As the answer is somewhat long, I will with the hon. Member's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the list to be published include the Scandinavian countries who have just decided against sanctions?

I do not think that that is covered by the hon. Member's question as I read it.

asked the Prime Minister whether, during the conversations which resulted in the Anglo-Italian Agreement, the British and Italian representatives came to an understanding as to what is implied by the phrase "a settlement in Spain"?

The answer is in the negative.

Does that mean that negotiations of this importance were started and brought to a conclusion without the two parties to them ever arriving at any agreement as to the premises which formed the basis of the agreement?

That would appear to be the effect of my answer.

Is there any precedent for negotiations of this nature and an agreement being concluded without any agreement between the two parties on such a matter?

I have not made a search.

asked the Prime Minister whether any information has been given to the Italian Government as to the meaning His Majesty's Government attaches to the phrase relating to a settlement in Spain?

Since the conclusion of the Anglo-Italian Agreement there have been confidential exchanges of views between the two Governments on the subject. But, as I stated in answer to a supplementary question by the Leader of the Opposition on 20th July, I have never committed myself to a complete, or even a partial, definition of this phrase.

Does that mean that the Italian Government is just as much in the dark as to His Majesty's Government's intentions as the House of Commons?

I do not know whether that is so or not. I do not know their state of mind.

Does it mean that in the Recess the Prime Minister will be at liberty to implement the agreement by putting his own interpretation on what is meant by the term "a settlement"?

There is no change in the situation.

That is not an answer to my question. I asked whether the Prime Minister considers himself at liberty to put his own interpretation on the phrase "a settlement"?

The Government are entitled to put their interpretation upon it.

What about the House of Commons?

Do the Government consider themselves at liberty to bring into force an agreement of this importance without informing the House of Commons as to the meaning of an essential clause in it?

The hon. Member will remember that, in answer to a supplementary question a few days ago, I said that I did not exclude the possibility that the House of Commons might have to be called together to consider the matter.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether instructions are issued to investigating officers by the Ministry or the Special Grants Committee in connection with cases of alleged unworthy conduct on the part of widows?

The Ministry's inquiry officers, who are also at the disposal of the Special Grants Committee if specially required, are employed to investigate the facts in a variety of cases where local inquiry is necessary for the purpose, and in so doing they act under such general instructions as have been found desirable.

Are we to understand that in these cases the Ministry and not the Special Grants Committee have the conduct, under statutory authority, to issue instructions, and have these instructions to receive the approval of the Special Grants Committee?

The instructions are confidential. The Ministry places the inquiry agent at the disposal of the Special Grants Committee when requested to do so.

Is it not a fact that many of the conclusions of these officers are based not on fact but on rumour?

Having regard to the number of complaints about these investigating officers, will the Minister be good enough to let me have a sight of the instructions which are issued?

I cannot do that, as the instructions are confidential.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether widows accused of unworthy conduct are now being informed that they are entitled to appear before the Special Grants Committee in person; and how many widows have so appeared to date?

I understand that the Special Grants Committee have, as I informed the hon. and gallant Member on 31st May last, agreed to adopt this procedure when the widow disputes the main points alleged against her. No such case has yet arisen.

My question is, and I ask it again, whether widows are informed of the rights which they are now presumed to have? If they are not informed of these rights, how can they know of them and take advantage of them?

If the main points are in dispute, they would be informed, but no such cases have arisen.

Does that mean that no cases previous to 31st May can have this privilege, or does it mean that any cases can have this privilege?

If the hon. Member has any cases which he thinks the Special Grants Committee would like to see, he can bring them to the attention of the committee.

Is it not a fact that widows who have been deprived of their pensions upon a procedure which is now recognised to be unsatisfactory will be entitled to have their cases reopened? Is the Minister further aware that there is a widespread feeling that this rule is being exercised most unfairly and unjustly?

The rule has been in force since the commencement of the Special Grants Committee in 1919. There has been no material change. I have replied to the point put by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) in my reply to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling).

Is it to be retrospective? On a point of Order. Is the Minister entitled to evade a negative or affirmative reply by stating that he has answered the question, when, in fact, he has not done so and has made no attempt to do so?

It is no use putting the same question over and over again.