asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the position of the 700 mental cases who were turned out of the Government mental hospitals and sent to the common asylums at the charge of the local ratepayers, their pensions being stopped at the time of discharge; and, if he cannot reconsider this, will he give the House an opportunity of discussing the matter?

The hon. Member is under a serious misapprehension. None of the cases in question were, as he suggests, turned out of Government hospitals. All certified cases of insanity are, by the law of the land, required to be in public asylums. Nor were any of the men in question in receipt of pensions. With regard to the suggestion in the last part of the question, perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave in the course of discussion on the Adjournment last night.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many of the 600 insane ex-service men whose maintenance has been thrown upon Poor Law authorities have appealed against the stoppage of pension allowances and treatment by his Department; what number of these appeals have been determined, and with what results; what steps have been taken to ensure that every one of these men are given facilities to appeal; and whether local pensions committees have been asked to assist these unfortunate men to prepare their cases for appeal?

The right of appeal to the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal has been open to these, as to all other cases, during the past four years, and many of them have already appealed, but in response to the notice specially sent out six months ago, I find that in about 275 cases further appeals, have been made. I regret that I have not complete figures as to the number of appeals which have at present been heard by the tribunals, but I am taking steps to obtain the information, and if the hon. Member will put a question down next week I shall be happy to give him the figures then available. Most careful steps were taken by my Department to ensure that every case was fully considered. In addition to the notifications to local authorities and others as to the approaching termination of the Ministry's liability in these cases, which made specific reference to the right of appeal, a special notification to this effect was sent to the nearest known relative of every man. In addition, my right hon. Friend the late Minister of Pensions caused special and independent review to be made by the Department itself into the merits of every case in order to satisfy himself again that the decision was right, and this review is being continued under my personal supervision. Intimation was sent at the same time to local committees, and it is their practice to assist appellants in a large number of cases.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what length of notice is given to the nearest relatives and what machinery is available to assist distressed relatives in making their appeals?

I cannot give the dates of the different notices. It is the duty of our Committee to help these men to formulate their appeals and to put them forward. We do not take up the position of opposing their appeals, and all the information we have, not merely against but in favour of a man, is supplied by us.

I asked particularly so far as the near relatives are concerned. It is not quite right to suggest that you help the patient who is a lunatic. What help do you give the nearest relative in properly formulating an appeal?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question on that specific point.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the public hostility to the policy of his Department, by which insane ex-service men have been made paupers, he will reconsider the decision to withdraw allowances until the cases have been heard on appeal to tribunals or the House has had an opportunity to discuss the question?

A large number of appeals have been made to the tribunal in these cases, and I have obtained special authority to continue to bear the cost of treatment for the men until the tribunal have given their decision.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider obtaining the sanction of this House for an alteration to the Royal Warrant, to enable him to accept as due to service any mental case of an ex-service man who served in the firing line, if only for one day, or who served overseas for not less than three months continuously?

The question whether a man's disability is due to or is worsened by service, which is the sole condition under which pension can be granted, is determined on the facts of each individual case, with full regard to the medical condition, conditions of service and other circumstances in the case. Active service overseas is, I can assure my hon. Friend, given the fullest weight in determining the question. I could not recommend the introduction into the Warrant of a purely arbitrary distinction between various kinds of service as a basis for the award of pension, and I do not think that such a distinction as that suggested by my hon. Friend would be in the best interests of ex-service men themselves.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of disabled or partially disabled men who have received training; the number who are now self-supporting; and whether, in view of the fact that hundreds of thousands of able-bodied ex-service men, munition workers, and others formerly engaged in occupations necessary for the successful prosecution of the late War are totally unable to obtain employment, he will recommend the Treasury to grant full and complete disability pensions for all disabled or partially disabled men and their dependants until such time as those who are able-bodied and fit for work have obtained employments?

As regards the first and second parts of the question, I under stand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that on the 31st October last the number of men who had received industrial training was 62,402, of whom 57,605 were disabled, and that there is no complete information available as to the number of ex-trainees who are now self-supporting. I may say that, in addition to the numbers already stated, some 11,000 disabled men were trained by the Ministry of Pensions prior to the transfer, in August, 1919, of the responsibility for training to the Ministry of Labour. As regards the last part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that the, amount of disablement pension is regulated solely by the degree of disablement resulting from War service as assessed from time to time by medical boards which examine the man. I regret that I do not see my way to recommend any? departure from this principle to meet conditions arising from unemployment.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state the grounds on which it was decided to stop allowances for special diet for ex-service men while under treatment for tuberculosis; how many of these men were receiving extra nourishment in the month of November, 1921, and in the same month of 1922; and what is the annual saving effected by this change?

The provision of special diet was introduced to meet abnormal conditions in regard to food supply which no longer obtain, and at a time when the pension and allowance scales were on an average only half their present rates. It is not the case that special diet in cases of tuberculosis is no longer given. An extra allowance is still granted in cases of pulmonary tuberculosis (whether the man is under treatment or not) where the circumstances justify the concession. The amount granted for special diet to tuberculous pensioners during the month of September last (the latest date for which figures are available) was about £3,000 as compared with £11,000 a year ago.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that many supervisory women officers in his Department receive less than those supervised, and that general dissatisfaction exists among the higher grades in consequence of this and other anomalies in their position; and whether he will consider referring to the industrial court the present differences of opinion as to the appropriate rates for the Departmental classes of divisional and assistant divisional superintendent, group supervisors, and checkers?

The rates of pay of temporary divisional superintendents, assistant divisional superintendents and group supervisors are in all cases higher than those of the grades whom they supervise; there are, however, a few instances where a temporary clerk is temporarily drawing less pay than a clerk in the grade below. This is due to the fact that the minimum pay of the higher grade is below the maximum pay of the lower; but the scales of pay, which were agreed with the staff associations concerned, are common to the temporary clerical staff of all Government Departments, and there are no grounds on which a special concession could be made to the staff affected in this Ministry. I have received no recent representations as to the alleged inadequacy of the pay or the Departmental classes referred to, and in any case, I do not consider that the matter is one for reference to the Industrial Court.

asked the Prime Minister whether he IB aware that before the Dissolution of the last Parliament petitions with several thousand signatures, including numbers from taxpayers not directly concerned, were sent to the Treasury appealing for an Industrial Court hearing of the case for and against further reductions in the rates of pay of temporary women civil servants; and whether he will consider allowing such a hearing to take place now, in view of the fact that it can be proved that the majority of women who would receive the proposed December reductions in salary already have insufficient food and clothing for full efficiency to be maintained, having to contribute to the support of others on inadequate wages?

I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, I am aware that a petition containing between two and three thousand signatures was submitted before the Dissolution of the last Parliament. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the question put yesterday by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to report on the Government Departments which could be abolished or merged, with a view to still further economy?

The question to which my hon. Friend refers is already engaging the attention of the Government, and every effort is being made, and will continue to be made, to secure further economy in this direction.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is considering the question of abolishing the Ministry of Transport?

Oh, yes. It has been arranged that it shall be abolished at a definite time, and we are considering whether it can be hastened.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received a communication from representatives of the temporary staff employed in His Majesty's Departments of State requesting an interview to discuss the proposals to reduce the rates of pay; and will he receive the deputation before the revised rates become operative?

I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for the Bedwelty Division of Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), to which I have nothing to add.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any rule in the Government service which permits persons retired on pension for service in one Department from taking whole-time posts in other civil Departments; and whether there are in the Ministries of Pensions and Labour cases in which persons with service pensions up to £l,000 a year are receiving salaries of between £500 and £1,000 a year?

The suspension or abatement of a pension awarded under the Civil Superannuation Acts in the event of the pensioner being re-employed in an office in a public Department is dealt with by Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, to which I may refer the hon. Member. A retired officer of the Army, Navy or Air Force re-employed in a civil capacity is not normally subject to suspension or abatement of his retired pay, which is, of course, awarded under conditions quite different from those applicable to civil pensions. I am not aware of the employment in the Ministry of Labour of any officer with a service pension approximating to £l,000 per annum, tout I understand that a number of retired senior officers of His Majesty's forces with considerable service pensions are employed in the Ministry of Pensions in posts for which their qualifications and experience render them peculiarly suitable.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any in receipt of Civil Service pensions employed at full rates in either of the other Departments?

I should doubt that, but if the hon. Member will put a question down, I will look into it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many conscientious objectors to military service have been given employment by the Government since the Armistice; how many still remain in Government employment; and if there is any work which these men are doing which could not as well be performed by ex-service men now out of employment?

The employment in Government Departments of conscientious objectors to military service is only permitted in the case of certain individuals who already held permanent appointments. The total number so employed was estimated a year ago at 210 to 230; but I am not aware whether any of the men then employed have since left Government service. On the grounds for their retention, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the Select Committee on the Civil Service (Employment of Conscientious Objectors).

asked the Minister of Pensions, concerning the case of Mr. Arthur Jones, ex-private, No. 71,420, 2nd battalion Durham Light Infantry, who enlisted in September, 1914, when he was classified Al although he bore the marks of serious bodily injury, on account of which he previously had been for six months an in-patient at the Bradford infirmary, whether he is aware that during an attack of trench fever, contracted whilst on active service in France and for which he was confined to hospital for three months, ex-Private Jones began to have pains, where he had been injured before he enlisted, which fact he reported to the nurses in charge of his case; that two months after demobilisation further aggravation of these pains made it necessary for ex-Private Jones again to go into hospital, where he was operated upon three times for the extraction of dead bone from the seat of his old pre-War injury, and that ever since there has been continuous discharge at the place from whence the dead bone was extracted; that although treatment allowance was allowed to ex-Private Jones as a case of aggravated disability it has since been stopped, and an appeal for its continuance has been decided adversely; and whether, having regard to the facts here stated, he will take steps to satisfy the claim of ex-Private Jones for treatment allowance or, alternatively, for a pension to compensate him for his disability aggravated by war service?

The history of this case, as stated in the question, differs materially from the official record. The man was treated in hospital for trench feet for two weeks in 1916, and for no other disability at any time during service. There is no record of any physical defect on enlistment, and the man's own statement supports this. Three months after he was demobilised he made claim to pension, but the disability then found could not be connected with service. The decision of the Ministry rejecting the claim was confirmed on appeal by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, and cannot, therefore, be re-opened. The man may, however, apply for a pension for trench feet if he is now suffering from that disability.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that William Smith, Case 6/MS/7064, residing at 71, Meeting Street, Wednesbury, made application for a disability pension due to pulmonary tuberculosis; that the medical report of 10th June, 1921, shows that the disability was attributable to war service; that the degree of disablement was certified to be nephritis 10 per cent., and T. B. 100 per cent.; if so, why the Ministry refused to accept the opinion of its own medical advisers and opposed the application; is he aware that in consequence of this opposition the Pensions Appeal Tribunal rejected the man's appeal; and will he reconsider this case?

The decisions of the Tribunal are final, and I am, therefore, precluded from reopening this case.

Why, although the Ministry's own medical officer was in favour of this man's claim, has the Ministry failed to accept it and opposed the man's application before the Appeal Tribunal? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a satisfactory policy?

It is not right to say that we opposed the claim. We were unable to grant the claim. All the information was given to the Appeal Tribunal, and the most satisfactory way of dealing with a case of grave doubt is to have a decision by an independent body.

Why could not the right hon. Gentleman accept the decision of the medical officer, before whom he compelled the man to go, which is in favour of the man?

In a case of grave doubt we have to go into the matter fully. As we were unable with the differences of opinion, to come to a decision, it was decided by an independent tribunal, which seems to me to be the fairest way.

What is the virtue in compelling a man to go before a medical officer whose decision is not accepted?

We cannot argue the matter by question and answer.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that John Thomas Bowdler, No. 18,145, South Staffordshire Regiment, now residing at 18, Pagett's Passage, Wednesbury, recently applied for a pension for disability due to pulmonary tuberculosis; that the Ministry opposed the claim; that the medical report of 4th April, 1922, indicated that Bowdler's disability was 100 per cent, due to pulmonary tuberculosis; that Bowdler suffered the amputation of his left leg due to gunshot wounds; that the T.B. officer reported on the 18th May, 1922, that the amputation of the leg, plus the effects of gas poisoning of Bowdler in 1916, largely contributed to the development of pulmonary tuberculosis; that the reports of his approved society show that Bowdler enjoyed good health before the War and had received no benefits; that his local medical attendant stated he had known Bowdler for 20 years and had never treated him for tuberculosis; that, in consequence of the opposition of the Ministry, the Pension Appeal Tribunal rejected Bowdler's application; that Bowdler was an inmate of the Moxley Sanatorium, Wednesbury, when his appeal was rejected; and, having regard to these facts, is he prepared to reconsider this case?

The claim in respect of tuberculosis was rejected by the Ministry as, after full consideration of all the circumstances, it was not found possible to accept the condition as being connected with service, which ended more than five years before the first appearance of the disease. This decision has been confirmed by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal and is therefore final. I may add that the man is in receipt of a permanent pension at the 60 per cent, rate in respect, of his wounds.

I beg to give notice that I will raise this question upon the Adjournment to-night.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. Sharkey, widow of Edward Sharkey, No. 363,761, Labour Corps, has been allowed a pension of 5s. 6d. per week for herself and four children; that Erward Sharkey was discharged from the Army on account of gunshot wounds; that he had wounds on the fingers of the left hand, the matter coming from which was poisonous; that Mrs. Sharkey was warned not to touch these wounds; and that as soon as he was dead mortification set in, the body turning black; and whether he will have this case reopened with a view to granting a more satisfactory allowance to this woman and her children?

This man died more than three years after discharge from an attack of acute pneumonia lasting only four days. The Ministry, after full consideration of all the circumstances, were unable to accept the cause of death as being connected with service, and that decision, having been confirmed by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, is final. I regret, therefore, that ho greater pension than that already awarded under Article 17 of the Royal Warrant can be given by my Department.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mrs. Marion M'Donald, 62, Eaglesham Street, Plantation, Glasgow, was charged at the instance of the Ministry of Pensions with defrauding the Pensions Ministry of the sum of £3 3s. 9d.; that this woman has been fined £5 or 14 days' imprisonment; whether the accusation was to the effect that she had boarded her lodgers, from whom she received 5s. per week: whether he will state if this is the policy pursued by the Ministry towards the widowed mothers of soldiers who have been killed in the War; and whether, in view of the indignation which is being caused by this treatment of soldiers' dependants, he is prepared to abandon further action against this woman and to recommend the Secretary for Scotland to quash the sentence imposed upon her?

This woman pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining money from public funds by false pretences and was convicted by the Court. I have no power to interfere with the sentence of the Court, nor can I undertake to evade my duty, however unpleasant, of instituting proceedings where there is clear evidence of intent to defraud the State.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this woman only received temporary money and was advised by the detective to plead guilty, and that she had no legal assistance in the Court and was under the impression that what she had done was right so far as she was concerned? Again, as this seems to be the method adopted by the Ministry of Pensions, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration those cases and stop these prosecutions going on?

It is not in the power of the Ministry to stop a prosecution decided on by other authorities, but the reluctance with which we have prosecuted in these cakes is Shown by the fact that in the comparatively few cases in which we have prosecuted there have almost invariably been convictions. This shows that we have only proceeded with reluctance and when it was necessary to do so.

Was not this prosecution instituted by the Ministry of Pensions on the report of their own investigator, and is this the new method adopted by the Ministry of Pensions in trying to find out through those people something which is not against them, but which ought to be in their favour—trying to support themselves?

We have no desire to prejudice the case, but if we find a thing done which is wrong, it is obviously our duty to report it.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether an investigator from the Pensions Office called upon Mrs. Julia, Gray, 53, Reid Street, Govan, whose son was killed in the War and who is at present in receipt of a pension; whether he is aware that this woman's husband is at present unemployed and she has been compelled to do occasional work; whether the investigator has informed Mrs. Gray that she may be summoned for defrauding the Ministry, as she did not inform them of the wages she was earning when in temporary employment; whether, in view of the large number of similar cases that are at present being summoned in Glasgow and in Scotland generally, he can state if this is the new policy to be pursued by the Ministry of Pensions towards the dependants of soldiers who fell in the Great War; and whether he is prepared to assure the House that such action will be abandoned?

This case is at present under investigation, and I am, therefore, unable to give the hon. Member any assurance as to the action which will be taken.

May I ask whether it is not the case that, where individuals are out of employment temporarily, the Ministry looks upon that as sometimes not entitling them to any increase in their pensions, while in cases where women get temporary employment it seems that the Ministry is desirous of contending that these people are endeavouring to, defraud the Ministry, and the Ministry either reduces the pension or brings the people into court?

That is too long a supplementary question.

On a point of Order. These cases are becoming very numerous throughout the country, and it seems to be the settled policy of—

The matter can be raised on the Motion for Adjournment. That will be the opportunity for the hon. Member. This is not the time to debate the matter.

I am sorry to press the point of Order, but this is a matter which seems to mark a new policy in the part of the Ministry of Pensions, and the only way in which we can raise the issue is by putting questions to the Minister. I am, therefore, asking him—

That would take up the whole of Question Time, to the detriment of other Members. When a hon. Member puts down a question, and receives an answer with which he is not satisfied, he can put down further questions, and so pursue the matter.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many new applications for pensions were received during the 12 months ended 30th September, 1922; how many of these were granted; and whether it is proposed to enforce the seven years' limit allowed to men disabled in the late War to send in their applications?

During the year ending 30th September last, 107,000 applications, of all classes were received, and in 53,000 cases an award of pension, weekly allowance or gratuity was made. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. I may remind the hon. Member that this time limit was approved by Parliament and is incorporated in the War Pensions Act, 1921.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will reconsider the order issued by the Ministry of Pensions, that, should a man die seven years after his discharge from the service, his widow or children shall not be entitled, to pension, with, a view £o its abolition, as the order is strongly resented by ex-service men, who consider it to be unjust and contrary to the spirit of the promises made to them by previous Governments?

No order to the effect stated has been issued by my Department. A man who dies under conditions which do not render his widow eligible for the maximum rate of pension under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant is entitled to be considered for pension under Article 17, and, in fact, pensions are being awarded under the latter article. With regard to the suggestion that the seven years' time limit should be removed from Article 11, perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the memorandum issued by the late Minister of Pensions at the end of the last Parliament—Command Paper 1748–in which the difficulties in the way of the suggestion are fully set out. I have quite recently myself most carefully considered every aspect of the question, and I am very hopeful that a satisfactory solution will very shortly be arrived at.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the time of meeting of the Leyton and Walthamstow Area Pensions Committee has been fixed for 3 p.m. against the expressed wish of the ex-service members, and that as a consequence it is not possible for these men to attend the meetings without serious risk of losing their employment: and will he use his influence to have these meetings fixed at such a time as will enable ex-service men and other working-class representatives to attend without loss of working time?

The time at which War Pensions Committees shall hold their meetings is, under the regulations, left in the discretion of the Committee. I feel sure that committees will themselves be able to arrive at some arrangement which will suit the convenience of all their members.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence, as suggested, in view of the fact that the Committee has not been able to enter into this arrangement, and that, as a consequence, these men, working-class representatives and ex-service men, are debarred from attending the Committee?

It would be very undesirable for the Ministry to embark on such a course as would be involved in an attempt to settle the time at which hundreds of committees should sit. I hope that the committees will arrange the time of their meetings in a way to meet the convenience of ex-service men.

asked the Minister of Pensions the total number of persons in the various categories who are in receipt of war pensions, and the expenditure involved, including administrative ex-penses; and whether the figures show a reduction with 12 months ago?

The approximate number of beneficiaries under the Royal Warrants on the 31st October last was 2,620,000, as compared with 3,135,000 twelve months previously. The total estimate of the expenditure of my Department for the current financial year is £89,991,000, as compared with an approximate expenditure of £95,545,000 for the financial year ending 31st March, 1922.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will consider at an early date the desirability of stabilising for life all pensions to ex-service men and the abolition of medical boards, thus re-moving from the minds of those men the present unsettled feeling of uncertainty and apprehension which now exists, and at the same time, whilst economising in administration, enabling adequate compensation to be given to those who are suffering from incapacity through serving their country during the War?

Regulations for the making of final awards were issued at the beginning of the year in pursuance of Section 4 of the War Pensions Act, 1921. The scheme is in active operation and a large number of final awards have already been made. It is my intention to expedite this process as much as possible, and I have already taken steps to this end.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the hard- ship caused to ex-service men by delay in forwarding pension draft books from London to local post offices; whether he can furnish the numbers of instances in which men have been forced to apply to local offices for advances during the present year; and whether, in order to reduce this delay to a minimum, he will consider the question of having draft books and ring papers prepared and pensions paid in the offices of pensions committees?

I regret that I have no available figures as to the number of cases in which pensioners have obtained advances from local offices during the present year, but the amount paid out by way of advance during the first nine months of this year (which is an approximate guide to the number of cases) is less than half the amount paid out during the corresponding months of last year. I may point out to the hon. Member that a very large proportion of the cases in which delay occurs in the payment of current pension are due to the fact that the pensioner has neglected to complete the certificate of identification, or life certificate, which is at present required to be furnished quarterly by all persons drawing pension from public funds. The question whether this certificate of identification can be required less frequently, namely, at six-monthly instead of three-monthly intervals, which would be greatly in the interests of pensioners, is one which is being most carefully considered, and I am hopeful that this improvement may be effected. The question of decentralising pension issue to the local offices was considered by the Departmental Committee of last year, over which I presided, but the Committee were unable to recommend that the change should then be made, and I am satisfied that no benefit would accrue if it were made at the present time.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Corporal T. Wardrop, No. 13,241, Black Watch Highlanders, now residing at 11, Anderson Street, Bonnybridge, voluntarily joined the Army in 1914; was passed Al; contracted malaria in Mesopotamia: was discharged as physically unfit for service from Craigleith Hospital, Edinburgh; is now suffering from lung trouble, officially admitted to have been aggravated by his War service, and has produced certificates from local doctors proving that he never suffered from lung trouble prior to his joining the Army; that he is now incapable of following his trade as an iron-moulder; has a wife and four children dependent upon him; is now in impoverished circumstances; has applied for work at motoring or repairs which he understands; will he state why no reply has been sent to his applications; and why a pension has been refused him?

I have not been able to trace any application regarding this case as having been received in the Ministry during the present year. The pensionable disability was asthma, compensation in respect of which was in payment so long as the effects of service remained.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of a soldier reported wounded and missing and later reported missing and dead as from the date of being reported wounded and missing, the pension paid to his de pendant relatives should commence from the first date; and, if not, is soldier's pay paid for the interval between the two dates to those who were dependent on him?

In these cases any separation allowance in issue was continued by the Service Department for 30 weeks and pension awarded by my Department took effect from the cessation of that allowance. Where, however, a dependant was not eligible for separation allowance or had neglected to apply for it, pension is payable from the date of application only. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that the answer to the last part of the question is that pay ceased from the date on which the soldier became missing, but if he was later presumed to be dead pay was credited up to the date of presumed death.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the final awards boards; which have been set up to deal with Notts and Derbyshire cases sit only at Nottingham, thus causing inconvenience and expense to Derbyshire pensioners, in addition to which the work has become so congested at Nottingham that doctors with no military service are employed to do this work, while Derbyshire doctors who served during the War have little or nothing to do so far as medical boards are concerned; and whether, under these circumstances, he will give instructions that Derbyshire cases shall be considered by a final awards board sitting at Derby?

These boards are specially constituted and cannot, in the interest of public economy, be multiplied more than is necessary. I am satisfied that ho unnecessary inconvenience is occasioned by the existing arrangement. The position at Nottingham is, however, being carefully watched, and should an increase of these boards prove necessary, I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind. I may point out that the travelling expenses and reasonable compensation for loss of time for the men concerned are paid by the Ministry.

Does the right hon. Gentleman pretend that there are no cases of congestion at Nottingham, or that many of the people have not to wait a long time on these boards?

I shall be most happy to consider any point which the hon. Member cares to bring before me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make special inquiry into this matter?

Certainly.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it desirable that, in connection with these boards, only doctors with military service should be employed?

No, Sir. I cannot admit that we can avoid the use of specialist for special purposes, but our main policy is not only to employ doctors with military service, but to give preference to doctors with military service overseas.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now make permanent the pension of ex-Private C. Elliott, late Derbyshire Yeomanry, regimental No. 1,507, who is suffering from tubercular disease of the groin caused by the kick of a horse whilst on military service; whether he is aware that this man has already undergone 10 operations for tills disability and has now been ordered to a military hospital to undergo a farther operation, and that this disability was incurred seven years ago; and whether, Under these circumstances, this man's case can be finally disposed of by granting him a permanent pension?

I am personally looking into the circumstances of this case.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman really think 10 operations are sufficient for this man to undergo before he gets his final award?

It is because of the circumstances brought to my notice by the hon. Member that I propose to look into the case further.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the case of Mrs. F. Bradwell, of Bradwell, Derbyshire, widow of Private Charles R. Bradwell, No. 28,234, Manchester Regiment, whose death was due to disability incurred on military service; whether he is aware that this woman is left with three children, the eldest only five years old; whether he is aware that she has been refused a pension on the ground that the man's removal from duty was not caused by the disability from which he is said to have died; and whether he will review the whole case with a view to Mrs. Bradwell receiving a pension?

The late soldier died two and a-half years after demobilisation from endocarditis, the first medical evidence of which is dated April, 1922 My medical advisers are unable to find such connection between the cause of the death and the man's military service as will satisfy the conditions of the Royal Warrant, and an award of pension cannot therefore be made to the widow. She has, however, a right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal against the decision of the Ministry.

In that appeal will she be opposed by the Ministry of Pensions, as is usually done?

She will be given all the information available.

How does the Minister expect this poor woman, living on parish relief, adequately to fight her case?

The hon. Member, I think, misunderstands altogether the attitude of the Pensions Ministry. Our business is to place all the facts before the tribunal, and those familiar with the work of the tribunals know that.

Is it not the case that, while it is true that the Ministry of Pensions furnish a précis of the evidence, the onus of disproving the facts lies upon the poor woman or the poor soldier, and in many cases they can only very inadequately state their case?

No, Sir, I do not consider that the onus is at all left upon the applicants. In all the cases that have passed through my hands, and where information, civilian or otherwise, is desired, we make it our business to apply to the Service Departments for medical records, etc., so that we may have all the information that will help the applicant.

We have already admitted that; but is not the point this, that after the Ministry has done all that, the person who has to plead before the Court is in that sense incapable, and should there not be some assistance given to him to prove his case?

That is a new question.

asked the Prime Minister what Minister is to be in charge of the League of Nations questions; and who will attend meetings of the council on behalf of this country?

Questions in regard to the League of Nations should be addressed to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. As regards the last part of the question, I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Would it be any use to put down this question again before the end of the Session?

I really do not think so. We are so pressed that it is very difficult to come to a decision of this kind.

Could it not be settled whether it is to be a Cabinet Minister or not?

No; that is one of the things I am considering.

Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of our representative on the Council of the league of Nations being elected by Parliament instead of nominated by the Government?

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the self-governing Dominions have long passed from the status of colonies, ho will consider the alteration of the title of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or bring the matter before the Imperial Conference?

I have never heard it suggested by the representatives of any of the Dominions that there was any desire for the change suggested, but if such a desire were felt it would no doubt be raised at the Imperial Conference.

asked the Prime Minister whether the invitations have been issued for the Imperial Conference; what subjects have been notified for discussion by any of the parties to the Conference; and whether the Irish Free State will be represented?

I hope that it may be found generally convenient to hold a meeting of the Imperial Conference next year, but no invitations have yet been issued, and the date of meeting must, I think, depend partly on whether it is decided to hold an Imperial Economic Conference distinct from, and in advance of, the Imperial Conference. The second part of the question does not arise at present, but, as to the third, an invitation, when the time comes, will be extended to the Irish Free State.

Has the right hon. Gentleman, observed a paragraph in the newspapers to-day on behalf of the Chief Whip at Portsmouth, to the effect that the invitations were to go out next week?

I have seen that they had gone already.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in any investigation of the pressure of rates on agricultural land, he will cause the investigation to extend to the severe pressure on the rates of the present upkeep, repair, and maintenance of rural district roads which have to be maintained entirely out of local rates?

This question will receive careful consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether steps are to be taken to alter the system relating to the holding of the Assizes at the present county towns; and whether this House will be given the opportunity of discussing any proposed changes before they are carried into effect?

I have been asked to reply. In answer to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I cannot give an answer to the second part of the question until the Committee has reported.

Do I understand from the answer that it is possible this considerable change—which has been denounced by many of the Judges—may be brought about without the House having an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

Until the Committee reports, it is impossible for us to say whether any considerable change will be required. Until we know what sort of changes are required, we cannot say whether it will be necessary to bring them before the House.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of peaceful co-operation in industry, he will take steps to invite representatives of the employers and the employed to meet in a joint industrial conference with a view to arriving at an agreed basis for the establishment of a permanent industrial parliament?

The House knows the value of the work done by the Industrial Councils set up as the result of the Committee presided over by you, Mr. Speaker, but I am inclined to think that the object desired by my Noble Friend could not be attained by the action of the Government and could only succeed if it were undertaken on the joint initiative of employers and workmen.

Will the right hon. Gentleman at all events make inquiry from representatives of the employers and employed as to whether such action by the Government would, not be welcome?

I have spoken to the parties concerned, and the opinion seems to be that at present nothing could usefully be done. I shall, however, make further inquiry.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House of the result of the investigation on the proposed Imperial airship service by the Committee presided over by the First Lord of the Admiralty; if the result of this investigation is satisfactory, will he indicate the intentions of the Government at an early date, in view of the urgency of improving Empire communication.

The report of this investigation is now before the Government, which is, however, not yet in a position to announce its decision.

Would not an airship service give employment to a certain number of people, and could it not be considered in relation to the Government proposals for the relief of unemployment?

The question will be considered as soon as we possibly can. That is all I can say.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the position at Bedford—affecting the employment of 1,500 men—where unemployment is rife, in connection with the airship scheme?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to fill the office of Assistant Postmaster-General or whether the abolition of the post is under consideration?

This appointment has not been filled because I think it desirable to look into the question of whether such a post is necessary or not.

asked the Prime Minister if he will receive a deputation from the local authority of the City of Bradford for the purpose of showing the city's need for fresh railway facilities, how the city has been neglected in this respect, and how in any negotiations he may undertake with the railway interests for the provision of new additions to the rail arteries of the nation he may be strengthened by the evidence from Bradford?

I cannot myself undertake to receive a deputation on this question, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, with wham I have been in communication, would be glad to hear any representations from the Bradford Corporation. The hon. Member will realise that the Government have no power to require the companies to take action.

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Govern- ment made any representations to the Irish Free State Government to prevent the execution of Erskine Childers and his four colleagues; and whether His Majesty's Government will make representations to prevent further executions of war prisoners in Ireland?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the payment of pensions of Irish civil servants who retire or may be discharged in consequence of the change of Government, or who have retired prior to the change, will be guaranteed statutorily by the British Government; and whether such pensioners will be guaranteed that they shall not be in a less favourable condition, as regards the terms, Conditions, and tenure of their pensions than they would have been had they continued in the service of the British Government?

The payment of fair compensation, on terms not less favourable than those accorded by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to Irish civil servants who are discharged by the Free State or who retire in consequence of the change of Government, is prescribed and promised by Article 10 of the Treaty, to which statutory force has already been given, on the part of Great Britain, by the Free State Agreement Act, 1922, and on the part of Ireland by the Constitution of the Irish Free State which is being ratified by the Bill now before Parliament. The pensions of persons who retired prior to the change of Government are payable in the first place out of British revenues, subject to recovery from Irish funds.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether persons who retire under Article 10 of the Treaty will have their pensions guaranteed by the British Government, and whether that guarantee will be embodied in the Statute?

I think that matter was fully discussed last night.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no answer was given, and can he give one now?

I would rather my hon. and learned Friend put a question on the Paper.

asked the Prime Minister what action was taken by the representative of His Majesty's Government at Athens to prevent the execution of former Greek Ministers who are being tried for high treason; and what are the reasons for any intervention that has taken place?

I stated yesterday that His Majesty's Government had urged the Greek Government not to permit the execution of the ex-Ministers, and had warned them that, if this step were taken, we should withdraw our representative. In taking this action His Majesty's Government were actuated by the general consideration that it is contrary to the practice of civilised Governments to put to death out-going Ministers on account of the failure of their policy. I may add that these executions were carried out by a committee resulting from a military revolution.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in this matter we acted in concert with our Allies; whether our Allies propose to take similar action in withdrawing their representatives from Athens, and, if not, why in this case alone we acted without consultation with our Allies?

In this case we did not act in concert with our Allies. It is a case in which, on its merits, we think the British Government were right in taking the action they took.

May I ask whether the Greek Minister has left or is leaving?

He is not now in London. He was away before this happened.

asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to state whether the Government will bring in legislation extending the life of Section 1 of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921?

I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to a previous question by the hon. Member last Monday.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that unless something is done to renew the Act this Session, a large number of very poor boroughs in London will simply be bankrupt? As I postponed the question till to-day, can I get an answer to-morrow or on Monday? When will the Minister be able to make up his mind and give a definite answer?

It is quite impossible to say when Ministers can make up their mind and give definite answers, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is considering the matter in conjunction with those responsible, and that there will be no undue delay.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister has told us that he hopes to wind up this Session in a day or two; is he aware that there is no time to lose if we are to have this Act renewed in time to give these poor boroughs the relief they need; and is he aware of the fact that, to their credit, the richer boroughs do not object to the renewal of this Act?

I am aware of all those considerations.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider at the same time the extension of the same Act to the necessitous boroughs in the counties?

The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of any attempt to separate what are known as the Rhineland provinces from Germany by our ally France, such attempt will be opposed by His Majesty's Government?

This question is hypothetical, and it is obviously quite impossible for me to answer it.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a French official despatch recently published in the "Manchester Guardian," a paper of repute, bearing upon this question, in which that policy is advocated and pursued with vigour, and in the event of the despatch to M. Poincaré being put into operation and the policy indicated there—

Speak up!

I think the hon. Member will realise that, as no such proposal has been made to His Majesty's Government, it is obvious that we cannot give an answer to something that is entirely hypothetical.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the aggregate cost of the Armies of Occupation in Germany since the Armistice; and what has been the average cost per man per day, respectively, of the British, French, Belgian, and American Armies of Occupation?

I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement in answer to this question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion, if any, of the £54,000,000, which is the cost of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine since the Armistice, has been paid by the German Government; and will he inform the House what steps His Majesty's Government is taking to ensure the payment of this sum?

Practically the whole of the £54,000,000 to which the hon. Member refers has already been paid by the German Government.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the unsatisfactory rate of progress in dealing with the compensation of British nationals in respect of damage suffered from enemy action, he proposes any means for accelerating the distribution of the grant to persons many of whom are in need of money?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any steps will be taken to meet the claims for reparation from the victims of enemy action during the War; and whether some measure of relief can be immediately granted to those who, in consequence of the destruction of their property, are in extreme need?

The Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action is doing its utmost to press on with the large number of claims which are before it. Payments on account are being made to necessitous claimants in certain cases, and over 800 such payments have already been made.

Is it not a fact that one-hundredth part only of the money set aside has been distributed, and as this matter is urgent, and there has been delay for many months, cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer improve the machinery in some way?

I have often felt that a long time has been taken, but I doubt whether the House realises the number of claims coming in—over 60,000–and dealing with them must be a matter of time. The Committee are urging the matter forward as well as they can, and the only way would seem to be to make some provision for necessitous cases, as has been done; but I will keep this under review.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the names of the British staff of the Reparations Commission resident in Bulgaria, the total annual cost of the Commission, and the amount of reparations, if any, received from Bulgaria?

The British delegate on Inter-Allied Commission in Bulgaria is; Sir E. Colvin, who is assisted by a secretary (Mr. Bruce), seven assistants, one-translator, and two typists. Four of these posts will shortly cease on completion of existing contracts. The cost of the Commission, which does not fall on the British Exchequer, is for 1922, approximately, £42,000, and for 1923 is estimated at £33,000. I understand that Bulgaria has not yet paid any reparation in cash, but has made certain deliveries in kind, mainly to Serbia.

Can we have from the right hon. Gentleman the value of the goods that Bulgaria has paid in kind?

I will see whether that can be obtained.

Is it not true that though technically the expenditure for this Commission will not fall on the British Exchequer yet, in point of fact, there is no possiblity of receiving any reparation payment from Bulgaria, and therefore it has to be paid for by the British Exchequer; and is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a tremendous burden on the, finances of Bulgaria though the sum does not appear to us to be very large?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the severe depression in the coal-mining industry and the serious drop in miners' wages, he is prepared to institute an inquiry into the conditions under which the industry is being carried on at present and into the state of its finances?

I am not prepared to adopt the suggestion in the hon. Member's question.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of the Cabinet keeps a record only of its proceedings; and whether he will consider the desirability of such record being kept by the Prime Minister's private secretary, changing with each Government, and thereby avoiding one person being the repository of the opinions of each member of preceding Cabinets?

The Secretary of the Cabinet records only the decisions of the Cabinet. I think, therefore, that the second part of the question does not arise.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of the change I have suggested, that there should not be one person employed permanently in this position, but that the Prime Minister's first private secretary should keep the records?

I really do not see that there is any advantage in that. The Cabinet Secretary is, like any other, a permanent civil servant, and I think his experience with one Government would be of value to the next.

asked the Prime Minister the exact number of the Cabinet Secretariat before his advent to office and the number of the Secretariat now; and to what Department have the remaining members been allocated?

The staff of the Cabinet Secretariat on the 1st October last was 102; the present staff, which is in a state of transition, is 63. Of this number, 27 have been declared redundant and are under notice, or, in the case of permanent civil servants, awaiting transfer to other Departments where vacancies may exist. The clerical, messenger and cleaning staff work also for the Committee of Imperial Defence. Of the 39 persons by whom the staff has been reduced since the date mentioned, 19 have been transferred to vacancies in the Departments of Works, Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Education and Treasury, and 20 have been discharged.

May we be informed how many of the 20 consist of the charwomen employed, to the number of 12, by the Cabinet Secretariat?

I shall be only too pleased to look into that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the gross receipts from arrears of Excess Profits Duty between 1st April and 1st November, 1922; and what were the repayments during the same period?

The gross receipts of Excess Profits Duty (including munitions levy) in the period from 1st April to 31st October, 1922, were £33,471,000, and the repayments £34,635,000.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount of unpaid arrears of Income Tax, Supertax, Corporation Profits Tax, and Excess Profits Duty on 30th September in 1922 and 1921, respectively?

As the answer necessarily contains a large number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made by the Committee considering the method of making State grants to local authorities, and when the Committee may be in a position to issue its report?

I understand that the Committee have taken evidence from "Government Departments and others concerned. The meetings of the Committee have been interrupted by the General Election, but are being resumed immediately. There remains a considerable amount of evidence to be taken from representatives of local authorities, and J think it is too early to say by what date they will be able to report.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that several local authorities will not be in a position to make up their estimates until they know the result of this Committee's deliberations?

I can assure the hon. Member that this Committee is expediting its work as far as possible.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a reduction in the present high price of the daily OFFICIAL REPORT of Parliamentary Debates?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the high price of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Debates and the unprecedented depression in salaries and wages and the increasing interest taken in politics by the people, he will consider the advisability of reducing the price of this publication to a level within the reach of the average household?

As has been stated on previous occasions, the present price of 1s. a copy is still below the average cost of printing and publishing, and contains no allowance for the fact that a large proportion of the copies printed are supplied gratuitously for official purposes. In the present financial position, I hesitate to increase the charge upon the taxpayer in respect of this publication, but the matter will be kept under review, and if at any time the reduced costs of production or the prospects of increased sales appear to justify a reduction in price, I shall be only too glad to authorise it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say where the OFFICIAL REPORT is printed?

I must have notice of that, but it is not printed at the Harrow works.

Will the right hon. Gentleman think of raising the price of this production, and so reducing the amount paid by the taxpayers?

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, in view of the increased interest now taken in the Debates in this House?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of the debt to the United States of America; and how much it has been reduced since 1st April, 1922?

The principal of the debt owing to the United States Government amounts to-day to $4,135,818,358; in addition, accrued interest amounting to $611,018,685 remains unpaid. Since 1st April, 1922, $30,500,000 of principal has been repaid in addition to $101,525,000 mainly for interest. It remains to be settled whether any part of the last payment of $50,000,000 on this head, made on the 15th instant, is to be regarded as repayment of capital.

Is the interest at the rate of 5 per cent.?

I shall want notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage of net Income Tax collected which is absorbed by the expense of collecting all Income Tax and repayment of Income Tax collected at the source, in many cases including the cost to Departments solely concerned with Income Tax and the additional cost to other Departments, such as the Post Office, affected by this work; and whether His Majesty's Government is prepared at an early date to initiate legislation simplifying the collection of Income Tax and terminating the system of collecting at the source?

It is not possible to apportion the total cost of collection of Inland Revenue duties between the various duties, of which Income Tax is but one, nor is it feasible to isolate the expenditure which arises in connection with the tax which is collected at the source. Any departure from the system of collection at the source would not only seriously endanger the productivity of the tax, but would complicate rather than simplify its collection, and would entail considerably more expenditure.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the total cost without apportioning it?

I will see whether I can.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the names of the persons, at present in receipt of perpetual pensions from the State, and the respective amounts paid in each case?