asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the burden of rates thrown on certain industrial areas owing to the prolonged period of abnormal unemployment, he will consent-to receive a deputation of Members representing those districts, seeing that the assistance they desire requires the sanction of not only the Treasury but also of both the Minister of Labour and the-Minister of Health?

A deputation of this nature was received by the late Prime Minister in June last, and the proposals then made have not been lost sight of. In those circumstances I do not think any useful purpose would be served by adopting the suggestion contained in this question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position in necessitous districts is infinitely worse than it was in June last, and that many of the proposals then submitted have not yet received final consideration?

We are quite aware of the evil, and we are dealing with it and considering it in all its aspects.

Is the right hon, Gentleman aware that the result of the last deputation to the Prime Minister gave us no assistance in any direction, and we are in a worse position than we were before?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that through the closing down of collieries in the neighbourhood of Brynmawr (South Wales) hundreds of men have been out of employment from one and a-half to two years, with the result that very acute distress prevails; and, in such cases, when large bodies of men -are thrown out of work through circumstances over which they have no control, will he consider the desirability and necessity of making the burden of relief a national charge and not a charge on the local authorities?

Even if the serious administrative difficulties in the way of the hon. Member's proposal could be surmounted, I do not see how the State could possibly undertake this local charge in the existing state of the national finances.

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Minister of Health, if his attention has been called to the fact that certain Metropolitan boards of guardians have given a number of unemployed men resident in workhouses and other institutions under their charge notice to leave, these notices to expire almost immediately; and whether he is aware that at least 90 per cent, of these men form part of the living wall which divided the British people from their enemies during the late War; that their presence in London is entirely due to their desire to lay their grievances before the Prime Minister and the House of Commons; also that all of them are homeless and penniless, and in many cases are very badly clothed and without boots, except such as are badly in need of repair; and whether, in order to avoid the inevitable hardship and suffering and possible disorder which may follow this action of the guardians, the Minister of Health will exercise the authority vested in him by statute and issue an Order instructing the guardians concerned to relieve these men according to law until such time as their place of settlement is determined and their removal to such place of settlement has either been agreed upon or ordered by a Court of law?

(for the Minister of Health): My right hon. Friend has made inquiries as to the facts. He is informed that the guardians who have given relief to the marchers have ordinarily received them in the workhouse, and have even waived in their favour the restrictions usually imposed on persons so relieved. He is aware of cases in which the guardians have said that they must in future require the observance of the ordinary regulations, and in which the men have then left the workhouse without making any further application. He does not, however, know of any case in which further relief has been asked for or refused to any of these men who are destitute.

As regards the legal position, the duty of relieving the poor is statutorily assigned to the Guardians of the Poor (Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834). That duty is, by Section 15 of the Act, to be carried out subject to the direction and control of the central authority (now the Minister of Health), who, for the purpose of executing his powers, is authorised and required to make Rules, Orders and Regulations. But it is expressly provided, as I stated yesterday, that nothing in the Act shall be construed as enabling the central authority to interfere in any individual case for the purpose of ordering relief. The Minister cannot, therefore, interfere with the discretion of the guardians.

The question of the guardians assisting those men to return to their homes was raised in the course of the supplementary questions put yesterday. My right hon. Friend is advised that the guardians can only remove these men, or contribute to the cost of their removal, if a justice's order has been obtained, or if the guardians of the union in which the men live give their consent.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the question I specifically put to him yesterday and to-day, namely, that certain boards of guardians had given the men notice, and he told me a lot of other thing which do not arise at all?

Of course I am subject to the hon. Member's correction, but I have done my best to answer all the points in the question, and I thought I had done so. What must be clear—and this is a point to which I think the House will attach importance—is that no case is known in which further relief has been asked for or refused to any of these men who are destitute.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the notices of which I complained, and which the Minister has not contradicted, expire tomorrow night in at least two unions and that no question of new applications arises until after the expiration of these notices? The unions are Edmonton and Stepney.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the guardians are responsible for the maintenance of these men until their settlement is fixed?

The guardians have, as I have repeated so often, discretion in the matter, and by Statute that discretion cannot be interfered with by the central authority.

A destitute person has to be maintained. There is no discretion at all.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that when the notices have expired these men could make another application for relief, and is he aware that the boards of guardians who have delivered notices are refusing, and intend to refuse, to accommodate these men or to take them back?

It is within the discretion of the guardians. If a fresh application is made, the guardians can consider the matter again.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is absolutely no discretion in the boards of guardians? The 43rd of Elizabeth gives every poor person an absolute right. There is no discretion about it. These guardians are exercising a discretion. They have given the men notice. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these guardians have told the men that they are to go out and are not to come in again, and that is the whole point that has not been answered?

If thousands of men under the leadership of misguided men march on London—

That is raising a debatable question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, by the Act, of Settlement, the boards of guardians are absolutely compelled to provide these people with food, and, as a matter of fact, the guardians can pay their fares, home and charge the union they come from?

There is an obligation the guardians, with certain Sir restrictions, and always has been since' the time of the Act of Elizabeth, but that obligation has to be administered by the guardians themselves. What the hon. Member is always asking me to do is that the Central Authority should takeover the guardians' obligation.

(later): I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the action of certain boards of guardians in refusing to continue public assistance to a large-number of unemployed men who are at present chargeable to the Poor Law according to Act of Parliament and the refusal of the Minister of Health to take such action as would prevent the hardship and suffering and possible public disorder which this action of boards of guardians may involve."

Since yesterday I have careully looked into this matter, with the result that I am confirmed in the ruling which I then gave. In fact, the hon. Member's own motion shows it, because he again calls attention to the-action of certain boards of guardians in refusing to continue public assistance. These are local bodies appointed by Statutes of Parliament, and their action within those Statutes has never been held to be a matter which could be raised' under Standing Order No. 10. Their case is just the same as that of municipal authorities who are given certain duties to carry out.

May I respectfully point out that, in the last part of my Motion, I call attention to the fact that the Minister of Health is not carrying out his part of the duty imposed upon him under Statute, namely, to see that these authorities carry out their duty. The Minister of Health has tremendous powers, one of which is to see that the Poor Law is administered, and that is why I want to raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

The hon. Member then would be bringing two different points into one Resolution, and it would cease to be definite. I am not, however, taking that point, but only the point that Parliament has delegated certain duties to these bodies, and it is not therefore a matter which can be raised under Standing Order No. 10.

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that unemployment benefit has been refused the unemployed marchers; that all these men register each day at the Employment Exchange of the district in which they find themselves; that on all occasions the men are willing to undertake any work which can be provided; and is the Minister aware that the exchange authorities at Glasgow and Barrow have refused to issue travelling cards to the marchers, and whether this action is in accordance with the law?

In accordance with the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, the final decision on the question whether unemployment benefit was payable to the unemployed marchers rested with the Umpire, who is an independent authority appointed by the Crown. Test cases relating to the unemployed marchers were heard by the Umpire, who decided that benefit was not payable. As regards the last part of the question, the travelling cards referred to are provided in the case of workpeople travelling with the object of seeking work, and it was therefore decided that "they could not be made use of in the circumstances referred to.

What are the grounds on which the Umpire gave this ruling?

I am not quite certain whether the decision has been made public or not. I believe it has not.

If these men are cut away from the Unemployment Bill, does it follow that their wives and children will also lose unemployment benefit?

I believe that is so. I will look into it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when persons ask at the Employment Exchange for travelling tickets, the clerk asks if they are on pleasure?

I have explained the object for which these tickets are given. They are given to men seeking for work. Presumably if they were going on pleasure they would not be seeking work.

asked the Prime Minister if, having regard to the desirability of equalising national liabilities, he will reconsider the advisability of funding the war pensions obligations of the nation; if he has considered the extent of the annual saving by commutation of our liabilities; and whether he can see his way to introduce legislation in the next Session to deal with this matter?

Such a scheme as my hon. Friend suggests would not in any way diminish the amount which the State has in fact to pay in the year for War pensions. Whether the State's obligations should be met from revenue or by borrowing is a matter which can hardly be discussed within the limits of a Parliamentary question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman keep that point in view?

I am keeping everything in view?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will bring in legislation extending the life of Secton 1 of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act, 1921?

I have been asked to reply. As was stated in reply to a previous question, this matter is receiving careful consideration. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has thought it advisable to ascertain the views of the boards of guardians and municipal authorities in the metropolis in regard to the proposal, and a copy of the circular letter which has been issued for this purpose is being sent to the hon. Member.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Act under discussion lapses on 31st December, and that unless it is renewed very considerable hardship will be inflicted upon the ratepayers of the poorest boroughs in London, and it is no use sending me a copy of a circular which I have already received?

That is exactly what my right hon. Friend has had in mind in determining the point, and he will come to a decision which, if not Satisfactory to my hon. Friend, I hope will satisfy the Members of this House.

Whether the statement is satisfactory to me or not, will it be presented to this House and acted upon before the end of the Session?

My hon. Friend must know that that is quite an impossible question to answer because we are within a few days of the end of the Session.

Is the hon. And gallant Gentleman aware that almost on the first day of the Session the same question was put to the Prime Minister, and day after day we have been fobbed off in this manner? I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can give an answer to this question?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make it a condition to Ministers on accepting office in his Government that they will not, after ceasing to hold office, permit themselves to be associated with private companies and firms who may profit by the knowledge or information gained by Ministers in the course of their public duties, especially when such firms or companies are competitors of State undertakings?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Frome (Mr. Hurd).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this question a much wider issue is raised than in the question which was put yesterday?

Does my right hon. Friend not think that such a rule laid down for Ministers would be very valuable applied to permanent civil servants after they have been carrying on public work for some years, because it is most undesirable that they should accept such appointments?

That is a new question.

asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the Government, at an early date, to present a Bill to this House to legalise the 49-hours working week on the lines of the Washington Conference?

I have been asked to reply. As the hon. Member is probably aware, the practicability of applying the provisions of the Hours Convention in the various countries which took part in the Washington Conference was the subject of discussion at the recent International Labour Conference. Pending further consideration, it is not proposed to introduce legislation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most European countries, in face of the keenest competition, have already legalised the eight hours day?

I am not aware of it. As a matter of fact, the Convention has only been ratified in a very small number of countries, such as Greece, India, Czecho-Slovakia, Bulgaria and Rumania.

What is meant by "pending consideration by him"? Consideration by whom?

The matter has been fully considered at Genoa, and the Director of the International Labour Office has been instructed to report, after consideration, as to the action being taken in various countries.

Is it not the case that, with regard to seamen, the action of the British Government representative prevented the application of the 48-hour week?

He has got to do what he is told.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the death of Sir Julian Corbett, whether the issue of the official Naval History of the War under the auspices of tbe Committee of Imperial Defence will now be discontinued except in so far as the expenditure that has already been incurred?

The whole question of the official histories is at present under consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the German Republic is giving any subsidies on bread, potatoes, coal, etc., at the present time?

The German Government controls the purchase of wheat for breadstuffs, but it has announced that as from August last the price of breadstuffs is to be fixed so as to cover the cost of purchase. The provision of 954 millions of marks in the Budget for the present year is only for the loss on sale of bread-stuffs up to August. I am not aware of any subsidy on potatoes or coal. On the contrary, in the case of coal there is a tax of 40 per cent, ad valorem.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the present distress in the cinema industry and the fact that the Entertainments Duty as at present imposed bears comparatively more heavily upon the poor than upon the rich, he will consider the abolition of this tax, or, alternatively, an alteration in its incidence?

The hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that, in formulating proposals for meeting the expenditure of the coming financial year, careful attention will be given to all relevant considerations affecting the various taxes, including the Entertainments Duty.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to exempt annual flower Shows of horticultural societies from the Entertainments Duty where the shows are run for the encouragement of horticulture, and where any profits made are devoted to the encouragement of horticulture and not for individual profit?

Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1921, authorises the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to grant-exemption from Entertainments Duty in respect of flower shows which are shown to their satisfaction to be provided by a society established solely for the purpose of promoting the interests of horticulture and not conducted for profit, and to consist solely of an exhibition of the products of horticulture.

Is it not necessary to have a band to make a flower show a success? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to accede to this suggestion, seeing that the amount involved is very small?

The matter has been discussed on many occasions, and it has always been held that the presence of a band means the presence of the tax.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the large variety and complexity of the Income Tax forms now issued to the public and the consequent expense to the national Exchequer and to the persons concerned, he will appoint a Committee to consider the simplification of these forms and the reduction of their number?

I have already decided to appoint a Committee such as is suggested.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the many anomalies of taxation, particularly the assessment of Income Tax upon the joint income of husband and wife, and the objections raised against much of the present indirect taxation, he will consider the appointment of a small expert and impartial Committee to review the whole question and make a Report to this House?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of staff employed and the total salaries paid in Government Departments connected with the collection of Income Tax and Super-tax for the years 1914 and 1922, respectively?

It is not possible to isolate the cost of the collection of Income Tax and Super-tax from that of the other duties of the Inland Revenue Department. If, however, my hon. and gallant Friend will consult the fourth and fifth Reports from the Select Committee on Estimates, 1922, he will find a comparison of many details of the Department's expenditure in 1914 and at the present time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a large amount of overtime is being worked in the Income Tax offices throughout the country; and, in order to provide employment for men unable to find it elsewhere, will he augment the staff and, by reducing overtime to a minimum, economise in the bill for heating and lighting now swollen on account of the offices being kept open until late at night?

The clerical staff in question is already temporarily augmented, and the further increase suggested would take the Department past the point at which inexperienced staff could be employed with profit. It would also overtax the available office accommodation of the Department.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large number of young men and women who have gone through our colleges with a view to going into the teaching profession, and of the large number of teachers who are now unemployed; and would it not be better to employ these people than to let other work overtime?

I think my answer was quite clear on the point. The overtime is only temporary, after all.

But in the meantime the other people are out of work.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to remove the restriction placed by the last Government on the making of grants by the Unemployed Grants Committee to local authorities for the purpose of building houses, in view of the fact that such houses no longer receive the State assistance formerly provided by the Housing Act, 1919?

This matter has been carefully considered, and the Government have decided that the extension of this system of grants to house building would tend to check private enterprise, which is showing hopeful signs of development, and so do more harm than good. In any case, such grants could have little effect in relieving unemployment in the building trade during the coming winter, and the Government consider that such relief can best be afforded by putting in hand works of repair and decoration. They are doing this in the buildings under their charge, and they trust that local authorities and private owners will do all they can in the same direction.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Excess Profits Duty arrears outstanding at the end of the last quarter, and what proportion he regards as collectable; and whether he can state the amount of arrears of Income Tax at the same date?

The approximate amount of Excess Profits Duty (including Munitions Levy) in assessment, but unpaid at the 30th September, 1922, was £266,000,000. While it is certain that large sums included in this figure will be written off as a result of appeals or otherwise, I do not feel justified at the moment in attempting to forecast the amount of duty which will ultimately be received by the Exchequer. The approximate amount of Income Tax estimated to be due to be paid, but not paid by the same date, is £36,000,000.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any servants of the Crown, apart from naval and military officers, are paid their salaries through private banks; and, if so, whether such arrangements will now be revised, in view of the recent experience in the case of McGrigor's bank?

I am not aware of any such arrangements outside the fighting services.

If ordinary servants of the Crown can be paid their salaries by the Paymaster-General, why cannot officers be paid in the same way?

That would require a longer answer than I could give in reply to a supplementary question.

In view of the McGrigor case, does the right hon. Gentleman not think some revision of the practical enforcement of payment through Army agents is desirable?

That question should be addressed to the War Office.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to introduce legislation to amend the Old Age Pensions Act by conferring upon local authorities, or other wise granting special power, to give the pension to old persons of over 65 years of age in cases of exceptional enfeeblement?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood).

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why legislation should not be introduced to grant Old Age Pensions to all people at 65 years of age?

There is no reason except—

That would need a Debate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state, under the various heads, the total amounts received annually from indirect taxation?

The hon. Member will find the amounts received from taxation, both direct and indirect, in the Annual Finance Accounts (House of Commons Paper No. 88, 1922), and, as regards the current year Estimates, in the Financial Statement C House of Commons Paper No. 77).

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of interest paid annually on the National Debt?

Full details of the interest paid on the National Debt are given in the annual Finance Accounts. The Budget Estimate for the current year is £335,000,000.

Is the full amount of the debt and interest we owe to America included in that statement?

Yes, but my hon. Friend will remember that the full amount of interest on the American debt is not payable until next year.

Then will the full weight come on us next year?

Yes.

Look out for taxation in that case!

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received representations from local authorities in regard to the ever-increasing through traffic on district highways; and whether he can promise relief and increased assistance to local authorities to meet this burden on local rates for the maintenance of highways?

I have been asked to reply. I have received representations in the sense indicated by the hon. Member. Considerable assistance towards the cost of the maintenance of highways is rendered to local authorities from the Road Fund. As, and when, the resources of the Fund permit, the claims of district highways to additional assistance will be carefully considered.

May I ask whether the funds at the disposal of the Road Board are not quite inadequate to deal with the present state of the roads-main and district—in various parts of the country?

That may be so, but the question is should I receive support in increasing taxation for the purpose.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the names of the ex-Lord Chancellors who are now in receipt of £5,000 per annum; and what are the shortest and longest spans of service as Lord Chancellor?

The following ex-Lord Chancellors are in receipt of annuities of £5,000, the periods of their service as Lord Chancellor being as stated in each case:—

Is it the case that if a man or woman accepts the Office of Lord Chancellor he or she gets a pension of £5,000, however short the tenure of office?

That is so, but they take on judicial work.

Was the Earl of Birkenhead invited to take the Office of Lord Chancellor in this Government so as to save, at any rate, this pension?

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the House the salary of these gentlemen and the amount of time occupied by their service on the Privy Council and other bodies?

The salary is £10,000, and as to time they are pretty continuously occupied, I should think.

Is there no recess for the House of Lords?

Is there not one ex-Lord Chancellor who is not drawing the pension?

That is true.

Did not Lord Loreburn hand back £2,500?

I am not aware of that, but as Lord Loreburn's name has been mentioned, I should like to say that he did judicial work until he reached a considerable age, after his retirement on pension. He is now 75 years of age, and it is only three or four years since he retired.

In fixing the pensions, is account taken of the capacity to earn their own livelihood, as in the case of old age pensioners?

I do not know if the hon. Member is aware that anyone who has sat on the Woolsack in recent years might have earned twice or three times the salary by private practice.

Then why do they re quire a pension of £5,000 per annum?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of the reparation in kind received from Bulgaria up to date?

I have made inquiries of the Reparation Commission, but find that it has no knowledge of the value of the deliveries in kind so far made by Bulgaria under the Treaty of Neuilly, as these deliveries were made in pursuance of the special provisions of Articles 127 and 128 of the Treaty, under which no credit |alls to. be given, to Bulgaria on Reparation Account. Bulgaria claims a credit in respect of certain deliveries made under the Armistice, but the Reparation Commission has not yet taken a decision in the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the estimated cost of the Reparation Commission is £33,000 per annum in our coinage, and if it is translated into Bulgarian exchange it works out at 750,000 sterling for 12 persons? Will he take steps to stop this scandal?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the debt incurred for the sale of silver during the War from the United States of America: and if it has been reduced since 1st April, 1922?

The answer to the first part of the question is 122,017,633.57 dollars, of which 30,517,633.57 dollars was paid off before 1st April, 1922, and 30,500,000 since, with interest in addition at 5 per cent, in each case, leaving a balance of 61,000,000 dollars due in respect of capital. Arrangements have been made to repay this amount within the next two years.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the serious unemployment and the fact that every sale by the Disposal Board deprives many firms, of orders, he will consider the suspension of any more sales of surplus war stores until trade has fully recovered?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that he estimates the cost of a practicable scheme of mothers pensions at £50,000,000 a year, he can state what the present cost is for maintaining those who would be eligible for the above pension; and whether an opportunity will be given for a discussion on this matter?

The proportion of mothers at present receiving relief appears to be small, and information with regard to the relief afforded would be of little value. I fear I cannot hold out any hope that it may be possible to provide special facilities for a discussion of the subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state why he can hold out no hope of an opportunity for a discussion on what we regard as one of the most important questions of the day?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements can be made at an early date for the exhibition of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Debates at every public library?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to arrange for public libraries who make application for copies of Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, to be supplied free of charge with one copy each day; or, in the event of his being unable to supply such copies free of charge, whether he can arrange to supply public libraries with such copies as they desire to purchase at a reduced price?

It is open to any public library to purchase the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I can see no adequate ground for placing the charge upon the general taxpayer.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the reason for increasing the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT from 3d. to Is. per day?

There have been two or three questions oh that Subject within the last week, and I explained that the price of Is. just fails to cover the cost of printing and publication.

If the price were reduced to 3d., would not the sale be increased?

I can send the hon. Member the figures when the price was 3d., and I think he would be astonished to find how few copies were purchased.

Will the tight hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of limiting the speeches of Members? [Interruption.]

The hon. Member will see how popular is that, suggestion. If all Members would adopt it, no doubt it would be possible to get through our business much more quickly.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Debates now being printed daily, and how many copies are being respectively sold and distributed gratuitously?

2,875 copies of each daily part of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Debates are printed. Of this number, 1,800 are distributed gratuitously to Members of Parliament and for the public service. The average number of copies sold for the first few days of the present Session was 050. Interest at the commencement of the Session, however, is usually above the normal, and it would be safer, therefore, to take last Session's average as the better criterion of sales, namely, 780.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the recommendation, made by a Committee of this House 100 years ago, that the Reports of Parliament and Government publications should be published at such a price as will enable them to be within the reach of all the people?

Do the copies sold have to pay the cost of the copies distributed to Members?

I think that is so.

Will the Government take into serious consideration the possibility of making Parliament more popular with the people and giving the fullest possible information as to what proceeds in Parliament?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the loss to date on our contract for zinc concentrates from Australia?

I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative. The accounts will be published as soon as possible.