asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Mr. F. C. Morgan, of 95, Inverness Place, Cardiff, was examined on 21st November last by a doctor and was told that he was suffering from tuberculosis; whether he was told by the specialist to the King Edward VII. Welsh National Memorial Association, on 8th December, to await notice from the medical superintendent of the sanatorium; whether that notice has been received; and, if not, why there has been this serious delay?

No application was received in respect of this person until 4th December. He was examined by the tuberculosis officer and reported upon on 7th December, and recommended by the insurance committee for treatment in a sanatorium on 12th December. Arrangements have been made for him to enter a sanatorium this week. I am informed that the case was not an urgent one, and that the man was able to continue in employment.

asked whether, in the case of an insured person who has been certified for sanatorium treatment, and for whom accommodation cannot be found, the National Insurance Commissioners have any power to render that person financial or other assistance pending his entry into a sanatorium; if not, whether it is anticipated that there will be any such cases in the normal working of the Act; and, if such cases will be possible or probable, steps can be taken to secure the power referred to?

Yes, Sir. If there should be any such cases both financial and other assistance would be provided; for during any period between an insured person becoming incapable of work, and his actual entry into a sanatorium he would receive domiciliary treatment, including both medical attendance and the provision of medicines, and also extra nourishment, etc., ancillary to the treatment; and he will also be entitled, under the ordinary conditions, to sickness benefit, normally of 10s. a week.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that some benefit societies have issued circulars to their members urging them to select particular doctors on the panel, and have also sent canvassers to their members to inform them that they are required by the society to select certain doctors who are named; whether in the majority of cases this is being done with reference to members of these societies who only became members of any friendly society for the first time under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, and who were not patients of the particular doctors named; and whether, in view of the effect of pressure such as this or canvassing carried on with the connivance of the doctors who are favoured by the officials of these societies upon the other doctors who have gone on the local panels, and whose patients are thus interfered with, the Insurance Commissioners will have immediate steps taken to prohibit societies interfering in this manner?

Every insured person has a right to select the practitioner on the panel by whom he wishes to be attended, and the issue of any circular which conceals this fact would be unjustifiable. If my hon. Friend will inform me of any actual case in which a circular has been issued stating that members are required by the society to select certain doctors who are named, I will see if any action should be taken.

Are the panels filled throughout the country?

I think, with a few tiny exceptions, the panels are now in operation in all districts.

Where the panels are not set up, how are the insured persons going to get medical benefits?

In every case doctors are provided for insured persons.

asked what steps have been taken to acquaint insured persons with the names and addresses of doctors on the panel; and whether lists of their names and addresses have been circulated to each insured person, or, failing that, whether their names and addresses have been advertised in the local Press?

Lists of doctors on the panel have been set up in all post offices, and in offices of the Customs and Excise officers, at police stations, Labour Exchanges, and hospitals, and have also been sent to the local branches of approved societies who asked for them. Lists have not been supplied to individual insured persons, but certain newspapers have, I believe, published local lists.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the best plan would be to advertise all these names and addresses in the local newspapers so as to avoid the necessity of workmen going to offices, particularly Excise offices, the addresses of which they do not even know?

It depends entirely upon the local insurance committee, and they probably do not want to incur more expense than necessary.

Can they not be communicated to the approved societies?

Oh, yes; they are communicated to all the approved societies.

asked whether, be fore admitting the name of any practitioner who may apply to have his name placed on a panel in their area, the insurance committees have been directed by the Insurance Commissioners to investigate the validity and worth of any foreign or American degree that such applicant may adduce as proof of ability to fulfil the duties required of him?

I am not aware that any medical practitioners have been included on any panel except duly qualified medical practitioners—that is, practitioners for the time being registered under the Medical Acts. No foreign or Colonial practitioner is entitled to be registered unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed by the Medical Act, 1886.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulty caused to insured persons who are obliged to select a medical practitioner from their local panel owing to his status and degree being stated by means of letters of the alphabet only; whether on the Kensington panel two practitioners are described as L.K.Q.C.P.I. and L.R.F.P.S.G., respectively; and whether, in a revised or any subsequent copy of the panel that may be issued, the Insurance Commissioners will give directions that any qualifications in possession of the practitioner should be set out in more popular language?

The question of the manner in which lists of doctors on the different panels are published is entirely a matter for the insurance committees, themselves, acting in conjunction with the medical men on the panels. I believe there have been local variations in the procedure adopted, but I do not believe that these have caused any difficulties to insured persons making their choice.

asked when action will be taken upon the Report of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Committee?

This matter is receiving very careful consideration, but I fear I am not at present in a position to make any statement with regard to it.

asked how many of the doctors on the panel for the county of London are also on the panels of neighbouring counties?

I believe that some doctors resident near the border of the administrative county of London have arranged to continue to treat insured persons the other side of that border under the Insurance Act as formerly in private practice. A complete answer to this question would involve the separate examination and comparison of the panels of Middlesex, Surrey, Kent, Essex, West Ham, and Croydon. I will send the hon. Member, if he desires, the printed lists of doctors for all these areas.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to a letter addressed by Dr. Glaister to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, informing him that Mrs. Peppiat walked from Clerkenwell to the offices of the London Insurance Committee at. 3, Pall Mall East, to ask for an answer to a request made by her husband about ten days previously for permission to contract out of medical benefit, she being prepared to give very definite reasons for his desire to do so; that, after interviewing five clerks, Mrs. Peppiat was informed that her husband must consult a panel doctor, and that if she persisted in putting difficulties in the way they could do nothings for her; and if the office staff had authority to adopt this attitude, and why no answer had been made to Mr. Peppiat's request?

I will communicate with the London Insurance Committee in regard to the matter referred to in the hon. Member's question, but I must point out that the insurance committee is not a department of the Insurance Commission, but a public body for whose office procedure I am not directly responsible.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the London medical committee protesting against the recent formation of what is termed the London county medical committee (from among the members of which an executive committee has been formed), on the ground that in no sense consistent with reason, or in pursuance of Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, can the Insurance Commissioners be satisfied that such a committee could be regarded as representative of the 5,500 duly qualified medical practitioners resident in the county of London; and what steps are proposed to be taken by the Commissioners to secure that any body which is recognised under the Act satisfies the provisions of the Act?

The Committee referred to in the question has not yet been recognised by the Commissioners under Section 62 of the Act, The Commissioners, when considering applications made to them by a medical committee for recognition under that Section, require full information as to its composition and the procedure by which it was brought into existence.

asked whether a doctor may join the panel and by his agreement stipulate that he will give medical attendance and treatment only to patients who select him, and not to patients who may be assigned to him without their wish and without his consent lay the insurance committee?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answers already given to similar questions by the hon. Members for Stirlingshire, London University, Haggerston, Nottingham East, and Islington North, on the 6th, 9th, 13th, 14th, and 15th instant, to which I have nothing to add.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for a specific answer to this question? It has never really been answered before.

It has been answered three or four times.

Can the doctor stipulate by the agreement that he shall only attend his own patients and not those assigned to him?

If the insurance committee accepts that agreement, certainly.

asked whether any doctors are entered on more than one panel under the National Insurance Act; if so, how many; and how many of these have been registered in more than two districts?

Yes, Sir. Where a doctor living near the boundary between two contiguous areas has patients in both, he has, of course, placed his name on the panel of both. It would obviously have been detrimental to the interests not only of the doctors, but of insured persons, that any such artificial divisions as arise from local government boundaries should preclude insured persons from continuing to receive the services of their own doctors. The figure of 15,000, given as the number of doctors on panels in Great Britain was arrived at after making a liberal discount for cases of this kind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many duplicates are upon the panels?

That would involve an examination of all the boundaries of Great Britain.

asked whether any doctors are entered on more than one panel in the county of London; and, if so, how many; and how many of these have been registered in more than two districts?

There is only one panel for the county of London; its division into lists for the separate boroughs is for the assistance of the insured persons in their selection of a doctor within convenient distance of their homes. Doctors were asked what districts they wished to serve, and the lists were prepared accordingly. The number of doctors on the London panel in the first list was 780; and I learn that more than a hundred new names have since been received.

Have any steps been taken to prevent a doctor from having more patients than he can attend?

I do not think any doctor has sent into us any list of the number he has already received.

asked whether registered trade unions which have become approved societies are exempt from the payment of receipt stamps on all receipts exceeding the value of £2?

The answer is in the negative. As I informed the hon. Member for South-West Ham on the 17th December last, the question of extending the exemption given by the Friendly Societies Act to registered friendly societies to approved societies generally, so far as regards their business under the Insurance Act, is under consideration.

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to make Clause 109 of the National Insurance Act applicable to Scotland by the Government Amendment leaving out the original limiting words "in England," which was carried on the Report stage of the Bill on 1st December, 1911?

The answer is in the negative. Section 109 of the Act does not apply to Scotland.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the Committee stage of the Bill I pointed out the Section did not apply to Scotland, the Government acceded to my argument and stated that on the Report stage they would introduce an Amendment to make it applicable to Scotland? They did, in fact, introduce an Amendment on Report stage, but we were not allowed to discuss it.

I was not aware of that fact. I can find no statement such as that the hon. Gentleman says we made, but I will gladly look it up.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to give him the reference?

Yes, I shall be very glad if the hon. Gentleman will give me the reference.

asked whether, in the event of a ploughman writing to the Insurance Commissioners and asking if he is bound to pay his insurance premium, owing to the fact that many people similarly placed in his neighbourhood have not done so, it is customary to send copies of Form No. 125 (Scotland) and to ask him to act as informer and collect evidence against his friends; and, if so, whether such a task can be performed by those who are paid for the purpose?

The ploughman in question wrote a letter of complaint, asserting that a large number of persons were boasting that they would not come under the conditions of the Insurance Act and that no inspectors were taking any notice, and adding that this was unfair to loyal and law-abiding subjects. The Scottish Commissioners afforded him the opportunity, which he appeared to desire, of giving specific information as to these cases, which were unknown to the Commission.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a well-known fact that the farmers and ploughmen in this part of Scotland are not taking any notice of the Act, and is it not rather too much to expect a single individual ploughman to undertake the part of an unpaid or unofficial sneak among neighbouring employers and his own friends?

There is no question of an unpaid sneak; but, when a letter is received practically alleging that the inspectors are in connivance with persons to elude the Act, it is quite right the person sending it should be asked to give specific instances.

Was it not a case of a ploughman, whose employer insisted upon observing the Act, asking that he might be allowed to keep himself off as it was notorious many farmers and employers in the district were not observing the Act; and will the right hon. Gentleman lay a copy of the report upon the Table of the House?

I have seen the letter in question, and it is practically an allegation that the inspectors are conniving with certain persons in breaking the Act, and such allegations should not be made without specific instances are given.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the supernumerary lamplighters employed by the Gas Light and Coke Company and paid at the rate of 5s. 6d. a week are having 4d. deducted from their wages for the national insurance; and whether he will have inquiry made as to whether any deduction should be made at all in the case of these men?

I have no information with regard to the case referred to in the question, but I am communicating with the company and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

asked if the Insurance Commissioners, when they decided that the share fishermen of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft came under the provisions of the National Insurance Act on the ground that they were employed persons and not partners, had under their consideration the decision of the High Court that the same share fishermen were partners and so did not come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act; and, if not, whether their decision will be reconsidered?

As fishermen paid by share are expressly excluded from the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Act irrespective of the question whether they are partners or servants, a decision given under that Act would not be relevant to any question under the National Insurance Act. The Commissioners see no reason for reviewing the decision already announced.

Might I ask if the Insurance Commissioners will have a test case taken to the High Courts to see if these fishermen come under the Act or not?

I do not think it is their function to have a case stated. I should have thought it was for the aggrieved person, if there is one; but I will consider the matter.

Are we to understand that all share fishermen come under the Act, and, if not, why not?

Oh, no, it depends upon the conditions under which they are working.

asked whether distress exists among outworkers in the lace trade in Nottingham in consequence of the imposition of the insurance tax; and when some scheme will be introduced to mitigate the hardships under which they are suffering?

Following upon the Report of the special inquiry which will be laid on the Table of the House in a few days, it has been decided to simplify the system of paying contributions in respect of outworkers by reference to work done. I am sending to the hon. Member particulars of the changes which are being made in the Regulations. No specific case of hardship in Nottingham has been brought to my notice, but if the hon. Member can furnish particulars of any case I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the simplification to which he refers has been divulged, and does not adequately deal with the very considerable distress resulting from the imposition of this tax?

I was not aware of it. The recommendations of the person who conducted the inquiry are, I think, meeting the special case of the Nottingham outworkers.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any impartial persons who conduct inquiries on behalf of the Government?

I think by Statute all inquiries have to be conducted by impartial persons.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that long before the Insurance Act came into existence there was a great deal of distress among the outworkers in the lace trade at Nottingham, and whether the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) has attempted in any way to advise the employers to raise the wages of these particular workers?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that Government inspectors are demanding that employers of charwomen, aged 67, who are employed for four hours every day and paid at the rate of 12s. per week, should fix stamps on their insurance cards to the value of 5d. or 6d. per week instead of 4d. as is provided by the National Insurance Act; and whether the Insurance Commissioners have issued any new regulations on the subject?

Section 49 of the Act requires the same rates of contribution to be paid in respect of persons of the age mentioned as for employed contributors of other ages. Where, under the provisions altering the rates of contributions in respect of low-paid employés, the employer pays 5d. and 6d. a week, the employed person pays nothing. The rates are laid down in the Act and are not determined by Regulations of the Insurance Commissioners.

Are persons of this age entitled to medical benefit?

They are entitled to such benefit as 9d. per week will provide from their approved society.

asked (1) whether, when forming the advisory committees for the National Health Insurance Act, due consideration was given to the relative importance of manufacturing industries; (2) whether he has refused representation of the leather trade on the advisory committees in connection with the National Insurance Act; and, if so, whether, in view of the importance of this industry in Great Britain, he will consider the advisability of having at least one representative of this industry on the committee; and (3) whether, with a view to the advantage of the advisory committees dealing with the National Insurance Act, he will consider the appointment as members of representatives of industries like the leather trade, which is of a technical nature, to enable the committees to give advice of a satisfactory nature when cases from technical industries of this character are being dealt with?

In appointing members of the advisory committees under the National Insurance Act, great care was exercised by the Joint Committee and the several bodies of Commissioners to ensure that the different types of experience were adequately represented both as regards employers' associations and trade unions. It was essential to adhere to a numerical limit of membership which would enable the committees satisfactorily to perform their duties, and it was, therefore, necessary to group the various trades affected, with the result that many branches of trade necessarily received no individual representation. At the same time, the Commissioners are always ready to receive direct from those interested in any trade suggestions with regard to regulations by which such a trade may be specially affected.

asked if the inspectors in several districts where there has been determined opposition to the National Insurance Act have received instructions to tell the farmers that, if they will begin paying now in this the third quarter and deduct the tax from their men's wages, the Commissioners will excuse them from paying up the arrears of contributions due for the period from 15th July to 15th January?

The answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the decision arrived at on Saturday last at a representative meeting of members of the British Medical Association, it is intended to allow further time for the completion of the doctors' panels, and also when it is intended to set up the local medical committees?

So far as I am aware the panels are still open throughout the greater part of the Kingdom, and doctors may send in their names for addition to them to the local insurance committee. The date of publication of these names rests with the local committees. Applications for recognition from local medical committees can at any time be sent to the Insurance Commissioners for approval.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to introduce any legislation in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal so as to enable local authorities to deal satisfactorily with trade effluents which at present prevent purification of rivers; and, if so, will he say when he expects to introduce such legislation?

I have a Bill in preparation on this subject, but I am not at present in a position to say when it will be introduced.

asked the President of the Local Government Board if he can give the figures showing the number of ordinary indoor and out door paupers in London for the years 1900, 1901, 1911, and 1912, respectively; will he also give the percentage of the growth of population in London from 1900–12; and can he offer any explanation how it is that, in spite of the public moneys expended on emigration, old age pensions, feeding of school children, distress committees, and Labour Exchanges since 1900, the volume and cost of London pauperism has so largely increased?

I am sending the hon. Member a statement of the figures he requires, and will circulate the answer with the Votes.—[See Written Answers this date.]

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in view of the answer he is kindly circulating with the Votes, he still adheres to his statement that both the cost and volume of emigration in London is decreasing?

I see no relevancy in the question to the question on the Paper. When the hon. Member sees my answer he will find it more than sufficient for the purpose he desires.

asked how the Poor Law expenditure for the year 1912 compares with that of 1911; and whether, in cases where the cost of relief has been reduced, all other items, including indoor maintenance, are higher?

The Poor Law expenditure of England and Wales shows a reduction for the year ended March, 1912, as compared with the year ended March, 1911, of approximately £600,000. The reduction in the amount of out-relief administered was £770,000, and it was accompanied by some reduction, taking the country as a whole, in the cost of maintenance of the indoor poor and in some other items. There were, however, increases in items of buildings, salaries, and superannuation allowances of officers and servants, and lunatics in asylums.

Are we to understand that the entire cost is less?

The cost of indoor paupers is £11,000 less, and of outdoor paupers £770,000. Lunatics have gone up in cost by £38,000, and the net difference therefore is about £600,000.

Less or more?

Less.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Public Health (Acquisition of Water) Bill will be proceeded with during the present Session; and, if so, whether he can state the date when it will be taken?

I fear that it will not be possible to give facilities to proceed with this Bill this Session.

asked the Prime Minister whether, if as a result of the passing into law of the Government of Ireland Bill, the field will be open to, without former complications, proceed with the re adjustment of electoral areas in Great Britain, he will say whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill being on the Statute Book but not operative at the date of the dissolution of the Parliament now sitting, it is the intention of the Government to give effect to any scheme of re adjustment of electoral areas as fore shadowed on the introduction of the Fran chise and Registration Bill earlier in the present Session?

I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 16th January last as regards the intentions of the Government, except to refer him to what was said by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 8th July last.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for the Colonies distinctly said we could not have redistribution till Members below the Gangway left the House?

I should like to have the reference to that before I answer.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extra and ever-increasing burdens placed on the State by sickness and industrial inefficiency, he will so frame his promised Bill for the reform of the Upper House that the present over-representation of the liquor traffic in that Chamber may be corrected?

As I have said before, in framing their proposals on this subject the Government will bear in mind all relevant material.

asked the Prime Minister whether lie is aware that, contrary to the findings of the recent Departmental Committee on Pilotage, the Select Committee on the Pilotage Bill, 1870, the Thames Traffic Committee, 1879, and the Select Committee on Pilotage, 1888, the Pilotage Bill largely extends the immunity of shipowners from liability for damage done by their vessels, and that the Port of London Authority and the London County Council and numerous harbour, dock, and other authorities and trading interests in many parts of the Kingdom are opposed to the Bill in its present form; whether the Government propose, notwithstanding this, to proceed with the Bill this Session; and, if so, will he arrange that the Bill shall not be taken after Eleven o'clock at night and that a sufficient number of days are given to the Report stage to allow these important authorities and trading interests who are adversely affected by the Bill to have their case properly put before Parliament and considered?

My right hon. Friend has requested me to reply to this question. I cannot admit that the Pilotage Bill largely extends the immunity of shipowners from liability for damage done by their vessels. As my hon. Friend is aware, an Amendment has been introduced into the Bill by the Standing Committee which meets his point so far as closed docks are concerned, and the various questions at issue are likely to be again discussed to morrow by the Committee. I can only say that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will give the fullest consideration to any proposals which are put forward on behalf of the interests which my hon. Friend represents. The President hopes that the Report stage will be a short one, but he cannot at present give any undertaking in regard to it.

Will the Prime Minister give this matter his consideration? I thought all questions relating to the business of this House were matters for him, and therefore I addressed the question to him and not to the President of the Board of Trade. Will the right hon. Gentleman give this question his specific consideration?

Certainly I will.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. C. Codling, of 8, Claremont Place, Rotherhithe, wont on 20th December, 1912, to Dr. Dixon, J.P., of Rotherhithe, to make a declaration of objection to vaccination for his child, whose age became four months a week afterwards; that Dr. Dixon refused to witness the declaration; that Mr. Codling, not knowing the address of another magistrate, had to wait till he could save 1s. 6d. with which to pay a commissioner for oaths to sign the form; and that thereby his declaration was three days overdue; and whether he can see fit to inform the vaccination officer that in this case he need not institute proceedings?

I have received a letter from Mr. Codling making the statements referred to in the question, and as the declaration was only three days late I have told the vaccination officer that, in my opinion, this is not a case in which he-should take further proceedings.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to> the action of the Samford, Suffolk, Board of Guardians in causing a young woman at Hammersmith to be arrested, on the 4th January, for alleged failure to maintain her imbecile child in the workhouse; whether the woman had paid for maintaining the child for over six and a half years; whether it was taken to the workhouse without her knowledge; whether the guardians caused her to be arrested with out any previous intimation or notification that she was chargeable to them for the maintenance of the child; whether the address of the stepmother of the girl from whom the child was received, and also the girl herself, was well known to the clerk of the guardians; what action is he taking in connection with the matter; and whether, under the circumstances, he will call upon the guardians to apologise to the girl for having caused her to be arrested without cause, and to refund her all the expenses to which she has been put in connection with the case, including the fine imposed upon her by the magistrate?

I have received a communication from the Samford Board of Guardians in this matter. It appears that the information before them was that Kate Tilbury had not for a considerable period made any payments in respect of the child's maintenance, and was about to leave the country. I have also received a letter from the South Street Mission, Hammersmith, in which statements are made which are inconsistent with those made to the guardians, and I am causing further inquiries to be made.

Is it the habit of the guardians to arrest the mothers of illegitimate children if they fail to pay their contributions?

Only under special circumstances, such as intention to leave the country or abandon the child.

Then are these women only arrested when it is thought they are going to leave the country or abandon the child?

The hon. Member must not read that suggestion into what I have just said.

Is it possible women can be arrested although they are not about to abscond from the jurisdiction of the Court?

That can only be determined when I have completed the further inquiries I have promised to make.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Nestle and Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company, who are contractors to his Department, are paying 2s. less per week to their workmen, and 1s. 7d. per week less to the workwomen, employed at their Chippenham factory than the same firm pays to similar workpeople at Staverton, in the same immediate district, and that they are employing their workmen at Chippenham five hours more per week than the employés of the same firm at Staverton, and six hours per week more than workmen of the same grade at Melksham, Wilts; and whether he will make immediate inquiry into the matter with a view to the firm carrying out the Fair-Wages Clause in their contract?

The Admiralty contract is carried out at the Staverton works only, and it would appear that there is no complaint of the wages and hours at those works.

asked the Postmaster General whether, having regard to the recent dislocation of telephonic and telegraphic communication to and from the city of Hull caused by storms, and the consequent loss and inconvenience to merchants and traders, he will take steps to place the city of Hull in direct communication with the great centres of the country by underground cables?

The pipe between Leeds and Hull has already been laid to carry the necessary cable, and the work of drawing in the cable will be proceeded with as soon as possible. The matter has been delayed owing to the necessity of awaiting the completion of some experiments that have been made as to the most suitable type of cable. A conclusion on this point has only lately been reached.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the line from Leeds to Hull is much more important than one from Dundee to Edinburgh?

I am dealing with that in reply to another question.

asked the Postmaster-General when the underground telegraph routes were first authorised by Parliament; the dates of any subsequent authorisations; and what amount was authorised to be spent per annum?

Provision was made hi the Post Office Vote for 1896–7 for the first section of an underground telegraph line between London and Birmingham; and sums for extensions of this line and for other underground telegraph lines have been voted each year since (except in 1900–1). The amount has varied with the urgency of the work and the state of public funds.

asked the cost of laying the underground telegraph wires from London to Penzance and from London to Cardiff, respectively?

asked (1) what difference of principle justifies an underground telegraph line between Exeter and Penzance but not between Edinburgh and Dundee; what is the proportion of cost to revenue in each case; (2) what special necessity induced him to undertake during the current financial year extensions of the underground telegraph system from Romford to Chelmsford and from St. Margaret's to Dover; what were the gross telegraphic revenue and cost of extension in respect of each district on the basis of figures given with regard to Dundee and Aberdeen; (3) why there is an underground telegraph line from London to Churchill via Marlborough, but not from London to Dundee via Rosyth?

The underground cables mentioned in these questions have been laid with a view to connecting with the submarine cables. The route by way of Marlborough, Exeter, and Penzance to Weston and Porthcurno connects with the submarine cables to America, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the East and the Far East. The cable to Romford and Chelmsford will be continued to Bacton and Lowestoft, and will there connect with the submarine cables to Germany and Holland. The cable to St. Margaret's Bay and Abbotscliff by way of Dover connects with the submarine cables to France and Belgium. The revenue and importance of the whole foreign and Colonial telegraph business of the United Kingdom must be taken into account in considering the necessity for these lines. The cost of the Western underground, including the spurs to Weston and Plymouth, was £456,633, exclusive of headquarter charges. The cost of the extension from Bristol to Cardiff was £79,491. The London-Bristol section is common to both routes.

Is not the fact that it is telegraphic communication to the submarine base at Dundee and the naval "base at Rosyth an important factor in the matter?

It is not so important a matter as maintaining settled communication between the United Kingdom and the rest of the world.

Have any of these towns contributed, or been invited to contribute, towards the cost?

Not that I am aware of. The suggestion might be made as a possible means of removing the difficulty, but I confess I have not a very strong anticipation that such a suggestion will be accepted.