asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Czecho-Slovak Government have recently completed a commercial treaty which gives certain preferences to goods of French manufacture imported into their country; whether they have made proposals to the British Government for a similar treaty, but owing to objection raised by his Department to the effect that any such treaty might interfere with the working of the Safeguarding of Industries Act the suggested treaty has not been concluded; and, if this is so, whether he is prepared to receive the views of traders as to the injurious effects which such a refusal may have on the export of British manufactured goods to Czecho-Slovakia?

The Commercial Convention of 4th November, 1920, gives no preferential treatment to French goods in the matter of customs duties in Czecho-Slovakia, but it includes provisions for the grant of licences for the importation into Czecho-Slovakia of certain classes of French goods and for the exportation of certain goods from Czecho-Slovakia into France. Negotiations with Czecho-Slovakia are in progress, and my right hon. Friend will be happy to consider any information bearing on the matter which may be placed before him.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Sir William Ashley, who is now presiding over the Committee appointed to consider an application from certain manufacturers for the imposition of a duty of 33⅓ per cent. on certain imported glassware, has been identified with a movement for securing the imposition of a tariff on imports into this country and was associated with the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in the Tariff Reform movement; and will he see that in future no person shall be appointed to such office who has taken a prominent part in advocating either Free Trade or Tariff Reform, so as to establish confidence in the tribunal?

I entirely dissent from the view that any person who took the side indicated by the hon. Member in the fiscal controversy before the War, or anybody who took the opposite side, is not to be trusted to conduct impartially the investigations required under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and, as the question has been raised, my right hon. Friend desires me to take this opportunity of publicly thanking and expressing his confidence in all those who in response to his request are placing their knowledge and experience at the disposal of the Government.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, although the Safeguarding of Industries Act only empowers him to appoint as members of particular Committees under Part II of the same, such gentlemen as may be already appointed as members of the permanent panel which the Act authorises him to nominate, Committees have, notwithstanding, been appointed by him in connection with the glassware and fabric glove inquiries, which contained members whose names had not appeared in the list of panel members already published by the Board of Trade; whether, after those particular Committees had been advertised and had even begun their sittings, some days elapsed before the appointment of certain of their members to the panel in question was publicly notified; how many of the gentlemen appointed to the permanent panel are nominees either of the Federation of British Industries or of the National Union of Manufacturers; and upon what principles he proceeds in determining the personnel of individual Committees of Inquiry selected from the panel?

All the members of the Committees referred to had been appointed to the panel before their selection to serve on the Committees. No member of the panel has been or will be appointed as the nominee or representative of any particular interest. The constitution of a Committee is determined solely with the object of securing an impartial and competent body to report upon the facts of the case referred to them.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, in the case of disputes arising under Clause 1 (4) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act as to whether dutiable ingredients have or have not lost their identity in compound articles, his Department is taking the view that the Clause is not explicit as to the referee appointed by the Lord Chancellor being the proper authority to whom such disputes should be referred; and whether he is prepared to explain to the House the grounds on which the attitude is being adopted by his Department, seeing that traders whose interests are concerned with the interpretation of the Clause can at present get no satisfaction from the Department as to the course of procedure they should adopt to secure immediate arbitration; (2) whether he received on the 6th November a letter sent the previous day by the fancy goods and china and glassware joint vigilance committee of the London Chamber of Commerce, complaining as to the term lamp-blown ware in the key industries schedule being applied to various kinds of cheap fancy goods; whether the Department still maintain that it is not in a position to answer the letter, but has its contents under consideration; whether he is prepared to admit that the application of the term lamp-blown ware to such goods as dolls' eyes, Christmas tree ornaments, artificial grapes used for millinery, etc., involves lifting it entirely out of its context in the key industries schedule, seeing that it appears there entirely surrounded by commodities of a scientific character; whether the objection made by the vigilance committee to him derives strong support from the promises made by Ministers in Parliament in regard to lamp-blown ware when the House adopted the Ways and Means Resolutions last May; and whether, seeing that His Majesty's Customs are admittedly holding up these fancy goods for duty under the advice of the industries and manufactures department of the Board of Trade, to whom they refer complainants, the Board is prepared forthwith to lay the case, as desired by the vigilance committee, before the Lord Chancellor's referee?

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No list of articles to be taken as comprised within the general heading of lamp-blown ware has been issued by the Board of Trade. Complaints of the nature of those to which the hon. Member refers accordingly appear to come under Section 11 of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and it is open to complainants to approach the Customs with a view to their complaints being referred to a referee to be appointed in accordance with that Section. The vigilance committee of the London Chamber of Commerce have been so informed by the Board. I am not aware of any complaint in this particular connection as to loss of identity, and the question as to the interpretation of Section 1 (4) of the Act does not arise.

Are we to understand from that reply that dolls' eyes were kept out because they were a key industry and not because there was a collapsed exchange?

No, Sir. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend should understand that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why it happened that three parcels of Beta Eucaine arrived from Germany on the s.s. "Oranje Nassau" on 4th November and that the importers of these parcels were not advised of their arrival until the 21st November; why, when they paid on 22nd November the duty demanded by His Majesty's Customs under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, they were still unable to obtain delivery of the parcels; whether he is aware that daily applications were made to the Customs parcels post department at Mount Pleasant, who were informed that the material contained in the parcels consisted of important local anæsthetics used in surgical operations and was urgently required by hospitals; why delivery was not obtained from His Majesty's Customs until the 8th December; and whether he proposes to take steps to obviate the continuance of such delays?

The parcels in question reached the Customs on the 15th November and the notice on arrival was sent to the addressees on the 18th. Duty was paid on the 22nd, but it is regretted that owing to the transfer of this parcel post work to more commodious premises which was then proceeding, a delay occurred which was unavoidable in the circumstances. This cause of delay will not recur, and the transfer will benefit importers by reason of the possibility of accelerating delivery which it will afford.

Has not the hon. Gentleman repeatedly denied that there has been any delay in the clearance of parcels due to the collection of duties under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

No, far from it. I have always regretted the delay which has been created by the congestion of parcels, and I have always referred to this measure of the transfer to more commodious premises as one which will in future obviate delay.

Will the hon. Gentleman see that this matter receives special attention, because when local anæsthetics are held up in this way general anæsthetics, which involve much more danger, will have to be used, and it will add to the terrors of the dentist's chair.

The importance of a step of this sort is no doubt fully recognised.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, owing to the absence of technical knowledge of chemicals on the part of the Customs officials ordinarily concerned with the examination of goods arriving at the various ports throughout the country, it has become the practice of His Majesty's Customs to detain all parcels of chemicals and to refuse delivery to importers on the ground that inquiries are being made; that the consequent delay, even in the case of goods not dutiable, frequently amounts to weeks; and that it has become the practice of His Majesty's Customs to ignore any interim complaints which may be made by traders as to the great inconvenience that they are put to by the consequent hold-up of business; and whether he can devise some means whereby a decision may be given on the spot in any cases of this kind which involve only an ordinary working technical knowledge of the commodities in question?

In the case of chemicals entered as not liable to duty, as to which the examining Customs Officer is in doubt whether duty is not chargeable under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, it is necessary to submit a sample for expert opinion by the Government chemist, and this opinion is obtained with the least possible delay. But if the importer wishes to obtain immediate possession of the goods, it is always open to him to do so on deposit of an amount sufficient to cover the duty in the event of the goods being ultimately held to be liable. As decisions are given on various substances, the officers at the ports will become more experienced in deciding liability without the necessity of submitting samples, and the inconvenience complained of will diminish. I am not, however, prepared to incur the expense attendant on the appointment of expert advisers at the various ports.

Is it not a fact that if this kind of thing goes on there will be no drug in the market after this?

Is it not a fact that these complaints are being greatly exaggerated, and that the Act is being administered remarkably well?

It is fully recognised that the period of the initiation of an Act necessarily causes inconveniences. Those inconveniences are being overcome.

Does not "remarkably well" mean that the goods are being kept from getting into this country?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the sum of £14,056 collected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act represents deposits which traders have had to pay in order to secure their goods pending a settlement of dispute as to the precise amount of duty leviable; whether the deposit system has been encouraged by His Majesty's Customs officials; whether the deposits paid have in many cases proved to be far in excess of the legitimate duty when obtained; whether a case has arisen in which a deposit of over £650 was demanded in respect of goods, of which it is alleged the duty should not properly exceed £10; whether he can inform the House with regard to the October figures; what is the approximate net amount, independent of the cost of collection, which the Exchequer is actually to secure; and can he state the total amount received from 1st October to 10th December?

The sum of £14,056, collected under Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act up to the 28th October, represents actual receipts of duty and does not include the deposits to which the hon. Member refers. The deposit system is brought to the notice of importers in their own interests by the Customs in cases of doubtful liability in order that they may obtain immediate delivery of the goods if they so desire. Such deposits must naturally be sufficient to cover estimated full liability, but I am not aware of the actual case to which the hon. Member refers. The net amount of duty received in October cannot be stated, inasmuch as the cost of collection of this duty is merged in the general cost of the Customs Service. The total amount of duty received from the 1st October to the 10th December is £44,000.

Would not the figures that the hon. Gentleman has show that the increased cost of the administration of the Customs since the passing of the Act has much more than swallowed up this alleged advantage of £44,000?

I should require notice for a more careful analysis of the figures before I could answer that question, but speaking on the spur of the moment I should say not.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think this deposit system necessitates a great deal more capital for business than before?

I believe the use of the deposit system is largely also specially applicable to the transition period. When the inconveniences have been overcome, probably importers will find that it is necessary to make less use of it.

When the importers are called upon to deposit 33⅓ per cent. of the value of the goods, how can they sell those goods without knowing what they have to pay?

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many requests for orders imposing a duty on manufactured goods under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act have been received by him; if so, how many he has approved; and whether he will publish a list of these applications forthwith so as to give adequate opportunity to those who desire to oppose them to prepare evidence which they will submit to any committee of investigation that may be appointed?

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many and what applications have been made for import duties to be levied under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and when any opportunity will be given for other traders affected and the public generally to be heard in opposition to such applications?

Including formal complaints and inquiries with a view to formulating complaints, roughly some 60 trades have communicated with the Board. Two complaints, relating to fabric gloves and glove material and to domestic, illuminating and mounting glassware, have been referred to Committees. In reply to the last part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given to a question asked by him on the 24th October last, of which I am sending him a copy.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the British flint-glass manufacturers recently made an application for the imposition of a duty on certain types of imported glassware which are used to a considerable extent by British Silver and electro-plate manufacturers in Birmingham and Sheffield; whether his Department referred it to a committee of inquiry; whether, on the assembling of that committee to consider the application, the flint-glass manufacturers requested to be allowed to withdraw the application; and whether, in view of the fact that the announcement of the terms of reference of the committee in question involved the opponents of the application in considerable expense and inconvenience during the Christmas season in preparing evidence in support of their contentions, he will undertake that in future such applications shall not be entertained except on the understanding that they will, in fact, be proceeded with before any committee?

The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative, except that the application has not, according to my information, been withdrawn, but postponed for a period by arrangement between the British Flint Glass Manufacturers' Association and the Birmingham and Sheffield manufacturers referred to. It is, of course, open to the Committee to hear evidence on this portion of their reference from other manufacturers should they so desire. No circumstances have arisen which suggest the desirability of a rule of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

What is the position of those who opposed this application? They have brought their witnesses and gone to the trouble of an inquiry, and are told it is postponed. Is there any compensation to be given to them?

I have just said it is of course open to the Committee if they desire to hear evidence on this portion of their reference from other manufacturers.

As they did not do so, what redress have the opponents got after having gone to the expense of preparing their case, bringing witnesses from Sheffield and Birmingham to London, and then being told it is not proposed to hold the inquiry?

I have explained that by an arrangement between the manufacturers referred to and the trade, the inquiry has been postponed—not withdrawn.

That was not made public. Counsel and witnesses were present to commence the proceedings.

The hon. Member must leave that to the discretion of the Committee.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that on the 9th December a consignment of over 100 bags of washing soda crystals arrived at the east quay of the London Docks and was detained by His Majesty's Customs as being liable for duty under Part, I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; that the importers sent special lorries to remove the goods, but were refused delivery by the Customs officials unless payment of a deposit to cover the ad valorem duty was made; that, upon refusal to pay such deposit, the goods were detained so that workmen had to be dismissed; and that, it was not until the case was taken up by the British Chemical Trade Association that, the goods were eventually released on the 12th December as not being dutiable at all; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such interference with trade shall not occur again?

I am informed that these goods were not landed until the morning of Saturday the 10th instant, and that the two vans sent down on that day were allowed to take away full loads; the question of liability to Key Industry Duty was raised, but, in any case, there was no possibility of obtaining further deliveries on that day, as the workmen had then ceased for the day. The question of liability had been settled and the remainder of the goods were released before noon on Monday the 12th. I think the hon. Member will agree that this can hardly be described as an interference with trade.

If the matter had been settled, can the hon. Member say why there was delay?

If the hon. Member had followed my reply, he would have seen that there was no delay of any sort or kind.

That is quite wrong.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a consignment of toys recently imported into this country, which included some children's games called fishponds, which goods, on critical examination, were discovered by the Customs officials to contain small hooks attached to little pieces of rod of small value; whether the importer of these goods was asked to declare the value of the small pieces of wire in question on the ground that the wire was dutiable under the Safeguarding of Industries Act as being in the category of ignition magnetos and permanent magnetos; whether he is aware that these goods were only released, on depositing the sum of 2s., to the importer after considerable delay; and whether he is prepared to give instructions which will prevent such inconvenience and attendant expenses for rent and other charges being imposed in future upon importers of such trifles?

I understand that the facts are substantially as stated. The hooks in question were pronounced on expert advice to be permanent magnets and, therefore, dutiable under the Schedule to the Safeguarding of Industries Act. The matter referred to in the last paragraph of the question is receiving attention, and I hope shortly to be able to authorise the exemption from Key Industries Duty of certain articles of the kind in question, so long as the exemption will not operate to defeat the substantial objects of the Act.

Does not the hon. Member think that the collection of these small sums is not worth the great trouble and inconvenience that is inflicted on traders?

Can the hon. Member say how they have managed to get children's fishponds into key industries, and what possible use can that sort of article be in wartime in this country?

Any question about the interpretation of the Schedule must be addressed to the Board of Trade.

Is the hon. Member aware that through the delay in the collection of this 2s. the goods have been either stolen or lost in the docks?

May I have an answer to my question?

Possibly the hon. Member may deduce something from the latter portion of my answer—

"I hope shortly to be able to authorise the exemption from Key Industries duty of certain articles of the kind in question, so long as the exemption will not operate to defeat the substantial objects of the Act."

Has the hon. Member observed how the figures for unemployment have gone up since this Act took effect?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any report from America as to the case of persecution and expulsion of British coloured subjects from Miami, Florida, and the protection afforded or otherwise to British subjects there by the British Consul?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I returned to his question on 26th October. His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington was instructed to inquire into the matter, but his Report has not yet been received.

asked the Minister of Labour whether certain railway companies in England and Scotland have so far declined to apply for certificates of exception from the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Acts; whether, as a result, permanent railway servants of certain grades employed by such companies are, on discharge, disqualified from receiving benefit either from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, although they have contributed to it, or from the funds of the railway companies; and if he proposes to take any steps to remove the hardship complained of in the case of such men?

Save in two cases, all the principal railway companies in Great Britain have given or confirmed the necessary declaration as to the permanent nature of the employment of the railway servants in question, and certificates of exception have been or are about to be issued. I am still hopeful that the two companies referred to may find it possible to come into line with the others, but as long as the question of exception is outstanding, that is, until it has been decided whether the employés are or are not insurable, it is clearly not possible to pay benefit. As soon as the question of exception is definitely settled the contributions paid will either be available for benefit or will be refunded in accordance with any certificate issued.

asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed men and women respectively are on the registers; how many of these are not receiving any form of insurance allowance; what is his estimate of the numbers of unemployed not on the registers; and how many persons are now employed on the various forms of relief works?

On 9th December there were registered as wholly unemployed 1,412,372 men and 321,346 women. These figures compare with 1,549,307 men and 477,627 women registered as wholly unemployed at 24th June. As regards men and women registered as working short-time, the figures for 9th December were 150,700 men and 104,600 women as against 565,000 men and 511,000 women on 27th May. Of those registered as wholly unemployed on 9th December, all, except about 32,300 men and 25,800 women were on benefit. These latter figures represent persons not in insured trades—agriculture and domestic service—and persons disqualified for one reason and another by the local employment committees or the referees or the umpire. Over and above these last named figures there is a further margin, largely, I should say, of agricultural labourers unemployed, but not registered with us. The number of persons reported as employed on the various forms of work specially provided to deal with unemployment was round about 107,000 on 9th December. These figures are certain materially to increase in the new year because of the preliminary steps which are being taken in a number of directions. As regards the last part of the question, I have prepared a detail of the progress already made in putting into operation the several plans recently approved by the House, and as the statement is necessarily lengthy, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if he is aware of the bitter feeling among unemployed men throughout the country as the result of the attempt to start road works at rates of pay fixed by the Ministry and which imply an attack upon existing wages. Whether he is aware that thousands of these unemployed men are already proficient at road making as the result of their army service, and is he aware that in the Dartford Division of Kent contractors' rates vary within a radius of four miles by as much as 2d. per hour, and that grave disturbance has already taken place and is likely to continue unless uniformity is produced and a minimum rate recognised?

As I only received notice of this question a short time ago I have not been able to prepare a formal answer, but I think that I can give the information which my hon. Friend desires. I am not aware of any exceptional feeling upon the question raised by the hon. Member in reference to road making, most of which is being undertaken by contract. I am sorry that some of the unemployed should interpret the position of the Government as to the payment of a remuneration at a standard rate for a probationary period as an attack upon existing wages. It certainly was not so intended. The hon. Member asks me as to unemployed men who are already proficient at road making. I have no information on that subject. He asks me finally a question which, I take it, relates to the Dartford and Erith road. The hon. Member himself made representations to the Ministry in reference to that road. Unfortunately 12 months ago the county council and the men were unable to agree as to terms, and the work was not proceeded with. In response to representations made by my hon. Friend we have now let the work out by contract, and the work is proceeding. I have not had my attention called to any difficulties being caused.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the minimum rate of wages in the Erith district is considerably above the rates proposed to be paid by the contractor, and can there not be some method of straightening out the tangle between the rates paid by this contractor and the proper rates?

I am not aware of that. What I am aware of is that the work is now proceeding. The men made very strong representations that they hoped some way might be found by which the work could be undertaken, that the only way in which it could be done was by contract, and I have no reason to question that the proper rate of wages is being paid by the contractor.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I drew the attention of the Minister of Health to the fact that in Sheffield there were miners engaged by local contractors for road work who during the War received a special rate of pay from the Army for making roads, and at present they are subject to the low rate of pay as probationers at this work? Further, may I ask the Minister of Health if he did not promise to find special work for such cases, and will he not carry out that undertaking?

Special instructions were given on that subject, that where men are competent to do the work for which they are engaged they will obtain standard pay. The question is a question of fact, and it will be for the borough engineer and the local authorities to say whether or not the men are fully qualified to do their work.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of women employed in the Ministry in preference to ex-service men and the number of permanent civil servants serving as deputy principal clerks or principal clerks; and how many of them are ex-service men, and how many of the remainder have received promotion since 4th August, 1921?

It is not the policy of the Ministry to employ women in preference to ex-service men. On the contrary, I am at present adjusting my staff in accordance with the recommendation in paragraph 19 of the Third Report of the Lytton Committee, to which I would refer my Noble Friend. The answer to the second part of the question is 38, of whom three are ex-service officers. No promotions to either of these grades have been made since the dates mentioned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many ex-service men he proposes to take into employment in the adjustment which he has fixed?

My proportion of ex-service men up to the present is 97.8 of all the men employed. I hope by the 31st March to have fully completed the recommendations of the Committee.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of the time within which he will get the total number of ex-service men employed up to the percentage recommended by this Committee?

I hope by the 31st March.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the Royal Irish Constabulary mechanic-constables being dismissed at Gormanstown and other places are now receiving a month's notice before dismissal or equivalent compensation; and whether they are being given boat and railway warrants to their homes?

Some of these men have left on termina- tion of their contracts. Others whose original contracts are expiring are being retained at a month's notice, or a week's notice, according to circumstances. All temporary constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary receive, under the terms of their contract, a bounty of £25 at the expiration of a year's service and those who are being discharged on termination of contract are entitled to travelling expenses to their homes. In a few cases men receiving the bounty were discharged without prepayment of fares. These omissions are being rectified.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when these men were enlisted about a year ago they were told that they would be allowed to re-engage at the end of 12 months for another 12 months' service? Is he aware that that definite offer has been broken, as they were then told that they would be on monthly contracts, and even that has been reduced now to one week's notice? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that to turn these men out at a week's notice is treating them very badly, in view of the fact that if any railway company treated its employés like that there would be a general strike, and quite right too?

The hon. and gallant Member has made several allegations, and I deny the accuracy of every one of them. I am doing my best to treat these gallant men as generously as I can within the law, and within the terms of their contract.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that until I asked him questions about these men they were being sent home without railway warrants?

A few were sent off through an inadvertence, but that mistake has been corrected.

There were 19 sent off in that way.

Yes, and I am profoundly sorry the mistake occurred. I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's interest in the matter.

Does he deny that these men were definitely offered the chance of taking on again for another 12 months at the end of their 12 months' contract, that that was altered to a month, and then to a week's contract?

Yes, I do deny it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and bring pressure to bear to see that these men are not handicapped in this way after having served their country?

I have not heard that they have been handicapped in the way referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. On the contrary, I have information to the very opposite effect.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes Board have at any time directed the Navy, Army, and Air Force canteens in Ireland to join the Sinn Fein boycott of British goods; whether this boycott is still in force; and, if not still in force, when it was terminated and under what circumstances?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War, whether he has any further statement to make in regard to orders having been issued to Navy and Army and Air Force Institutes in Ireland that in future only Irish goods are to be sold and in particular with reference to an Order issued from the Irish Area Office, Lord Edward Street, Dublin, dated 31st May, 1921, and 3rd June, 1921, forbidding the future purchase of English-manufactured soaps, candles, biscuits, boot polish, and other commodities; and whether he will give an explanation of the matter?

In amplification of the reply which I gave to the Noble Lord on this subject on Friday last, I should like to state that, as I understand, certain difficulties were at one time experienced by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes in London in obtaining English goods requisite for the maintenance of their Irish supply. This was due to the attempted boycott referred to by the hon. Member for Kensington, South, and the consequent unwillingness on the part of British manufacturers to take the risks involved in the carriage of their goods to Ireland. This action had the effect of temporarily interfering with the supply of English goods to Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes in Ireland, and the circulars issued from the office of the Irish Area Manager, to which the Noble Lord refers, were local instructions issued with the intention of warning canteen managers that such temporary interference might take place, and that, in the circumstances, they must make up deficiencies in their stocks by supplying goods of Irish manufacture. There was never any intention of altering the policy in regard to the supply of English made goods or submitting to any boycott, and steps were taken to protect the transport and handling of the supplies from England and to ensure that the supply should be maintained for the future; these steps have proved successful and the normal supply has been resumed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand a letter from the War Office admitting that these institutes did join the Sinn Fein boycott, and not as stated by him because the manufacturers were unwilling to risk sending goods to Ireland, but because as stated in this letter, in view of the Sinn Fein ban, the warehouses and shops of the institutes in Ireland would be destroyed unless military protection could be had, and such military protection had been refused?

I am not aware of any letter that contained the statement suggested in the first part of my hon. Friend's question.

I have the letter in my hand.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he denied the existence of this document in reply to my question last Friday?

I received a letter from my Noble Friend this morning which, if he will allow me to say so, I think was unnecessarily, and I hope unintentionally, offensive, calling my attention to this letter which I had never seen before. The answer I gave on Friday was a perfectly accurate answer to the question on the Paper.

Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman denied that the orders had ever been given at all, and now I have called his attention to the actual document, is it not unfortunate he does not withdraw and apologise?

Will the Secretary for War say why protection was not given to these institutes to enable them to retail British goods which they had in hand? Is he aware that this letter in my hand was sent by his Parliamentary Private Secretary, on his instructions, to me stating that, owing to the lack of military protection, these goods could not be kept in Ireland, and that unless such military protection was forthcoming no British goods were to be supplied?

My right hon. Friend informs me that protection was given at the earliest possible moment, and that it has been completely successful.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government of the Irish Free State will have the power of choice between flying the Sinn Fein flag and the Union Jack, the national flag of both Great Britain and the Dominions; and whether, if they have that power, this House will have any power over the decision that is come to?

I have nothing to add to the answers already given to similar questions addressed to my right hon. Friend and to myself.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to the last part of the question, whether this House has any power over a decision come to in the Irish Free State on the question of the flag?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say that persons in Ireland who desire to fly the Union Jack will not be persecuted, as at present?

The statement which was made by both the Prime Minister and myself the other day was that, in the case of each Dominion, the Dominion itself settled what the Dominion flag should be, and we proposed to follow that course in regard to the Irish case. For myself it seems to me that, in view of the acceptance of an agreement of friendship and amity, the spirit in which it works is of much more importance than the actual symbol.

In view of the immense importance of what has been described as a symbol, can my right hon. Friend say whether this question was ever brought up at all during the negotiations, and why it does not find some part in the Agreement?

That question was answered last week.

asked the Secretary of State for War the number of recruits needed to bring the Army up to strength?

On 1st December the strength of the Regular Army, including all ranks, but exclusive of the British Army in India, was about 10,000 less than the numbers voted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what amount the cost of the special Department of Scotland Yard, drawn either from the Secret Service or any other Vote, is to be reduced in the next financial year; and precisely what modifications in the work of the Department are to be made, particularly whether its political character is to be abandoned?

The arrangements for the re-organisation of the Department are not yet complete, and I am unable to say what precise modifications will be finally adopted or by what amount, if any, the cost will be reduced.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, as to whether the political character of this Department is to be abandoned?

I answered that on Friday. It is not to be abandoned.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case before His Majesty's Courts in which evidence was given to the effect that the Duke of Northumberland, M.V.O., had been given access to documents in Scotland Yard and to other information collected by the secret police for the purpose of writing newspaper articles; whether this was done with his permission; for what object was such permission given; and whether other contributors to the public Press will be granted similar privileges?

I gave no permission in this case, and have no knowledge of the matter beyond what appeared in the newspaper reports, but I do not gather from those reports that any information was given that should not have been given, or that any information was given to the Duke that was not available for other Press contributors.

Since I put the question on the Paper, has not the right hon. Gentleman looked into the matter a little more closely and made further inquiries? Does he think it is proper for any individual to be able to go to a nominal Government Department and see these secret documents?

There is no question of "nominal" in this matter; the Department is under the Home Office. There was no question of seeing documents. Information was given to the Duke which was available to any pressman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman let it be known at the London Press Club, and in Fleet Street, that anyone can go to his Department and get any information they like?

They cannot get any information they like, but they know perfectly well, for they are doing it every day, that they can get such information as is proper to be given.

Is the information which this particular Department is prepared to give to individuals information only dealing with what this Department alleges to be the activities of trade union organisations and labour political organisers, or is any individual at liberty to go to this Department and get information as to any political organisation in the country?

People can go there and ask for information, and if it is proper to be given they will get it. If it is not proper information to be given they will not get it. There is no question of dealing with the trade unions.

Has the Prime Minister changed his policy with regard to the special privileges of dukes?

asked the Home Secretary if ex-Inspector Syme has again been arrested and released after hunger striking in order to bring his case before the Government; and, in view of the repeated demands for an inquiry, will he grant an inquiry?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The facts of ex-Inspector Syme's case have been fully ascertained, and require no further investigation. There is no sufficient reason for re-opening the case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, during his occupation of the office of Home Secretary, so far recognised the justice of this case as to offer this man re-instatement to one degree below the rank occupied by him at the time of the inquiry? Having regard to the fact that this man is determined, even at the cost of his life, to secure an inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman not, even at this late stage, do something to meet his claim?

The hon. Member has not given a correct description of my right hon. Friend's action. What he did was to offer re-instatement to the man as an act of mercy, and not as a matter of re-opening the case. As far as the effect on this man's health is concerned, the sentence he is serving was the sentence of the Court, and if he chooses to starve himself I cannot help it.

asked the Home Secretary if he will refer to the Law Officers of the Crown the question of whether local police authorities have the right and power to alter at their discretion the rates of pay and pension in force since the 1st April, 1919?

I do not think there is any occasion for me to refer to the Law Officers on this question. The scales of pay for sergeants and constables in all forces are now fixed by the Police Regulations, and cannot be altered without amendment of the Regulations. The scales of pay for the higher ranks in every force are, by the Regulations, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and cannot be altered without the like approval. The rates of pension are governed by the Police Pensions Act of last Session, and cannot be altered without legislation.

Have the local authorities, therefore, no power of their own discretion to alter these scales of pay and pension?

The local authorities, as my answer states, have no discretion in this case. The question put down to-day is a very different one from that which was put down on Friday.

Is not my present question exactly the same as the question I asked on Friday, when I asked for an answer yes or no, and got neither the one nor the other?

No, Sir, nothing of the kind. The question put down on Friday was a totally different question altogether from this, and it was answered fully and completely.

Is not the question which I have put on the Paper to-day exactly the same question to which, on Friday, I asked for an answer, yes or no?.

I understood, of course, that the supplementary question had to do with the question on the Paper.

It was put plainly enough, at all events.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement regarding the request of the German Government for a delay in the payments of the indemnity instalments; and whether His Majesty's Government will consult Parliament before consenting to the military occupation of further German territory or the imposition of other sanctions?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give a pledge that the Government will not commit this country to a further occupation of German territory, or the imposition of new sanctions for the Treaty, without first consulting Parliament in the matter?

Conversations were begun this morning between representatives of the French and British Governments and will probably continue for the greater part of this week. I hope that, whilst my colleagues and I are taking part in these discussions, I shall not be pressed to make a statement on the subject.

May I, in spite of the request of the right hon. Gentleman, respectfully ask if he can give us some assurance with regard to the second part of my question, as to whether any further military occupation will be undertaken before this House is consulted in accordance with what I believe to be the constitutional practice?

I hope that hon. Members will respond to the appeal I have made. There is great difficulty in answering questions with regard to matters which are at this moment the subject of conversations between foreign Ministers who are in this country and ourselves, but the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter is fairly well known to the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am only trying to strengthen his hands?

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his intentions, but if he would occasionally take my hints as to the way in which he can best carry them out, I should be even more grateful.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are now in a position to announce the steps they intend to take for the trial of German war criminals in accordance with the Treaty of Versailles?

I have been asked to reply. There is nothing to add to the answer given on the 10th November last to question put by my hon. and learned Friend.

Are any steps being taken by the Government in this matter, or is the matter being allowed to lie fallow?

Steps are being taken, as I explained in the answer referred to.

Have any steps been taken since the answer referred to was given?

Yes, the steps which were referred to in that answer.

Is the House to understand that the steps referred to in that, answer are at present being taken?

Yes, Sir; I think the House may understand that they are in course of being taken.

asked the Prime Minister whether a restoration in any form of the veto of the House of Lords has been considered by the Cabinet?

The proposals of the Government will be submitted to Parliament in due course. I must decline to make any statement as to proceedings in the Cabinet.

Has it been suggested to the Cabinet, or are they considering, the restoration of the veto of the House of Lords?

I must decline to make any statement as to the proceedings of the Cabinet.

Then the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to pledge the Government not to restore the veto of the House of Lords?

I decline to answer any questions as to proceedings in the Cabinet, and I am astonished that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with his experience, should think it useful to put such questions.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in any negotiations with Russia as to trade or recognition, he will press that Government to allow free self-government to the Republic of Georgia, which has been already recognised by ourselves and other Powers as a self-governing independent State, but is at present occupied by Russian troops against the wishes of the inhabitants?

His Majesty's Government have no definite information to the effect that Georgia is in occupation of Russian troops. The rest of the question, therefore, does not arise.

Is it impossible for the Government to get any definite information from Georgia as to whether or not it is occupied by Russian troops?

No doubt we could, but it would take time.

Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to accept the assurances of any individual Member as to the wishes of the inhabitants of Georgia?

As a question of which I have given Private Notice is relevant to that which has just been asked by my hon. Friend, might I supplement his question? Does the Under-Secretary seriously say that he has no information that Russian troops are in occupation of Georgia and are carrying out very drastic acts of repression there, having sent innumerable people to gaol and having deported many others? If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt upon these facts, let me assure him that I was told no later than the day before yesterday by the President of the Constituent Assembly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—I am giving my hon. Friend some useful information.

This is not the time for giving information.

I understood that the hon. Member was going to ask me a Private Notice question on this subject.

I will do so.

Will the hon. Gentleman really consider getting more prompt information on these matters, and does he not recognise that it is some- thing of a scandal that the Foreign Office never has any information on these matters?

I deny the allegation of my hon. Friend.

Has not the hon. Gentleman just said that he has no information that Russian troops are in occupation of Georgia?

I said that I had no definite information on this particular point.

(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the independence of the Georgian Republic was recognised in 1919 and 1920 by nearly all the Powers of the world; whether this independence was further confirmed by the Treaty of 7th May, 1920, between Russia and the Georgian Republic; whether after an invasion by Russian and Kemalist forces in combination there has been substituted for the independence of Georgia government by Russia and a régime of the most drastic repression, including wholesale imprisonments and deportations, and the destruction of the liberty of the person, of the Press, and of public meetings; whether in every form of protest left to them the Georgian people have re-asserted their claim for their separate and independent existence; and what steps the Government are prepared to take to bring to an end this gross violation of all the principles for which the armies of the Entente fought and won the late War; and whether the hon. Member is aware that the President of the Georgian Constituent Assembly and other representatives of Georgia are in London at this moment to establish the facts which I have just set forth?

His Majesty's Government accorded de facto recognition to the Republic of Georgia in January, 1920, and de jure recognition in January, 1921. During the same period similar recognition was granted by the Governments of the Allied and other Powers. The existence of the Treaty of Peace between Soviet Russia and Georgia would appear to confirm similar recognition on the part of the Soviet Government. In March, 1921, Bolshevik Armenian and Russian troops invaded Georgia, which accepted the Soviet form of government. His Majesty's representatives were withdrawn, and the members of the former Georgian Government fled the country. His Majesty's Government have no later authoritative information as to ensuing events in Georgia. The only protests received by His Majesty's Government have been protests signed by private individuals abroad and members of the former Government. The information available from all sources indicates that all the Members of the present Soviet Government of Georgia are men of Georgian nationality. As regards the last part of the question, it would not appear that His Majesty's Government have any locus standi for interference in the matter.

asked the Prime Minister when the Report of the Geddes Committee will be presented?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to issue in full the Report of the Departmental Committee on Expenditure presided over by the late Minister of Transport?

(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether it is proposed to publish at an early date the findings of the Geddes Committee?

I have been asked to reply. The question of the publication of the Committee's Report will be a matter for the consideration and decision of the Cabinet.

May I ask when the Cabinet will decide on this question?

I am afraid I am unable to inform the hon. and gallant Member.

Will the Report be published before Parliament re-assembles?

Does the Treasury look with a favourable eye on this Report?

May I ask why the Cabinet cannot consider this matter at once? Why must it be delayed?

Would the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Report will be published?

It is impossible to give any further answer. The Report has not even been received by the Members of the Cabinet.

May I ask for an answer to my question as to when the Cabinet will consider this matter?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to point out the simple fact that the Cabinet cannot consider the Report until it reaches them.

May I ask the Leader of the House if he can say when he, as Leader of the House, expects the Report to be considered?

That is a purely hypothetical question.

On that point of Order. Is it not the case that the Geddes Committee was set up during the last Session of Parliament, that we have been called together for a special Session of Parliament, and that, as financial business is the first business of a new Session, the House is entitled to know whether the Cabinet expect the Report shortly, and, if so, what steps will be taken?

It is one of our Rules at Question Time that we do not admit hypothetical questions. This is one of that nature.

On that point of Order. I understand from your ruling that it is left to the Leader of the House to expect or not to expect a Report from a Financial Committee presided over by a Member of his Cabinet.

That is dependent on a meeting which has not yet taken place.

The question on the Paper asks if he will state when the Report of the Geddes Committee will be presented? We have not had an answer to that. We want to know when it will be presented.

Can the Leader of the House inform us how it comes about that such voluminous reports as to the contents of this Report have appeared in the Press, and whether those reports are accurate?

As I have not seen the Report, which, as I have said, has not yet been presented to the Cabinet, I am unable to say how far any reports in the Press, which I have also not seen, are accurate.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House as to the means by which these voluminous reports have appeared in the public Press, even before the Report itself has been presented to the Cabinet?

I imagine by means of more or less intelligent anticipation.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of setting up a Select Committee to consider the relative advantages or disadvantages of being a creditor or a debtor nation, and of inflating or deflating the currency, so that the minds of politicians and bankers may be rendered more clear as to the objects of financial legislation and administration?

I do not think a Committee of the kind suggested would be a suitable body for such an economic investigation as the hon. and gallant Member desires.

Is the right hon. Gentleman himself in favour of being a creditor nation with other people working for you and your own people unemployed, or a debtor nation with your people working for someone else?

I am not in favour of accepting either suggestion.

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will instruct its representative at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of the League of Nations to support the Belgian proposal for the protection of the non-Turkish elements in Asiatic Turkey?

No details of the Belgian proposal referred to by the hon. Member have been received from the League of Nations. I am not, therefore, in a position to indicate the Government's attitude regarding it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in the interests of economy, it has been decided that, as was the case before the War, the salary of only one Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury shall be borne upon the Votes?

No, Sir. No decision has been taken upon this matter.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that on 23rd June he promised that the situation should be reviewed, and said that was an agreement which should not be perpetuated, and if that is so, could there be a more fitting opportunity, in the interest of economy, to take some action in this matter?

I do not recognise the quotation.

I have it here.

If the hon. Member will send it to me, I will refresh my memory. What I think I said was that this was a matter which would come under discussion between the rising of the House and its meeting next year.

Is it not a fact that the principal work of one of these gentlemen is in the country and not in this House, and should he be paid his £2,000 a year for that?

The work of both these gentlemen is both in the country and in this House, and is similar to that which has always been executed by their predecessors.

asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case last month at Ashby-de-la-Zouch county court where a motorist had caused serious injury to one of the public through negligent driving; and, if the local police did not institute proceedings in the matter, what action does he propose to take?

I learn on inquiry that the evidence in this case was not such as to justify criminal proceedings against the driver of the motor-car. There is no action I could take in the matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the large amount of Inland Revenue stamping done in Middlesbrough, he can arrange for this work to be undertaken by a subordinate official at the Middlesbrough post office if the present stamp office should be closed at the end of the year, and in this way effect a considerable economy in present expenditure without seriously inconveniencing the general public?

The Board of Inland Revenue have recently explored, in consultation with the Post Office, the possibility of making an arrangement such as that suggested by the hon. Member. They have been unable so far to discover any practicable solution of the difficulties involved, but the matter will be further investigated.

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he can render any immediate assistance to the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Kingston-upon-Hull in their efforts to deal with the distress caused by the flooding of the City on the evening of 17th December?

I should like to express the sympathy of the Government with the City in its misfortune. I have already sent officials of the Ministry to confer with the Lord Mayor and the Corporation, and every measure which is possible will be taken to render assistance in dealing with the situation.

(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what decision has been arrived at in the matter of new capital ships; and what sums it is proposed to expend?

No decision has yet been reached pending the final conclusion of the Washington Conference, and I am not at present in a position to answer the second part of the question.

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to wait for the reply of France in the matter of possible naval reductions before definite orders are given to our shipyards to suspend or alter work which is in hand?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The capital ship contracts have been suspended. No further action is being taken pending the result of the Washington Conference.

Have the Government considered the possibility of buying the "Mutso" from Japan and proposing to pay them at some subsequent time big interest on the sum involved?

The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.

(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the report that two new battleships are to be proceeded with as a result of the Washington Conference and that these ships are to be of considerably less tonnage than those for which contracts were recently entered into by the Admiralty; and will he further say assuming that it is, or may be, the intention of the Admiralty to construct two new battleships on the reduced basis of tonnage, whether in the altered circumstances it will now be possible to utilise for this purpose the slip at Devonport where the discharges from the dockyard are causing great local distress and unemployment?

Is the hon. Gentlemen aware that the same claim can be put forward very much more strongly for the Port of Barrow-in-Furness?