asked the Minister of Pensions how many of the permanent and temporary members of the various headquarters staffs and their branches are ex-service men, and their proportion in each case to the total numbers employed both permanently and temporarily?

Excluding the Pension Issue Office and the Statistical Branch, which, under present conditions, are mainly reserved for women, 679 permanent and 7,671 temporary men are employed in the various headquarter offices and their branches in London and the provinces. Of these, 540 (or 79 per cent.) of the permanent men and 7,589 (or 99 per cent.) of the temporary men, are ex-service men.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether a scheme prepared by the Board of Agriculture for constituting holdings on the site of Nigg Camp, Ross-shire, and approved by the Treasury, has now been postponed?

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a resolution of protest against the delay in providing small holdings on the site of Nigg Camp; and whether he can hold out any hope of early action to satisfy the demand put forward by ex-service men?

The scheme to which my right hon. Friend refers was laid before me in accordance with the provisions of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919. On consideration of all the circumstances I did not feel justified in authorising the scheme. In accordance with my instructions, however, the Board of Agriculture are proceeding under an alternative method by which I hope that a suitable scheme for the settlement of ex-service men may be arranged very shortly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that owing to the disappointment of these ex-service men at the delay they have now seized the land and are in possession of it?

I think that is not so. I have taken steps to inform these ex-service men of the present position and the instructions I have given, and the situation has been entirely eased.

Do we understand that the scheme has been abandoned after it had been approved by the Treasury?

The scheme was abandoned because, under authority conferred upon me by Statute, I did not think it proper that it should proceed.

Had it meantime been approved by the Treasury.

I think it had been approved by the Treasury so far as the Treasury had jurisdiction, and by the Board of Agriculture, but by this Statute the final say in the matter is conferred upon the Secretary for Scotland.

What are the grounds for the right hon. Gentleman's decision?

I am not at all sure that I am bound to give them in answer to a question. I gave the scheme most careful consideration and in the exercise of the discretion conferred on me I turned it down.

What precisely does the Minister mean by saying he is not bound to give us, who represent Scottish seats, the information on which he turned down this proposal?

I said quite distinctly that I am not sure that I am bound to give that information in answer to a question. The hon. Member will have the fullest opportunity, if he desires it, to raise it.

May we not be informed why the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind?

There was no change of mind.

Must there not have been a change of mind, in view of the fact that he submitted it to the Treasury?

No, the Treasury has to consider the matter from the point of view of finance. I have to consider it from a wider point of view.

Was not the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the scheme when he submitted it to the Treasury?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better raise it on the Estimates.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the case of Mrs. Jane Machin, of Starkholmes, Matlock, whose son, Leading-seaman Ivor Machin, No. 182,420, H.M.S. "Defence," was killed at the Battle of Jutland, and in respect of whom she has been receiving a pension, including bonus, of 4s. 2d. a week, which is now discontinued; whether he is aware that Mrs. Machin is a widow 72 years of age; that all her sons fought in the War; and that her only income is her old age pension and a small amount, never exceeding 5s. weekly, from her only unmarried son, who lives away from home; and whether he will immediately restore this small pension and thus render unnecessary any application for Poor Law relief?

I am personally inquiring into the facts of this case, and will communicate with my hon. Friend at an early date.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of W. J. H., late No. 971,162, Royal Field Artillery, who was demobilised in August, 1919, and who applied for a pension in respect of tuberculosis in April, 1921; if he is aware that this has been refused by the Ministry on the ground that the medical advisers were unable to certify that the disability was in any way related to this ex-soldier's service; will he state, if the Ministry does not acknowledge any responsibility, why the man has recently been in one of the Government hospitals at the expense of the Government for treatment for tuber- culosis; and, in view of the fact that he joined up voluntarily as a healthy active man and was passed A 1 into the Service, that he is now in an advanced state of pulmonary tuberculosis, and has no means to live on whatever, will he reconsider the case as a special one and give this man some immediate assistance?

The decision of my Department having been confirmed and made final by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, I regret that the application for pension cannot be re-opened I would remind my hon. Friend that treatment for tuberculosis is provided by local authorities for both ex-service men and civilians in accordance with their general scheme of treatment for this disease as approved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of his statement that discharged and pensioned sailors and soldiers should not suffer on account of the Geddes Committee Report, he is aware that on 3rd May more than 20 men had to go from Paignton to Torquay to draw their weekly allowance at a cost of 9d. to each man; and whether this amount will be refunded to these men?

I regret to find that there was some misunderstanding in this matter. The allowances should have been remitted by postal draft, and that course will be followed in future. In the circumstances the necessary travelling expenses incurred by these men will be refunded.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the total personnel of the Royal Aircraft Establishment; and what are the numbers, respectively, of technical staff, clerical staff, skilled mechanics, and unskilled labourers?

The total personnel is 1,316, of whom 270 represent scientific and technical staff (including Royal Air Force officers), 85 clerical staff, 626 skilled mechanics (including apprentices). and 335 labourers and general workers.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a certain firm of bankers are endeavouring to recover from ex-officers money which was paid to them in error by that firm a considerable time ago and accepted by them in good faith; and what steps does the Ministry propose to take in the matter?

If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of the cases he has in mind, I will investigate them and will send him a reply.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask why the Air Force entrust the payment of their officers to two banks, one of which carries it out in a businesslike way and the other in an unsatisfactory way? Why not entrust the payment of officers of the Air Force to one bank?

I will make inquiries.

Is there any reason why the Air Force should not adopt the policy of the Admiralty, and not give a monopoly to any private bank at all?

If the hon. Member will put down a question on the subject in a few days, I will give him a reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the letter issued by the Agent-General for Tasmania regarding Commander Burney's proposal for establishing an Imperial airship service; whether His Majesty's Government have come to any definite decision regarding this proposal; and whether, in the event of this or any other similar scheme being adopted, it will be stipulated that the Air Ministry shall maintain adequate technical control?

asked the Secretary of State for Air what action His Majesty's Government, intend to take regarding the proposal put forward by Messrs. Vickers, Limited, and the Shell Company to develop airship communications?

I am familiar with the letter referred to by my hon. Friend, and have been in close communication with the Agent-General of Tasmania in regard to Commander Burney's proposal for establishing an Imperial Airship Service. Although I am unable at this stage to make any statement regarding the financial aspect of the scheme, Commander Burney has been informed that, in the opinion of the Air Council, his scheme constitutes a notable advance on previous proposals of this kind, and that if certain additional safeguards are provided, it offers reasonable prospect of satisfactory operation between India and this country. This statement is subject to the definite qualification that the commercial success of an undertaking depending upon the regular use of airships as a means of transport must, at present, be highly speculative. In the event of this or any other similar scheme being adopted, the question of adequate technical control by the Air Ministry will receive full consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the publication of the list of those British undertakings, financial and commercial, in respect to whose creditors the Brazilian Government has defaulted, for the purpose of warning the British investor, especially when money is so much needed in this country.

I have been asked to answer this question, in consequence of the indisposition of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As a result of inquiries made since the hon. Member last gave notice of a question on this subject, I have been unable to ascertain that the Brazilian Government, as distinct from Brazilian municipalities, is in default in respect of the creditors of any British commercial or financial undertakings.

asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glas- gow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if his attention has been drawn to the efforts now being made to re-establish the financial position of metropolitan hospitals; if, in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case, he is prepared to waive the rule forbidding the erection of advertisements in the royal parks; and if in this special case he can see his way to authorise the display of posters of moderate size, provided they are only fixed outside the park railings and for a strictly limited period?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The First Commissioner felt that, as the object in view was of such importance and of so much interest to the public generally, he would not be justified in withholding his consent to the exhibition of these appeals; but his permission was given with great hesitation, on account of possible interference with the amenities of the parks, and only on the definite understanding that it would not form a precedent.

Would applications be considered from any other charity on the same principle?

That is just what I have said would not be done.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in view of the fact that by the Act for the ratification of the Treaty the number of soldiers that can be raised by the Provisional Government is fixed in proportion to those employed by the Imperial Government, what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure that this provision shall be observed; whether he will state what, is the number of men at present on the strength of the Free State Army; and if he can say what is the form of oath taken by such recruits?

As the House, was informed last Thursday, if and when, as a result of the elections shortly to be held, the Free State is established in Ireland, the provisions of Article 8 of the Treaty will come into force, and their strict observance will be an object of legitimate inquiry by His Majesty's Government. Meanwhile, as the House is fully aware, the position is one of great difficulty. His Majesty's Government are quite satisfied that the forces at the disposal of the Provisional Government are within the proportion contemplated by the Treaty, but it would not be fair to the Provisional Govern-men for me to give a more definite reply to this question in the present circumstances. I am informed that no oath is taken by recruits.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiries as to whether the oath is the same as that which was taken by the Irish Republican Army?

I have done that. Since this question was put on the Paper I have been making inquiries and I am informed that no oath is taken by recruits.

When will the elections take place, and will they be pushed on, in view of the conditions in Ireland at the present moment?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of that question. It does not arise here.

On a point of Order. It arises out of the right hon. Gentleman's reply.

Is an oath necessary in the case of the soldiers of the Free State?

That is really not a question that should be asked of me.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman boasted several times in this House that he was responsible for all law and order in Ireland?

No, Sir. I must disclaim, and the Government disclaims, any responsibility for law and order since the transfer of powers on 1st April last.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a speech of Mr. Moylan, delivered at the Dail Eireann in Dublin on 28th April, in the presence of all the members of the Provisional Government, in which he stated that he was the leader of a body of armed Republicans, that he always seized every opportunity to rob British subjects of their goods to support this band, and that he himself had robbed 19 post offices around Kanturk, and had collected the taxes in the district and used them for his own purposes; whether, in view of the fact that no prosecution has been instituted against this member of the Dail, His Majesty's Government will make representations to the Provisional Government that this man should be prosecuted before a legal tribunal?

My attention has been called to a newspaper report of the speech to which the hon. Member refers. As the hon. Member implies in his question, the Provisional Government is responsible for the enforcement of law and order within their area, and I must again ask the House to recognise what is the fact, that that Government is at present faced with armed rebellion against its authority, and is not, therefore, in a position to take the action which it would naturally take if its authority were unchallenged.

The right hon. Gentleman has frequently stated that if we bring cases to his notice, he will bring them to the notice of the Provisional Government. Here I have brought a case in which a member of the Dail boasts of having robbed British subjects. Does he say he will put no pressure on the Provisional Government immediately to take action against this man who boasts publicly in a public assembly of what he has done?

That question should have been put down.

Seeing that the right hon. Baronet still poses as Chief Secretary for Ireland—

The hon. Baronet begins his question in a way that puts him out of court.

May I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that this is a question of robbing British subjects? Is that not a case for this House?

It is a question of order in Ireland.

My question, I hope, is in order. I was merely going to ask the right hon. Baronet—

If the hon. Baronet cannot begin a question with ordinary courtesy, I must stop him. He used the word "pose," which obviously is not a word used in ordinary courtesy between Members of the House.

Will you allow me to apologise? I did not use it in any offensive way. I merely meant to say I do not know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman does stand for, because he does not represent the South of Ireland. I was going to ask if he could not find time to go there himself and satisfy himself of the real ghastly state of affairs there.

Is there really no way by which open and avowed robbery of British subjects can be stopped in Ireland?

In view of the unsatisfactory answer given to Question No. 22 on the Paper to-day, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, and that is, the open and avowed robbery of British subjects in Southern Ireland, and the refusal or omission of the Provisional Government to prosecute the avowed perpetrators of these outrages and the refusal of the British Government to make representations on the subject to the Provisional Government?

This is not a Motion that I can accept. It clearly deals with a matter which Parliament, by Statute, has transferred to the Provisional Government, namely, internal order in the Southern part of Ireland.

On a point of Order. Are we not entitled to complain, and, if necessary, to complain on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, of the refusal of the British Government, given to-day, to call the attention of the Provisional Government to these serious outrages in Ireland?

I made no such statement in the answer which I gave. Representations are made, personally and by letter, daily to the Provisional Government on all matters of this kind that arise. I made no statement that I refused to make representations.

Did I not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in a particular case, he would call the attention of the Provisional Government to the circumstances and urge them to prosecute, especially having regard to the fact that the individual concerned is a member of the Dail, and did not the right hon. Gentleman say he would not do so?

I did not even rise. Mr. Speaker rose, and I was compelled to remain seated. The House, I am sure, will bear me out when I say that to practically every question that has been put, asking if representations will be made, the answer has been in the affirmative. I repeat that, both personally and by letter, representations are daily made to the Ministers of the Provisional Government in regard to these and similar cases.

Has this particular case been represented to the Provisional Government, and have they given an answer that they cannot function in the matter in their own capital city?

I cannot answer that question.

On a point of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman cannot state that he has made any representations to the Provisional Government, might I respectfully suggest that if this had happened in a foreign country we should have had the right to ask our Government to make representations to that foreign Power that steps should be taken to protect British subjects. Surely, it cannot be ruled that we should have less power in our own Dominions than we have in a foreign country.

On a, point of Order. Is it not a fact that on previous occasions, and as one instance in 1906, in the case of Natal, our Government interfered in the interests of the preservation of law and order, and that representations were made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Government of Natal to protect the interests of the subjects of the Crown?

I cannot say that I have in mind the case of 1906. Therefore I will not say anything about that for the moment, but really this question of representations does not arise, because the Chief Secretary has stated that he has made representations. If it were permitted to bring that on at the end of questions, it would make possible the raising in this manner of a continual series of subjects which Parliament has deliberately transferred to another authority.

I beg pardon for insisting on having a ruling on this point, but it is of great importance. Do I understand, Sir, that you rule that we could ask the Government to interfere in the case of a foreign country, but that we cannot in the case of one of our own Dominions?

I have given no such ruling, and, what is more, I should not be drawn further than dealing with the particular case in question.

On a point of Order. Is it not always a matter for the cognisance of this House if there is a robbery of British citizens, wherever they are, whether in the Colonies or abroad? Where British citizens are robbed, is it not the duty of this House to demand information and, if necessary, investigation?

This House has, in various cases, transferred responsibility for law and order to other authorities. Where it has done so, hon. Members do not retain the right to raise these matters on the Floor of the House—certainly not by way of an Adjournment Motion.

On a point of Order. I would like a ruling whether the point of Order is not very considerably altered by the fact that when we were asked to agree to the bargain between the representatives of Ireland and the Government, the representatives of the Government in this House gave us distinctly to understand that the assistance of the Government would be given to the Provisional Government in maintaining order and in preserving the amenity of life in Ireland?

Any question of assistance, if asked for, does not change the place where the responsibility rests.

On a point of Order. Is it not within the power of this Parliament to withdraw, if it should think fit, the authority which it has conferred upon the Provisional Government in Ireland, and, if that is so, is it not open to this House to consider and discuss whether circumstances have arisen which would render that course necessary?

Of course, what Parliament by Statute has conferred, Parliament by Statute may equally withdraw, but it would be on a proposal to withdraw that the matter could be discussed.

On a point of Order. Might I ask one further question? Where the British Government deliberately refuses to make representations to the Provisional Government in a matter affecting the lives or property of British subjects, are we not entitled to challenge the action of the British Government in this House for their failure and, if necessary, to do so upon a Motion for the Adjournment of the House?

On a point of Order. May I put this point of view to you, Sir? It is conceded, as I understand it, that it is part of the duty of the Government to make representations to the Provisional Government in this matter; that is to say, that the Government themselves recognise that it is part of their duty to do something to protect British subjects in the South of Ireland from these outrages which they are alleged to have undergone. If it be their duty to make representations, might it not be contended, with some force, that it is their duty to make those representations effective, and, if those representations are not effective, is it not within the power of hon. Members to raise the question whether something further ought not to be done in order that the Government's duty in this matter should be effectively discharged?

As I conceive it, if the Noble Lord's doctrine were accepted, the whole fabric of the British Commonwealth would be gone.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what recognition is being made to the temporary unestablished civilians attached to the Royal Engineers in Ireland whose connection with his Department and whose employment are now being terminated as a result of the Southern Irish settlement; whether he is aware that some have been employed for many years and made their homes in Ireland and are yet now cast adrift; whether he will investigate especially the case of Henry S. Noakes, surveyor, thus discharged after nearly 20 years' service; and whether, in view of the recent establishment of several other temporary unestablished staffs, such as health, valuation, and dockyards, a similar procedure can be followed in the case of these men attached for so long to the Royal Engineers?

The position of War Department employés in Southern Ireland whose services are no longer required in con sequence of the change of Government, including those in the Royal Engineer services, is still under consideration, and I hope that a decision will not be long delayed. Steps have already been taken in the case of certain classes of employés of the Royal Engineers who have served continuously since before the War to effect transfer to other commands where vacancies can be found. As regards the case of Mr. Noakes, whilst the Department would naturally wish to assist him if possible, I understand he desires employment under the Free State Government and I am not aware whether that Government is in a position to offer him employment. His last period of service under the War Department, which was on a purely temporary basis, dated from April, 1919, only. As regards the last part of the question, proposals for the establishment of certain classes of Royal Engineer employés in the War Department service generally are being investigated through the War Office Whitley Council machinery.

(by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the House the Terms of Reference to the Irish Distress Committee presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea?

Yes, Sir. The Terms of Reference are as follow:

What sum of money has been placed at the disposal of this Committee?

The Leader of the House has already said about £10,000.

Is not £10,000 a miserably inadequate sum to allocate in this matter, in which there are hundreds of cases to be dealt with?

Will this Committee have power to make any recommendations for permanent compensation or only to alleviate temporary difficulties?

To alleviate temporary difficulties. It has power to make further recommendations of any kind.

Where will the Committee hold its meetings?

All correspondence is to be addressed to the Office of the Committee at 9, Queen Anne's Gate, which is a few doors away from the Irish Office.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that the Reparation Commission have received a reply to their last Note from Germany recognising the need to cover all outgoings without resorting to further inflation, stating that the German Government will before the 31st May submit to the Commission a complete financial scheme, and offering to afford to the Reparation Commission all facilities to investigate the state of German finances, whether he will state what steps the Commission are now taking to carry out this investigation; whether a Report thereon will be published; and whether any replies have yet been received to the communication addressed to Allied Governments owing war debts to this country concerning the transfer of inter-Allied debt responsibility to Germany?

I understand that the Reparation Commission have received an answer from the German Government which is now under their consideration. I cannot say what the result of that consideration will be. No official communication has been made to the Allied Governments of the kind suggested in the last part of the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has the assurance of the Government of the French Republic that they will take part in a conference on the question of German reparation before taking further military action against German territory?

No fresh assurances have been given or asked because none are required. Should the Reparation Commission report that Germany is in default, it will be necessary for the Allied Governments to confer together as to the action to he taken.

When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of fresh assurances, does he mean that we had already assurances to this effect, and is he aware that the present policy is to march on the 31st unless an agreement is reached?

No: I am certainly not aware that the allegation in the second part of the question is correct. I cannot conceive that it is. In regard to the first part we have a definite and explicit assurance from the French Government. After the occupation of Frankfort, I think it was in April, 1920, we received from the French Government the following declaration, "that as regards the future the Government of the Republic repeat that in all inter-Allied questions raised by the execution of the Treaty of Versailles there is no intention of acting save in accordance with its Allies."

asked the Prime Minister whether any communication has been received from the Government of the United States of America regarding the action to be taken by that Government, with or without the cooperation of the other Allied and Associated Powers, regarding the failure of Germany to satisfy the demands of the Reparation Commission on 31st May; and whether America has yet stated whether she will participate in the occupation of the Ruhr Valley should that measure be decided upon by the Allies as well as by France?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, although inspectors of weights and measures can take legal action against the seller of goods where it is proved that the weights themselves are false, they cannot take such legal action, except as common informers, where short weight in goods is given by the seller; and whether he will take steps to amend the law to give inspectors of weights and measures the necessary authority to take legal action in this connection, thereby protecting the public against short weight in the purchase of commodities?

The hon. Member will find the legal position as to short weight fully set out in the Report of the Select Committee on Short Weight, 1914 (H.C. 359). As already stated, the Government propose to introduce shortly legislation with regard to the sale of tea and bread.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that members of the State Management Council recently visited Maryport, near Carlisle, with the view to purchasing 29 licensed houses in West Cumberland not at present under State control; that the owners refused to sell; and that, during the period when the supply of alcoholic liquors was restricted, State control houses at Maryport were supplied with liquor far in excess of their ration, while private houses were strictly confined to their ration; and when it is proposed to stop this State competition with private enterprise?

Certain members of the Council visited Maryport and discussed the question of purchase with certain owners. The latter were unwilling to sell. As I told the House, there is no present intention of making any further purchases. I know of no foundation for the allegations contained in the third part of the question. It is not proposed to end the State Management Scheme.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries? Is he aware that I have been on the spot?

Is it not a fact that a distinct pledge was given to the House that there should be no extension of this State control, and, in view of that pledge, how is it that negotiations have been taking place since?

Because the negotiations were before the pledge.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say by what authority these gentlemen have been negotiating for the purchase of these 29 houses?

Yes, Sir. The functions of the Central Control (Liquor) Board have been transferred to the Home Office.

Would it not have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had stated, when he gave the pledge, that the negotiations were going on'?

The question was not asked of me. It was common knowledge.

Does not the right hors. Gentleman realise that when he makes a pledge the House takes it as a pledge, and not that something is being done behind it?

There has been nothing done behind the pledge. The negotiations were in existence, then the Schedule came out, the pledge was given, and nothing further was done.

Would not all these difficulties be solved if the right hon. Gentleman went. out of the beer business?

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has received details of the armed risings of the Greeks in the Samsun and Baffra areas of the Black Sea coast of Turkey in Asia against the Turkish authorities in the latter part of 1921; whether these risings were aided by Greek warships, which landed arms at various points on the coast; and whether His Majesty's Government has received details of a plan for the formation of a Greek Pontus Republic comprising a great portion of the Black Sea coast?

His Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the Turkish statements regarding armed risings of Greeks in Pontus are unfounded. Three Greek warships bombarded Ineboli last June after the Turkish authorities had refused a demand for the surrender of arms and the destruction of munition dumps. Also at the same period one shell was fired by a Greek destroyer at Eregli, and minor bombardments are alleged to have taken place at Trebizond, Rizeh Barracks and Samsun. There is no evidence that any arms were landed. On the other hand, there is no doubt that a movement existed among the Greeks of Pontus, fostered and encouraged by Greek communities and associations of Pontic Greeks abroad, for the liberation of Pontus from Turkish misrule; and several appeals from such associations have been received by His Majesty's Government since the Armistice, asking that the claims of the Pontic Greeks to independence might be favourably considered in the peace settlement. Such political aspirations, however, can furnish no justification for the wholesale and barbarous deportations of women and children which have recently been carried out by the Turks from the district in question.

Why is it that Greek statements are always accepted but no Turkish statement is accepted? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this case His Majesty's High Commissioner at Constantinople has the information about the villages burnt and the people killed by these Greek bands? I do not say one excuses the other.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in the habit of putting as facts his own suppositions. It is not a fact that the statements of the Greeks are always accepted by the Government without confirmation. The information I give the House is drawn from our own or from competent neutral observers.

(by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether a prominent and independent Mahommedan such as Sir Abbas Ali Baig, K.C.I.E., C.S.L, late Member of the Council of the Secretary of State for India, now resident in this country, or other person of like character and position, will be included in the Committee of Investigation into charges made against the Anatolian Turkish Government and Turks of cruelties and atrocities perpetrated against the Pontine Greeks, and whether the Committee will also be charged with the duty of investigating the conduct of the Greeks towards the Turks from the date of the Greek landing in Smyrna?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether, if it be considered necessary to have a Kemalist representative on this Commission, he will also see the desirability of having a prominent Greek like M. Venizelos, the former Greek Premier, on the Commission?

The hon. Member could not have heard the question. There is no suggestion in it of a Kemalist representative. It is a question of appointing a distinguished Mahommedan who is a British subject. The suggestion made in the question will be carefully considered as soon as the replies of the Allied and American Governments and of the Angora authorities to the proposals of His Majesty's Government have been received. In regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil).

I apologise for having unintentionally done any injustice to the distinguished Mahommedan gentle man mentioned. I merely again ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the advisability, in case of a distinguished Mahommedan representative being put on the Committee, of putting a distinguished Greek on the Committee also.

I will repeat the hon. Member's suggestion to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I do not myself see any necessity for this proposal.

Do I understand that no replies have been received from any of the Governments?

So far as I know, no replies have yet been received. They had not been received yesterday, and a message pressing for a quick reply was then sent.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, owing to continued unemployment, the present cost of school feeding is imposing an extra charge upon the ratepayers in England and Wales of over £30,000 per month in excess of last year on account of the Government's reduction of the grant in aid; and whether, in view of the seriousness of this burden, the Government propose to take any steps to prevent this additional cost being thrown on industrial and other districts already heavily over rated?

I can add nothing to the answer given by the Leader of the House on the 8th May to questions put by the hon. Member and the hon. Member for the Dartford Division.

Why should expenses which were a national charge last year be a charge on local authorities this year, when the rates are so much higher than they were last year?

That is a matter for argument.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose this Session to pass a Bill amending the present Criminal Law Acts?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies upon his official visit to the West Indies will be published?

I explained to my hon. Friend on a previous occasion that the Report would be laid on the Table of the House as soon as there had been time for it to reach the Colonies concerned. The Report was despatched by last week's mail, with a request that its receipt should be acknowledged by telegraph. As soon as these replies have been received from the Governors concerned, immediate arrangements will be made for it to be laid.

Was the hon. Gentleman authorised to give any pledge of his recent tour in reference to the future fiscal system of this country?

I do not think that arises out of this question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows the answer to it as well as I do. If he puts down a formal question, I will answer it.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Dutch Government will pay for all the expenses of the proposed conferences regarding Russia to be held at The Hague in the same manner as the Italian Government have paid for Genoa; and whether, in addition to the amounts to be paid in connection with these conferences by the Dutch and Italian Governments, Supplementary Estimates for the expenses of British participants in them will be presented to the House?

The question of any such expenses being borne by the Dutch Government has not in any way arisen. With regard to the latter part of the question, it is unlikely that it will be necessary to present a Supplementary Estimate for the expenses of the British Delegation, as provision is made for such expenditure under Sub-head K1 (Special Missions and Services) of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote in which an item of £20,000 for "Unforeseen Missions and Services" is included.

Are we to understand that the Mission to The Hague will be purely a Foreign Office Mission, on which other Departments will not be represented?

If there be a Mission to The Hague—I do not speak with final authority at present—I do not think it would be purely a Foreign Office Mission in the sense of being drawn from the ordinary diplomatic or Foreign Office staff. Matters to be discussed at The Hague would require experts of a different character.

Will the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs be represented at The Hague?

Will the question he brought before the House, and shall we be allowed to discuss the personnel of the delegation which is likely to go to The Hague?

It would be for the Chairman of Committees to say whether it is possible under that head to discuss something which the hon. Member thinks is likely to happen. As regards all these questions, I think they had better be deferred until myself or until some Minister can tell the House definitely that there is to be such a Conference at The Hague, and of what nature it will be.

asked the Prime Minister whether a subsequent Conference to the Genoa Conference has been arranged to consider the results of that Conference; where will it be held and on what date; what Powers have agreed to send representatives; who the British representatives will be; and whether a further Vote of Confidence will be invited from this House?

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many international conferences have been held since the signing of the Peace Treaty; and whether he can make any statement as to the proposed conference at. The Hague?

I have not yet received official information of the decisions on these questions. As regards the first part of the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, I am doubtful as to its intention and scope, but if I am right in thinking that he refers to Conferences of the Supreme Council I would refer him to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on the 27th March.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything definite about the Prime Minister's return, and the possibility of his being able to give this information?

I have reason to expect that the Prime Minister will return to this country next Saturday evening, but I cannot make any definite statement as to a discussion in this House until I have seen him.

Will the discussion, when it takes place, be in such a form as to permit the House to pronounce its opinion definitely on the issue involved?

I have not come to any conclusion on the subject. If one of the Opposition desires to Table a Motion, of course, I will consider the character of the Motion and see whether we can afford facilities for it.

It is not the intention of the Government to put down another Vote of Confidence in themselves?

I reserve the right to do that at any time I think fit.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can state, apart from reductions consequent upon the Washington Agreement, what is the net annual saving effected in the Naval Estimates?

It is not possible to give the net annual saving on Navy Estimates if by net annual saving is meant the saving which will be continued year by year. For it is evident that certain classes of savings,e.g., those resulting from reduced purchases of oil fuel in 1922–23, as compared with those in 1921–22, or in the Sketch Estimates as submitted to the Geddes Committee, will not necessarily be repeated in subsequent years. The Navy Estimates for 1922–23 show a reduction, as compared with those submitted to the Geddes Committee, of £16,300,100. To this sum must be added a sum of £3,054,800 included in the current Navy Estimates on the non-effective Votes and involved by the reduction of naval personnel, These figures taken together amount to £19,354,900, and if from that sum be taken the £11,095,300 due to the stoppage of the four battle-cruisers, as the result of the Washington Conference, the net reduction may be taken as £8,259,600. I deprecate, however, the attempt to distinguish too sharply between the savings due to the Washington Conference and those resulting from the recommendations of the Geddes Committee. The Cabinet, in considering the Navy Estimates for 1922–23. had in mind the successful issue of the former as well as the latter, and were, of course, influenced by both in coming to their conclusions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no fewer than 1,800 naval officers and many thousands of men are being economised in the Navy this year?

The hon. Member is making a statement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can give the House any official information about the progress of the movement for the reform of the House of Lords?

No, Sir. There are no official statistics on the subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information about the powers of which it is proposed to deprive them by these Resolutions?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the progress of this movement is backward or forward?

When the Foreign Secretary has recovered his health will these Resolutions be introduced into the House of Lords, or, in view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary is apparently still seriously ill, will the Government take any other steps to table the Resolutions, so that we can know exactly what the form will be?

That is a very natural question to ask, and the hon. Gentleman will feel that it is equally natural that the Government should have desired that this question should have been introduced into the House of Lords by the, Leader of that House. I hope that my Noble Friend will be sufficiently restored to health to take up his duties again in that House before long; but I agree that even his absence cannot be allowed to defer indefinitely the progress of this matter.

Can the right hon. Gentleman renew his pledge that these proposals will be carried into law before this Parliament is dissolved?

I am always anxious to gratify my hon. and gallant Friend, but perhaps I had better not on this occasion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange in the weekly Revenue and Expenditure Returns to show separately the expenditure on the fighting services, the Civil Services, and the Revenue Departments?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a question on 11th May to the hon. and gallant Member for the Henley Division, in which my right hon. Friend the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer promised to consider an amplification of the quarterly return in the direction desired. The weekly return shows the total issues for Supply Services. Owing to the pooling of balances with the Paymaster-General, the issues for each Department do not over short periods give any indication of the actual expenditure of that Department, and figures of the kind asked for in the question would be merely misleading.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the Treasury Bills shown in the Floating Debt Return for March, 1922, consisted of bills deposited as collateral security for external debt; and whether this sum is also included in the total of external debt for the same date?

The Treasury Bill total given in the Exchequer Return for 31st March, to which I assume my hon. Friend refers, is the total of all Treasury Bills. Of this total about £8,500,000 either carry an option of repayment abroad or are issued as collateral for foreign debt. These bills are counted as external debt for the purposes of the External Debt Return.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can arrange to show separately in the Weekly Revenue Return the Excise revenue from beer and whisky?

I regret that I cannot see my way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. Weekly figures tend to be misleading owing to special circumstances affecting clearances, etc., from time to time. Figures relating to such a period would, therefore, afford no reliable index to the state of the revenue, and would inevitably lead to mistaken inferences.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government has abandoned, or contem- plates abandoning, the scheme of international credits unanimously adopted at Brussels; how many applications have been before the international credits organisation for the right to issue gold bonds under the auspices of the League of Nations?

The Termeulen scheme is a matter for the consideration of the League of Nations and the countries which desire to borrow, and His Majesty's Government are not directly concerned in it. I understand, however, that four definite applications are before the League and that numerous other applications are pending.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any appeal by the Inland Revenue Department has been lodged in the Union Pacific Railroad Rights case; and, if not, whether those persons who paid Income Tax under misapprehension many years ago will receive a refund with interest?

The decision of the Court in the case to which the hon. Member refers was in favour of the Crown, and has not been appealed against. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Health has in recent years, as a condition precedent to granting sanction to loans or to agreeing to certain Clauses in private Bills, stipulated that the particular corporation should accept the Government audit, he can give an undertaking that if the Audit (Local Authorities, etc.) Bill is passed, the Ministry will not adopt this attitude in respect to the audit proposed under the Measure?

The Clause in the Bill enabling a borough council to adopt Government audit was withdrawn in Standing Committee. The point suggested by my hon. Friend does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received resolutions from the Horwich Urban Council asking for the extension of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1920, and requesting the continuance of financial assistance to local authorities' housing schemes; and whether, in view of the failure of the ordinary economic laws to meet the present housing shortage, he can make a statement on the subject?

As regards the extension of the Rent Restrictions Act I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division on the 15th March. On the question of an extension of the State-aided housing scheme, I cannot add anything to the statements I have already made.

Does that mean that we cannot hope that the Minister of Health will do anything to help to reduce the shortage of houses in this country?

No.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, under the Trade Facilities Act, 1921, £100,000 cash has been guaranteed to Messrs. Hugh Stevenson and Sons, Limited, and Messrs. Cropper and Company, Limited, for the purpose of completing the erection and equipment of a board mill: whether the sums under the Act to be guaranteed were for reducing unemployment and affording finance reasonably unobtainable without State assistance; whether every board-mill factory is still working short time; and, if so, what is the reason for the advances made to Messrs. Stevenson and Cropper?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I have no special information as regards the third part; and as regards the last part, the recommendations were made by the Advisory Committee appointed under the Trade Facilities Act, and they satisfied themselves that these were oases in which the Government guarantee could properly be given.

Why should my hon. Friend approve of this grant of money for those two firms if it is a fact that the board-mill trade is working only halftime, and that the Trade Facilities Act is to provide money to relieve unemployment?

We rely in this matter on the judgment of the Advisory Committee, who take into account this among other matters.

asked the Postmaster-General on what principle, and subject to what conditions, licences for wireless broad-casting stations are given to industrial concerns?

The conditions under which licences for wireless broad-casting will be granted have been the subject of a conference with the interests concerned. My right hon Friend will take an opportunity of making a statement as soon as the conditions are settled.

I will put down a question next week.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that paragraph 6 of Circular U.I.A. 505 C compels local employment committees to refuse benefit to a single man or woman who lives with an adult relative who is employed half-time or more, he will say whether these persons are entitled to benefit towards which they have contributed; and under what section of what Act is he acting in directing committees to refuse benefit?

As I have repeatedly stated, persons entitled to benefit under the permanent provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme in respect of contributions paid are in no way affected by the condition referred to, or the other special conditions relating to un-covenanted or "free" benefit. These conditions have been laid clown in the exercise of the discretionary power conferred by Section 4 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1922.

Is it not possible now for insured people to be deprived of benefit though they may have contributed to the scheme?

I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of the Circular which I sent to the local authorities on the point which will more fully explain the position.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the exact Clause under the Unemployment Insurance Act under which this is done?

Yes. Clause 4, sub-section (1):

"If it appears to the Minister, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is expedient in the public interest, etc.—"

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases men who form part of a family, all of whom are unemployed, have had their extension of benefit discontinued, for the sole realm that one member of the family is in receipt of unemployed benefit?

My hon. Friend has not correctly given the rule. The rule states that. "ordinarily persons will not be entitled," and the last paragraph says that these conditions are not designed to rule out of benefit cases where the provision would inflict real hardship. They are intended, however, to prevent the depletion of a fund which is limited, which is built up mainly by heavy contributions, and which is urgently needed in the case of those for whom it is properly designed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the general interpretation is that all single men are prevented from getting unemployed benefit, that there has been no end of hardship to the family—where there is a big family—and that the only person getting benefit is the head, while the rest must come under the Poor Law or starve?

Perhaps I might send my hon. Friend a copy of the Circular—

Send it all round.

I have no objection. If the hon. Member knows of any case which has not been administered in the spirit of the rule, I shall be glad to look into it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman send the same advice to all committees where it is being done?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that this rule of his makes the scheme a charitable scheme instead of an insurance scheme?

Since November, 1920, I have managed to make the Insurance Act find 57 weeks' benefit for persons who in some cases may not have paid anything at all. I do not think that these Regulations are unjust. They do not affect covenanted benefit.

asked the Home Secretary when the Wild Birds Protection Bill will be introduced?

I hope it may be possible to introduce the Bill soon after Whitsuntide, but I cannot at present make any promise.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that between 1,500 and 1,600 deaths of children occur every year in Great Britain as a result of being left alone in rooms with unprotected fires, he will introduce legislation to strengthen Section 15 of The Children Act, 1908, with a view to compelling householders having children under seven years of age to provide a fireguard in the case of fires in rooms frequented by such children?

I cannot accept the figures named in the question, but there is undoubtedly a considerable death rate among children from this cause. The risk is not one which can easily be dealt with by legislation and I cannot promise to introduce legislation specially for the purpose, but the question whether any Amendment of Section 15 of the Children Act, 1908, can be proposed will be carefully considered when an opportunity for reviewing that Act arises.

asked the Prime Minister if the Government have knowledge of any other pledges than those already disclosed given by the Government since 3rd August, 1914, on which they propose to base the introduction of further protective legislation; and, if so, what they are?

No, Sir. I am not aware of any other similar pledges.

—by Private Notice—asked the Minister of Health whether it is a fact that a recommendation or instruction has been given by his Department to any boards of guardians that relief should not be granted in cases where the head of the family is not at present employed in consequence of the dispute in the engineering industry, and, if so, will he state the reasons for this action?