asked, with reference to the Amendments affecting Scotland in the Insurance Bill, if the Lord Advocate can state when, where, and by whom they were originally drafted, and on what date, and by whom they were submitted to a section of the Scottish Liberal Members; whether, at the second meeting of those Members held on the morning of the 13th instant, the day these Amendments were debated in this House, there were only about a dozen Members present; and, seeing that the principal Amendment, regarding the powers of local authorities, for which a deputation of about twenty-four gentlemen, representing these authorities in Scotland, spent many days in London on deputation work, was not attained, and that the local authorities in question consider that they have a grievance against their representatives, any action is proposed by the Scotch Office to remodel the Bill more in keeping with the expressed desires of the people of Scotland?

The Government Amendments to the Insurance Bill were prepared as is usual. The communications which passed between the Scottish Office and certain, of the Scottish Members relative to the Insurance Bill and the Amendments thereon were confidential, and I am not, therefore, prepared to enter into the details asked for by my hon. Friend. I am not aware what number of Members was present at the meeting referred to in the question. I cannot conceive of any grievance which the local authorities have against their representatives in this House in connection with any Amendment made upon the Bill.

May I ask if these Government Amendments to the Insurance Bill were submitted to or seen by Scottish Liberals?

I imagine that they were seen by some Scottish Members.

Will the same privilege be extended to Scottish Members on this side of the House?

Certainly.

May I ask the Lord Advocate why a fortnight before these Amendments were debated, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Dumfries, and in answer to a question by myself, he did not explain the intended action of the Scottish Office on this matter, or adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire to issue a separate document explaining what was intended, and so have avoided mistakes and confusion?

I explained to the Committee that it was impossible at that date to give any definite information to the hon. Member, for this reason: that we could not, until the subsequent Clauses of the Bill had been adjusted, make a final adjustment of the Scottish Clauses.

Were the Amendments drafted by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Falconer), who himself moved their acceptance?

No.

It was common knowledge.

asked if the Lord Advocate can state, with reference to the following deputations from Scotland to Dover House, London, namely, those on 30th October and on 31st October, with reference to the House Letting Bill, on 1st November with reference to the National Insurance Bill, and on 2nd November with reference to the allocation of the education fund, whether any representations were made from the Scottish Office to discourage such meetings, and suggesting that the same purpose would have been served by these meetings taking place in Edinburgh; if he can explain if there is any special reason for this increase in the official interviews between those who are responsible for the conduct of affairs in Scotland and those who are affected by such conduct; and whether he can point to any result that justifies such proceeding?

No representations of the character suggested in the question were made by the Scottish Office. There has been no increase, so far as I am aware, in the official interviews referred to by my hon. Friend.

The right hon. Gentleman says there has been no increase. Can he explain how the expenses of the deputations from Scotland to London amounted to £2,000, while the annual average for five years has only been £1,600?

I cannot accept the hon. Member's estimate of the expenses, but I can quite understand why the deputations in a particular week exceeded the usual number.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it would be cheaper to Scotland if he sent a man down from London to interview these deputations?

I have a subsequent answer to give on the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question, whether the result justifies such proceedings and expenses?

My hon. Friend is in an excellent position to judge of that.

As is all Scotland.

asked the names of the officials of Scottish boards who have been called to London from Scotland on Government business during this Autumn Session, specifying the number of occasions and the number of days absent from their work in Scotland in the case of each official?

In connection with the National Insurance Bill the Vice-President and the medical member of the Scottish Local Government Board were in London during the Autumn Session, and one member, with the Agricultural Adviser, of the Congested Districts Board was in London in connection with the Scottish Landholders Bill. I am not in a position to state the precise number of days during which these officials were absent from Scotland, but while in London they were, of course, discharging official duty.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to my question, give the names of the officials? He has given their official titles, but the people of Scotland want to know their names?

Are we to understand that the Local Government Board of Scotland came to an end while these gentlemen were appointed on deputations to London?

Would it not be more economical for the Scottish Office for these people to engage an hotel for these gentlemen?

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the increasing number of deputations from Scotland to Dover House, London, during this Autumn Session, in one week alone about 170 gentlemen being received in four deputations by the Secretary for Scotland, at an estimated expense to the ratepayers of Scotland of about £2,000; if he is aware that the total annual average expenditure on similar deputations for the years 1904 to 1908 was £1,600; and, seeing that the deputations in question achieved no result which could not have been secured by their taking place in Edinburgh, will the Government consider the advisability in any legislation it may propose next year, or take other steps, to put an end to such expenditure of time and public money?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this question. I am not aware of any general increase in the number of deputations from Scotland to Dover House. During the week referred to the number was quite exceptional, for reasons which are well known to the hon. Member. I cannot accept his estimate of the expense. My Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland and I were ready to meet deputations in Edinburgh prior to the re-assembling of Parliament, but, as I understand, that was found not to be convenient for some of the gentlemen who appeared on the deputations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute or deny the correctness of my statement that the average cost for five years of deputations was £1,600, and does he think it is an exaggerated estimate of the cost of 170 gentlemen from Scotland at £12 per bead amounting to over £2,000?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's estimate.

May I ask for what purpose were those deputations. Would they give advice to the permanent officials of the Scottish Office, or to the Lord Advocate himself, or by any chance to the Secretary for Scotland?

To give information to the Secretary for Scotland and myself.

asked if the cost of printing the insurance stamps required under the State insurance scheme would be paid out of the contributions?

No, Sir. The cost will be defrayed by the State.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention had been drawn to the statement made by Judge Stevenson, at Cockermouth County Court last week, where he made a reduced order of 6d. a week against a woman and stated that he could not understand how the woman was able to maintain a family of seven children on her husband's wage of 21s.; if he was aware that when the State Insurance Bill became law, in consequence of thousands of workmen being called upon to pay 6½d per week out of a wage of less than £1 per week, thousands of families would be in a worse position than the case referred to; and if he intended reducing the contributions to the State insurance scheme for those who were receiving less than £1 per week?

I hope that the result of the Insurance Bill will be to place thousands of families of the poorest class in a better position than ever before in times of illness and unemployment. The scale of reduced contributions for low wage-earners was fixed after very careful consideration, and my right hon. Friend does not see his way to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention had been called to a case at the Battersea coroner's court, on Friday last, during an inquest on Rosie Ives, who died from the result of burns, when Albert Ives, the father, told the coroner that three years ago he was incapacitated from doing any work by an accident, and was receiving 12s. 9d. per week as compensation money, and paid 7s. 6d. rent, which left 5s. 3d. to maintain the family of six; if he was aware that, in consequence of the Government not agreeing to pay sick pay insurance money in case of accident under the State insurance scheme, hundreds of families would be in a worse position than the case referred to; and if he intended taking any action in the matter?

I may remind my hon. Friend that there are hundreds of families with no provision at all where the breadwinner is incapacitated by illness. In the case mentioned by him the allowance received is 12s. 9d. The result of accepting the Amendment to which he refers would have been to reduce the allowance in cases of sickness to 9s. The Amendment, as my hon. Friend is aware, was defeated in Committee by an overwhelming majority. To have accepted it would have been to disregard the advice of the Government actuaries, which has since been confirmed by the actuary consulted by my hon. Friends below the Gangway.

Is it necessary to take the compensation money in order to give "9d. for 4d."?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was intended that in Ireland the right of appeal under the new Clause substituted for Clause 51 of the National Insurance Bill should lie to the county court registrar; whether he was aware that in Ireland this official as a rule had no permanent office in the county in which his county court judge had jurisdiction, and was generally a solicitor practising in Dublin or Belfast; that an Irish county court registrar had no power to make orders as in England, and would be as difficult of access as the county court judge was when the quarter sessions were concluded; and whether, under the circumstances, he would constitute the resident magistrate for the district in which the insured resided or some other official permanently resident in the locality, the person to whom appeals were to be made?

The point raised by the hon. Member is under consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when a member of an approved society is insured for benefits in addition to the State benefits and desires to transfer his membership to another society, there is any provision made in the National Insurance Bill to ensure that his full transfer value, and not merely his transfer value under the State scheme, is transferred with him?

The National Insurance Bill has no concern with insurance for benefits outside the scheme. The point raised by my hon. Friend is a matter for arrangement between the societies.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether an owner of land will be able to deduct, for the purposes of Income Tax, payments made by him for the compulsory insurance of woodmen, carpenters, and farm hands employed by him, or whether landowners would be liable to pay Income Tax on such compulsory contributions?

Where an owner of land directly employs men of the classes named in the question on maintenance, repairs or management, payments made by him for the compulsory insurance of these men enter into the computations for the reduction of and relief from assessment under Schedule A. As regards Schedule B, an occupier of land can make allowance for the contributions paid in respect of farm hands in ascertaining whether his profits fall short of one-third the annual value, in which case he can claim an adjustment of his assessment.

Do not the expenses already exceed the percentage allowed, and will not the landowner not have to pay Income Tax on the compulsory contributions referred to?

Will my hon. Friend kindly put that question down?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under Clause 43 of the National Insurance Bill, the representatives of insured persons on the local health committees must themselves be insured persons?

The insured persons in the locality who appoint these representatives are not bound to select insured persons; it is left to them to choose whom they please.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now give the names of the proposed Irish Insurance Commissioners; and if he can give the number of officers, referees, and servants proposed to be appointed in Ireland, and inform the House in what manner they are to be appointed?

I am not yet in a position to answer the first part of the hon. Member's question; as regards the second part, I would refer him to the answers given yesterday to the hon. Member for Taunton and the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow.

May I inquire whether an estimate of the expense has been made?

Of the Commissioners?

Of the Commissioners and the other officers referred to in the question?

Well, of course, an estimate has been made of the general expense of the scheme.

I mean in regard to Ireland?

I am not able to give the hon. and learned Gentleman any figures.

May I ask whether we shall have the names before the Report stage, and also whether there will be an opportunity for the discussion of the whole matter?

I am afraid I cannot give an answer to that question, but I will communicate with my right hon. Friend.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the National Insurance Bill, the names of members of approved societies who may be sent to asylums will have to be still kept on the lodge books, as is required by the Friendly Society Act?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the contributions under the Insurance Bill of officers and their civilian servants respectively under the following circumstances; under the Allowance Regulations, paragraph 497, etc., servants' allowance is granted to assist officers towards the cost of maintaining civilian personal servants and grooms and to avoid too many soldiers being employed and taken away from their soldiering duties proper; this is in lieu of soldier servants, vide King's Regulations, paragraph 1335, and the officer who maintains a servant out of the allowance being entitled to free medical attendance for that servant under the Regulations of the Army Medical Services, paragraph 489?

Under the Bill as it stands, the officer and his servant would have to pay the full contributions of 3d. and 4d. respectively. My right hon. Friend is obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for bringing the point to his notice, and he will consult with my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War before the Report stage of the Bill is reached as to how this small anomaly can best be met.

asked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he is aware that it is now about three years since the erection of a new post office for Bolton was promised; will he explain why no steps are being taken to commence such erection; what is the reason of the delay; and if he can give a definite date as to when such work will be commenced?

It was hoped to commence building operations for the new head post office at Bolton during the present financial year, and with this object arrangements were well advanced. Unfortunately, a difficulty has arisen as to providing accommodation for the telephone service, and it has become necessary to reconsider the plans. I cannot say definitely when the work will be commenced, but the hon. Member may rest assured that there will be no avoidable delay.

asked whether, now that the traffic has increased through the opening of the Admiralty arch, the First Commissioner will forthwith consider throwing so much of the garden of St. James's Palace into the public thoroughfare at Marlborough Gate as will enable an adequate footway to be made along the west side of the roadway, in order to lessen the risk to pedestrians at an unprotected corner, and to convert this dangerous passage into a thoroughfare more convenient to the public and more compatible with its regal surroundings?

The increase of traffic appears to be from Constitution Hill and Buckingham Gate rather than from Marlborough Gate. There have been no accidents, and no reports of danger from accidents at the point mentioned by the hon. Member. The First Commissioner does not at present propose to take any action in the direction suggested.

Is there any real reason why the conversion of this squalid passage into a decent thoroughfare which is so largely used by the public between the two Royal palaces, should not be undertaken?

It would cost a lot of money, and disturb a number of people without justification for it.

Who are the people to be disturbed?

The occupants of the apartments in the Palace of St. James.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if there have been very few accidents it is owing to people being afraid to go there?

That appears to be contradictory of the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite.

asked why women secretaries are not allowed to use the room set apart for the use of secretaries of Members; and whether, in view of the fact that some Members have women as secretaries, he will make adequate provision for them?

It is not thought desirable that women secretaries should be introduced into the room set apart for Members' private secretaries; but the Grand Committee room in Westminster Hall is at their disposal whenever available. The First Commissioner is considering a scheme for re-arranging the men secretaries' room in order to afford some slight relief to the occupants.

Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of reversing the situation by giving the women secretaries the more comfortable and suitable room at present devoted to the men, and banish the men secretaries to the shades of the Grand Committee room?

I think the Grand Committee is the more suitable and more comfortable room of the two.

What is to be done when the Grand Committee room is being used by the Grand Committee?

The Grand Committee have only used the room twenty-nine times since last February, and never after four o'clock.

asked whether the firm of Phillips, Mills, and Company are contractors to the Office of Works; if so, is he aware that the firm have been employing a man as porter at their Paddington depôt at a wage of 12s. a week; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter with a view to securing compliance with the Fair-Wages Clause?

Messrs. Phillips, Mills, and Company are not contractors to the Office of Works.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the application of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee to the Treasury, made on the 8th of July, 1910, for a grant in aid of their scientific and development work in the sea fisheries, and referred to his Department by the Treasury, has been referred to the Development Commissioners; whether the claim to such Commissioners was for a grant for policing purposes or for scientific and development purposes or both; whether the claim on behalf of the latter objects was specially referred to and recommended to the Commissioners; whether the Commissioners have come to a definite decision as to making such grant or otherwise to such joint committee; and whether he will supply the hon. Member for Bolton with a copy of the claim sent by the Board of Agriculture to the Development Commissioners relating to this matter?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The application of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee was made in respect of fishery research and development work. The Commissioners were informed that the work proposed to be undertaken by the joint committee would come within the general scheme submitted to them by the Board. No definite decision with regard to that scheme has yet been arrived at, the Board being still in communication with the Commissioners on the subject. Negotiations respecting it are still in progress, and material modifications may have to be made in it before the approval of the Commissioners and the consent of the Treasury are secured. When these negotiations are concluded I shall be glad to lay on the Table of the House copies of the correspondence between the Board and the Commission.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether members of the Royal Engineers attached to the Board for survey duty in connection with the Ordnance Survey are being used for land valuers' work; and, if so, to what Department will their services be charged?

Royal Engineers on the Ordnance Survey are not being employed on the valuation of land; but, for the assistance of the Board of Inland Revenue, the normal revision of the Ordnance Survey maps is being expedited and the order of revision rearranged so as to provide for the earlier revision of the maps in which changes have been specially numerous.

Am I to understand that no officer of the Royal Engineers has been employed at all on the land valuers' work?

No Royal Engineer in connection with the Ordnance Survey.

May I ask whether any Royal Engineers were so employed?

The Noble Lord had better address his question to the Secretary of State for War. I am not responsible for war.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether those members of the public who have been put to expense in preparing Form IV. will be indemnified for such expense, which was caused by an illegal act on the part of the Treasury?

asked whether the Government proposed to reimburse those who have been put to expense in obtaining professional assistance in order to answer the questions illegally insisted on by the Commissioners an the Revenue papers commonly known as Form IV. and Form VIII.?

The answer is in the negative.

May I ask whether, in view of this decision there will be any guarantee that similar illegalities and tyrannies will not be perpetrated by the Insurance Commissioners?

No tyranny was committed.

May I ask whether there is any redress against those legal advisers who have allowed their clients to incur expense in filling up the forms which they knew, or ought to have known, were illegal?

asked who are the persons who at present constitute the Board of Agriculture?

The Board consists of the President, the Lord President of the Council, His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, the First Commissioner of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Secretary for Scotland.

If a separate Board of Agriculture is set up for Ireland will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of removing the Secretary of State for Scotland and replacing him by another English Minister?

That could only be done by legislation.

Has the Board of Agriculture sat as a Board?

Yes, Sir, it sits every day.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean on the Front Government Bench?

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture under what several headings of departmental expenditure the unexpended surpluses have arisen which have for the last five years been repaid to the Treasury?

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to refer him to the annual Appropriation Accounts, which show under each sub-head of the Vote the amount of the variations between the Grant and the expenditure, with an explanation of their cause in each case.

asked whether the support given by the Board to the Government's proposal to constitute a separate Board of Agriculture for Scotland, with separate administration of the Contagious Diseases of Animals Acts, indicated the approval of the permanent officials and expert advisers of his Department or merely that of the Board as defined by statute?

It is not for the permanent officials and expert advisers of any Public Department to approve or disapprove of the policy or proposals of the Government. Their business is to carry it out to the utmost of their power.

Does that mean simply that the views of the permanent officials will not be taken?

Of course they are taken and duly considered and weighed.

May I ask what the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman himself is?

asked the Prime Minister if he will state what reduction will be made in the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture when he is relieved of administering agricultural affairs in Scotland?

No, Sir.

Then I am not incorrect in assuming that in order to arrive at the true expense of the proposed new Scottish Board one should add a proportion of the present salary of the British Minister for Agriculture which he gets—

Will the Noble Lord kindly hand that question in?

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the amounts drawn from the Local Taxation Accounts, under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, in respect of swine fever, foot-and-mouth disease, and other contagious animal diseases, are all paid into the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account to meet expenditure out of that fund; what proportion of the estimated sum of £91,000 under this heading for 1911–12 is allocable to outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease; and how long is it since the expenditure out of the above account has exceeded this sum?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The estimate of £91,000 does not include any expenditure in respect of foot-and-mouth disease. The expenditure out of the cattle pleuro-pneumonia account for Great Britain has not exceeded that sum in any year since 1898–9.

May I ask whether the time has not arrived to alter the name of this account, which is no longer applicable?

I do not think it is necessary to alter the name of the account, which, as a financial arrangement, works very well.

asked whether the applications for small holdings this year have been so numerous that the original Commissioners could not have dealt with them; if so, whether they have increased to the extent of being quadrupled; and, if they have not increased to that extent, what additional employment has been found for the new Commissioners?

I have as yet no complete information as to the number of applications received this year. The duties of the Small Holdings Commissioners are to advise and assist the county councils and the Board in the administration of the Act generally. All of them have been fully occupied since they were appointed.

May I ask whether it is not one of the duties of these Commissioners to give people information which may lead them to apply for small holdings, and so increase the number of applications?

Yes. They have been giving information quite freely all Over the country, wherever there seems to be any reason for it.

asked, in reference to the promised appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into patent matters and other allied matters, whether the Committee will be appointed as early in the next Session as possible?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to state to the House the intentions of the Government in regard to the Shops Bill?

I must refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made yesterday on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, with the exception of the Factory Act of 1907, which dealt exclusively with laundries and certain institutions, the last amending Factory Act was passed in 1901; and whether, in view of the fact that so great a period has elapsed and that many amendments to the law are needed, he will state when he intends to introduce fresh legislation on the subject?

As regards the first part of the question, the following Acts have been passed amending and extending the Factory Act of 1901—the Notice of Accidents Act, 1906; the Employment of Women Act, 1907; the Factory and Workshop Act, 1907; the White Phosphorous-Matches Prohibition Act, 1908; and the Cotton Cloth Factories Act of the present Session. As regards the second part of the question, I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at the present time.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a recent judgment of Mr. Justice Neville, in which he stated that the business of the Birkbeck Bank in its inception and throughout its career has been illegal; and whether he will consult the Law Officers as to what remedy, if any, exists against any persons in connection with the matter?

My attention has been called to the recent judgment of Mr. Justice Neville in the case of the Birkbeck Permanent Benefit Building Society, and the Official Receiver, acting as liquidator of the society, will consider whether any persons are liable to contribute to the assets of the society and will, if necessary, be advised by counsel in the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the number of trade unions in the United Kingdom and the membership of the same; and whether he can say on what ground the Board of Trade formed the opinion that the 394 trade unions reporting to the Board of Trade on the question of unemployment represents the opinion of trade unions generally throughout the United Kingdom?

The total number of trade unions in 1910 was 1,153, and their gross membership was 2,435,704. Of these 699 pay unemployment benefit of some kind or other, and the number of members eligible is about 1,500,000. The number of unions making regular monthly returns to the Board of Trade is 394, with a membership of nearly 800,000. As regards the second part of the question, the hon. Member has been misinformed, as the Board of Trade have never expressed the opinion which is attributed to them. If he will be so good as to tell me what he has in mind, I shall be happy to give him any information in my power.

I do not know whether I should be in order in telling you what I have in my mind.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the manager of the Grimsby Labour Exchange has been supplying men to the local ship and steam trawl owners to fill the places of coal porters who are on strike although notified that a strike was in progress; and whether he proposes to put an end to such action by Labour Exchanges?

I understand that vacancies for coal porters in place of men who had ceased work in Grimsby were notified in the local Press and to the local Labour Exchange. I am informed that the bulk of these vacancies were filled through the former channel. Ten men were engaged through the Labour Exchange. Before such engagement each man was informed of the existence of a strike, in accordance with Section 3 of the Statutory Regulations under the Labour Exchanges Act. From inquiries I have made I am satisfied that the regulations have been strictly complied with, and I do not propose to take any action.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can state the amount of the output throughout Great Britain for the last twelve months and the amount of the output of coal throughout Great Britain for the twelve months prior to the passing of the Eight Hours (Mines) Act?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. No information is available at present as to the output of coal during the course of the present year, as the statutory returns of output from owners of mines are not required to be made until the end of the year; nor am I able to say what is the output for any broken part of a year, as the returns give only the total output for the year. The output for the year 1910 in Great Britain was 264,337,786 tons; and for the year 1908, the last complete year before the Eight Hours Act came into operation, it was 261,409,056 tons.