asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the average cost of coal at the pit's mouth for the year 1919, showing the amount attributable to labour, materials, and other costs, and owner's profits and royalties, comparing these costs with the year 1913, as given in evidence before the Coal Commission?

I regret that I am unable to add to the information which I gave in reply to the hon. Member's question on February 23rd.

When can we have this information? It was given before the Coal Commission and it is important we should have it. Cannot we have it before long?

I am afraid I cannot say how soon it can be given. I should like to have it quite as much as the right hon. Gentleman, but I really cannot promise it by any given time.

Is the President of the Board of Trade pressing the Coal Controller for the figures?

Yes, but as I pointed out in an answer on the last occasion they are not yet available.

But is the President of the Board of Trade pressing for the figures?

Yes we are doing all we can. They would be extremely useful to us and will be given as soon as possible.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give any information in respect to the boring for coal or other minerals in Ireland, and what were the results of such borings in the district of Lough Neagh?

The reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Mid Antrim on the 23rd February summarise the results of the boring for coal at Lough Neagh. The only other recent borings of which I am aware were undertaken by the Ministry of Munitions at Ballycastle, county Antrim, early in 1918, in a search for cannel coal, and I understand that the conclusion reached was that the seams found were not of economic importance.

Are the borings still going on?

I think not. They came to the conclusion that it was not economically important.

How much has the Government lost in respect of this enterprise?

I require notice of that question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the shipment of any coal has been sanctioned to Shetland whaling station, in view of the shortage of household coal in the island.

The sanction of the Controller of Coal Mines is not required for the shipment of coal to the Shetland Islands. No complaint has been received recently of any shortage of house coal in the islands, but enquiries are being made.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the state of chaos existing under the Coal Controller's Regulations; that bunker coal for ocean steamers in the port of Liverpool has to be obtained by coasting steamer from South Wales, costing at present £7 9s. 6d. per ton for large coal plus 4s. per ton for putting on board and trimming; that steamers in Liverpool are prohibited by the Coal Controller from taking coal from North Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire, and the Midlands, while coal from these coalfields has been shipped in the Mersey by coaster for Fowey, Darmouth, and other English Channel ports for bunker purposes; that coal from North Wales and Staffordshire was sent during the month of January to Cardiff by rail, and that in one instance at least it is alleged some of this coal was shipped in a coaster at Cardiff for Liverpool for bunkering purposes: and that coal has been sent from the Midlands to Plymouth and Southampton for bunkering purposes, entailing a railway charge of about 12s. per ton when the said coal could have been sent to Liverpool for about 4s. per ton, but this was not permitted; if he will explain why coal from Lancashire, Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottingham, North Wales, and Staffordshire is barred for shipment as bunkers in Liverpool while it has been diverted to English Channel ports for bunkering purposes, entailing long railway carriage and a wasteful use of wagons; whether he is aware that the price of bunker coal and detention to steamers waiting for bunkers increase the price of food and other commodities in this country; and if he can state what steps are being taken to remedy this chaos and waste?

My hon. Friend is correct in stating that bunker coal for steamers in the port of Liverpool has to be obtained by coasting steamer from South Wales, and that coal from North Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire and the Midlands is not permitted to be shipped as bunkers in the Mersey. The prices as stated by the hon. Member are approximately correct. It is not the fact that coal is permitted to be shipped from the Mersey to Channel ports for bunkering purposes; coal so shipped is shipped under permit for use as house coal only. North Wales and Staffordshire coal is not permitted to be sent to Cardiff by rail; nor is coal from the Midlands area permitted to be railed to Plymouth or Southampton for bunkering. If any coal has been sent by rail from the Midlands to Channel ports or to the Bristol Channel, it has been in direct contravention of the Controller's directions to the collieries. The railways have been advised that the traffic must not be accepted, and the Coal Mines Department's representative in Cardiff has been instructed to stop shipment of any coal improperly sent down. The Coal Mines Department has no knowledge of any coal so sent down having been shipped from Cardiff back to Liverpool. There was a rumour to that effect, which, notwithstanding enquiry, has never been verified.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that seaborne coal is being delivered at Dartmouth which puts at least an extra £1 per ton on to the consumer?

If coal cannot be sent from the Midlands to Plymouth for bunkering what coal is sent for bunkering?

I could not answer that without notice. I should have to refer to the Coal Controller. But I will find out if the hon. Member puts down a question. As regards the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question I cannot say exactly what the figures are.

Cannot some change be made to give the consumer some chance?

That question had better be asked of the Minister of Transport.

When will North Wales coal be available for shipment to the Mersey for bunkers?

I cannot say that.

Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

Yes, but I cannot undertake to prophesy.

Will the hon. Gentleman examine into the desirability?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that during the month of January at least 3,140 tons of coal were shipped at Liverpool in coasting steamers for Fowey, Cornwall, and another English Channel port for bunkering purposes, while at the same time ocean-going steamers in Liverpool were prohibited by the Coal Control Department from taking any bunker coal at Liverpool unless the same was brought by coasting steamer from South Wales; whether he is aware that the steamer "Clonlee," at Garston, on the Mersey, at the end of January, loaded Lancashire coal for Fowey or Dartmouth, and that the Coal Controller subsequently ordered the discharge of this coal from the steamer into lighters, thereby causing delay to the steamer, expense and waste; whether he is aware that South Wales coal, brought to the Mersey in coasters, has had to be discharged into lighters, again discharged from the same into railway wagons and conveyed to the coal tips, before it could be placed on board an ocean-going steamer at Garston, entailing an extra cost of 9s. per ton, the bunker coal costing £7 14s. per ton; whether he is aware that the prices paid for bunker coal, which in 1914 only cost 13s. 6d. per ton at Liverpool, adds greatly to the cost of food; and if he will state what steps are being taken to remedy these arrangements?

The hon. Member. is correct in stating that during January certain shipments of coal from the Mersey to Channel ports for bunkering were made in contravention of the directions of the Coal Mines Department. Measures have been taken to prevent these irregular shipments. The "Clonlee" was an instance in which, contrary to the directions of the Department, local coal had been sent down to be shipped to a Channel port for bunkers, and the coal was taken over by the Department's officer at Liverpool and diverted for local consumption. Full particulars of this transaction and of the cost of bunkers at Garston are not available without further enquiry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Coal Controller has issued instructions that coal is to be supplied at Cardiff in the following order of priority: Home railways and public utility undertakings; coastwise bunker requirements; bunker supplies to vessels ordered abroad in ballast by the Ministry of Shipping; and foreign coaling depôts; whether he is aware, that during the past 14 days homeward-bound steamers with cargoes of foodstuffs have been unable to obtain any bunker coal at the coaling depôts at St. Vincent and the Canary Islands; and if he will state what steps are being taken to remedy this state of affairs?

By priority of supplies at' Cardiff the hon. Member presumably refers to priority in respect of shipments from the port of Cardiff. The present order of priority applicable to coal shipments in the Bristol Channel is: First: bunkers for vessels engaged in the United Kingdom coastwise trade, second: cargoes for vessels proceeding to destinations in the United Kingdom (including the Channel Islands and Admiralty requirements); third: bunkers for vessels leaving for foreign destinations in ballast; fourth: bunkers and cargoes for vessels loading for bunker depôts. It is because of the shortage of supplies at the coaling depôts that vessels loading for these depôts have been given, for the time being, this priority of foreign coal cargo shipments, in order that the position may be remedied. Cargoes destined for home requirements, therefore, take precedence of all others. As between different home requirements, the priority is (1) household, (2) public utility, (3) rail, (4) industrial.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question as to the 14 homeward bound steamers which are unable to obtain bunker coal at the coaling depôts at St. Vincent and the Canaries? Are they really held up?

I cannot answer that, but I will try to find out.

If they are held up, would my hon. Friend make representations to the authorities with a view of shipping coal to the Canary Islands from that source?

That is what we are trying to do by giving priority.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the coal shortage in Ireland still remains acute, and that many Irish industries have practically no stocks on hand and may have to close down, and whether he will take steps to safeguard Irish supplies before satisfying foreign markets?

I am aware that present supplies of coal to Ireland are not sufficient to meet current demands. This is due partly to the difficulties of transport, partly to the recent strike at Belfast, and partly to increased consumption. Arrangements have just been made by which additional supplies of coal, amounting to 40,000 tons monthly, will be allocated to Ireland. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state what is the present staff employed in the Coal Controller's Department; what buildings are at present occupied by this staff; and what is the approximate annual cost of this department, and if same is paid out of any pooling of the profits of the department or if it is a charge upon the taxes?

The Headquarters staff of the Coal Mines Department numbers 422 officials and occupies the first four floors of the Hotel Windsor. The local staff numbers 260, and is housed in divisional offices in 16 different areas. The estimated approximate annual cost for the financial year 1920–21 (including the Treasury contribution towards the expenses of Local Authorities under the Household Fuel and Lighting Orders) is £550,000.

There is at present no law which enables the expenses to be recovered out of the profits of the industry, and up to 31st March, 1919, they were a charge upon the taxes; but the Coal Mines (Emergency) Bill provides for them to be charged upon the share of the profits which, under that Bill, will enure to the Controller. It is expected that for the period of the operation of the Bill the share will suffice to enable the expenses to be repaid to the Exchequer in full, and so to prevent any further charge upon the taxes.

Was not the figure given upstairs £760,000?

This figure is for 1920–21. The figure given upstairs was for 1919–20.

Is there a contemplated reduction?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what price was charged the public for imported mutton on 1st July and 1st October, 1919, and 1st January and 1st March, 1920, respectively?

I have been asked to reply. The maximum retail prices fixed for imported mutton vary according to the different cuts, for each of which a separate retail price is prescribed. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member copies of the Schedules of prices in force on the various dates referred to.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman tell me what are the prices? Surely that would not require a lengthy reply.

There are about 25 different cuts in a sheep and a retail price is fixed for each cut. These retail prices do, however, bear a fixed relation to the wholesale prices which are fixed by the Board of Trade, to which the Food Minister only adds a certain percentage. The wholesale prices on the dates referred to were:—

Docs not that show the very large percentage of profit the Government has been making?

No, Sir. I wish to state most plainly that these prices show no profit at all, and if hon. Members would only realise that they are dealing here with special cargoes which were purchased during the war and to which war costs and charges of very kind have to be added, they will then be able to understand what perhaps is a little puzzling at first, why it is that the actual cost to the Government is approximately 10d. per lb.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the reply I received from the Board of Trade only last Thursday giving what the mutton actually cost the Government, and does he realise the tremendous percentage of difference between the prices he has given and those given by the Board of Trade?

I have not in mind the answer the hon. Member refers to, but I have no doubt as to the accuracy of the figures in the statement I have just read.

Will the hon. Gentleman circulate the detailed figures so that hon. Members may have access to them?

I will see if it is possible to do so. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question, and then the information he requires can be circulated in the form of an answer to that question.

Would it not be better to have a loss than let the stuff rot?

Will the hon. Gentleman circulate the information he proposes to give to the hon. Member who asked the question with the papers today?

I will if it is possible. I will go back to the Ministry of Food and give instructions if it is possible. As regards the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Seddon), as to whether it would be advantageous to sell at a loss to the Treasury, that is not a matter for the Ministry of Food to decide.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the supply of meat held by the Government in this country, in the overseas dominions, and elsewhere is more than sufficient for the needs of our population until the end of the year, he will say if there is any reason, other than the reluctance to incur a loss on the original purchase price, which prevents large quantities of this meat of inferior quality being placed on the market and sold for whatever price it will fetch in open competition with home-grown supplies?

The stock of meat held by the Government in this country and elsewhere is not nearly so large as the normal consumption until the end of this year. A reduction in the price of imported mutton has been announced and will come into operation at an early date, but no sufficient reason exists for reducing the price of other imported meat.

Does the hon. Member agree with what Lord Devon-port said, that the docks and warehouses are choked with all that we want up to the end of the year?

I must see all the figures before I can say whether I agree with them. I do not quite agree with the details so far as I have seen them.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the cargoes of meat on the way to this country are in excess of usual cargoes for this season of the year?

What has happened is that we are getting now in this country meat which has been stored in Australia, and which we could not get during the War. We were unable to carry it, and now we are getting meat that we have not had for a long time.

Is it not a fact that if the suggestions in the Report of the Committee which considered this subject had been carried out we should not have had this plethora of meat?

Supposing this meat is put on the market, what will be the loss?

asked whether the question of subsidising any of the Overseas Dominions meat companies was ever considered; and what decision, in that case, was reached?

Such a suggestion was put forward some time ago and was considered by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Meat Supplies which reported against it.

asked the extent to which the Government has financially assisted the Argentine Meat Company, of Argentina; upon whose recommendations the subsidy was granted; and the amount of the subsidy and the conditions attached to it?

No financial assistance has been given to any Argentine Meat Company, but since August, 1915, the Board of Trade has leased works belonging to a British Company in Argentina and has thereby reaped profits which would otherwise have gone into private hands.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the continuing, the diminishing, or the abolishing of the bread subsidy;

(2) whether he can give the House the decision arrived at by the Government with regard to the bread subsidy?

Yes, Sir. The Government has decided that although it is inadvisable to abolish the bread subsidy at present, it is imperative that a substantial reduction should be effected in the Estimate for the coming financial year. Accordingly, the wholesale price of all flour will be advanced by 19s. 3d. per sack of 280 lbs. on Monday next, 15th instant. It has also been decided that the average rate of extraction required to be obtained from the wheat ground shall be raised from 77 per cent. to 80 per cent. In order to ensure that the benefit of the increased value of existing stocks in the hands of traders shall pass either to the consumer or to the taxpayer, no advance in retail prices of flour and bread will be permitted until Monday, 12th April, and arrangements have accordingly been made to check stocks in the hands of traders at the close of business on Saturday next, 13th instant. It is estimated that the reduction in the bread subsidy for the coming financial year as a result of the decision indicated above, will amount to approximately 45 millions. If no change were made the cost to the Exchequer on present estimates would be approximately 90 millions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the price of the loaf on the 12th April?

I am not quite sure. I believe it now fluctuates in different districts. Therefore I do not want to give any indication.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend His Majesty to give some reduction of the sentences which civilian prisoners are serving in order to mark by an act of Royal clemency the ratification of peace.

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. This matter has been carefully considered and it is not thought advisable to make any such recommendation.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in drafting the final terms of peace with Turkey, the Supreme Council, bearing in mind the strong feeling that exists among Christians of practically all denominations in this and other countries that the Church of St. Sophia at Constantinople should cease to be used as a mosque and revert to its original purpose as a Christian place of worship, will take steps to prevent its further misuse as a mosque and its restoration to the use for which it was built as one of the great shrines in Christendom.

As at present advised the Allies do not contemplate any change in this matter.

asked the Prime Minister whether any steps are contemplated towards opening up trade with the co-operative societies of the Ukraine; if so, what progress has been made; and, if not whether he will state the reasons?

It is contemplated that the same general arrangements will apply to trading with the cooperative societies of the Ukraine as apply to the co-operative societies operating elsewhere in Russia, and negotiations are proceeding on this basis.

asked whether the Polish Government consulted the Peace Conference before putting forward its territorial claims on its Eastern frontiers for acceptance by the Soviet Government of Russia; and whether His Majesty's Government is interesting itself in this settlement or taking any part in the negotiations?

In reply to the first part, of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I am not aware that any claims have been put forward by the Polish Government for acceptance by the Soviet Government; as regards the second part, any settlement affecting the peace of Europe is naturally of interest to His Majesty's Government, even when, as in this ease, they are not taking any part in the negotiations concerned.

Is it not a fact that the Polish Government is claiming the right to extend its frontiers to the furthermost limit ever held by the Turkish Empire in the past?

I do not know that.

If we are prepared to support Poland in view of attack from the East are we not very interested in this country, and will not representations be made advising the Turkish Government to consult us closely on this subject?

I do not know that I can usefully add anything to what I have adready said. I have fully explained the attitude of the Government on this subject.

Am I to understand from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that the British Government have been consulted by the Polish Government before sending their reply to the Russian Government?

I rather think so, but I cannot for the moment recollect the particular communication, and whether I can roughly characterise it as a consultation.

May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman himself is watching these negotiations, and not leaving it entirely to the Foreign Office to carry them on?

asked the Prime Minister whether a statement can now be made as to the progress of the negotiations for opening up trade with Russia in accordance with the Allied decision published on 17th January, 1920?

Two delegates selected by the representatives of the Russian Co-operative Organisations in London and Paris have been sent to Moscow in order to examine the detailed questions involved in the re-opening of trading relations. They arrived in Moscow on 25th February, and we have been informed that negotiations are proceeding. In addition, the Supreme Council has given permission for certain representatives selected by the Co-operative Organisations in Moscow to come to this country, in order to expedite the transaction of business. It is expected that they will be here very shortly. Until a. report has boon received from the delegates sent to Moscow and preliminary discussions have taken place with the delegates who are being sent from Moscow, it will be premature to make a further statement.

Who are the trade representatives who are coming here?

I cannot say.

Can we be assured that passports will as soon as possible be allowed to anyone to go to Russia to trade, and not merely to selected individuals?

I am afraid that great care will have to be exercised.

asked the composition of the Committee set up to consider the operation of the Rent Restriction Act, what evidence it proposes to call, and whether the proceedings will be public or published?

I have been asked to answer this question. With regard to the first part of the question the particulars were given in the reply which I gave on the 1st of March to the hon. and gallant Member for Southport. The Committee will, of course, themselves decide what evidence it is necessary to call in order to enable them to come to their conclusions, but they are, in fact, hearing evidence amongst others from both property owners' associations and tenants' associations. The proceedings are private, but it is intended that the evidence taken should be published with the Report.

asked what financial arrangements have been made for the newly appointed Ambassador to Washington?

The revised salary and allowances of the post will be as follows:—Salary, £2,500; Entertainment Allowance, £17,500 a year.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that revision was decided on after Sir Auckland Geddes was appointed, and whether it was known to the other gentlemen who were invited to take the post?

I am not aware that any other gentlemen were invited to take the post.

Seeing that the British Embassy has gone dry, should there not be a reduction in the entertainment allowance?

Is the entertainment allowance intended to be permanent, or is it merely attached to the salary temporarily?

Oh, no; it is intended to be a permanent allowance.

Is Sir Auckland Geddes rightly described as the Minister?

No, Am bassador.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make any further statement with regard to the protection of the Armenians in Turkey?

Prompt measures have been taken by the French Government to send to General Gourand powerful reinforcements in order to reestablish the position and to prevent further attacks upon the Armenians in Cilicia. French ships have also been sent to Mersina. The Allied Naval Commanders at Constantinople, who had authority to despatch an Allied naval flotilla to Mersina, preferred to keep the greater part of the Allied Fleet at Constantinople.

With regard to the position at Constantinople identic instructions for immediate and drastic action have been sent to the High Commissioners by the three Governments of France, Italy and Great Britain, who are acting in complete accord. But it would be inexpedient to reveal the character of these instructions until the reply of the Allied representatives has been received.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive a reply?

I thought that I might have received it before answering the question. I inquired about it now and found that it had not yet arrived.

Have inquiries been made into the origin of the massacres in Cilicia, and as to who was in fault in the beginning?

We have some information on the subject, but nothing to justify us in making a final statement.

There is a question I intended to ask the Prime Minister by private notice, but perhaps I may as well ask it now—is it a fact that Chaldean Christians have suffered from massacres, and will the Government ensure that all sections of Christians in Turkish territory shall be included in the precautionary measures of protection which are now being devised?

There have been no massacres in territories occupied by British troops, and I believe that the Chaldean Christians are now under the British flag in the Mosul area. I consulted the Chief of Staff on this very point no later than last Friday, when I was dealing with measures to be taken for their protection, and the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that ample protection will be given.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that besides the Chaldean Christians who are in the British area there is a considerable number who are "north of Mosul, and that it is most essential in their interests that some provision should be made in the Treaty with Turkey that they shall be given compensation for all losses and that guarantees shall be provided against a repetition of the evils from which they have been suffering?

I am sure that the Chaldeans who are under English or French protection are quite safe, but I understand that there is a considerable number of these people in territory occupied by the Turks?

That is quite true, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, but what they are really seeking is that they should have power to defend themselves, and that is what we are engaged in consultation on.

Will the right hon. Gentleman further take steps to insure that the Turks will give them facilities for migrating from their present villages under the protection of the British or French flag?

I do not think they are in the least anxious to migrate. They are confident that they can defend themselves.

asked the Prime Minister if he has seen recent telegrams from Cilicia giving fuller details of the massacres of the Armenians there. I am inspired to ask the question by a telegram which tells me that 18,000 have been massacred in the district of Marash and that 1,300 women and children perished in a snowstorm on the way to Adana, and that 8,000 Armenians are still in Marash, subject, of course, to daily perils.

Such information as has been received does not, I am glad to say, indicate that the massacres have quite reached that formidable figure, but they are formidable enough. The latest figures we have came to something like 15,000. Beyond that, I do not think we have heard anything.

Has the right hon. Gentleman heard the further detail of the death by starvation of the women and children who were refugees from Marash?

I think, as a matter of fact, they would be included in the 15,000. There is no doubt that a great many of them attempted to escape, and that, in a snowstorm, they perished, but these were included, I think, in the figures I have given.

asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the repeated evidences of the German Government's desire to evade their Treaty obligations, the most recent instance of which has been the exculpation of certain alleged war criminals, he will consider the desirability of revising the Treaty concerning the adjustments of debts due to our late enemies so as to cancel the obligation on English traders to pay interest on the sums duo from them to Germans.

The Government are not prepared to adopt my hon. Friend's view as to the general attitude of the German Government towards the Treaty.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state what is the number of Russian prisoners of war still detained in Germany, and whether His Majesty's Government is supporting the claims of the Russian Soviet Government for the repatriation of these men?

I have no information with regard to the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the information in the possession of His Majesty's Government is to the effect that both the German Government and the Soviet Government are anxious to effect the repatriation of the prisoners of war. His Majesty's Government are not called upon to intervene in any way, as the matter is one which concerns the Soviet Government and the German Government alone.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that the development of trade is being seriously retarded owing to the fact that there are not sufficient wagons available on the railways, and that the transport of goods by road has altogether ceased save that due to individual initiative, with a consequent congestion of perishable and other goods at railway centres and docks; whether he realises that this deadlock is largely the cause of high prices and shortage of many essential articles; and, in view of such a state of things, if he will reconsider the question of endeavouring to develop the transport of goods by road?

I am aware of the deficiencies in railway facilities, and the same are being remedied as rapidly as possible. The railways, however, are carrying a larger proportion of the goods traffic than they did before the War; and if the development of trade is being retarded the fault can hardly, be attributed to the railways. The emergency Government road services in connection with certain ports are only being withdrawn as private enterprise becomes able to meet the needs. The railway cartage facilities, supplemented by lorries obtained from the Government, are considered adequate for railway work. The second part of the question is a matter of opinion in which the hon. Member must form his own conclusions. With regard to the last part, I can add nothing to previous answers that have been given to the hon. Member on the same subject.

asked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to raise the tolls on the canals now controlled by his Department; whether this can be done without his first taking possession of them under Section 3 of the Transport Act; whether he proposes to exercise the powers granted to him for this purpose under that Section; and, if so, at what date and in respect of what canals?

A deputation from the Canal Association, which I recently received on behalf of the Minister, strongly urged him to take possession, under Section 3 of the Ministry of Transport Act, of the canals now controlled by him under the Defence of the Realm Act Regulations, as a necessary step to his giving directions for the raising of the tolls. The question is one of extreme difficulty and complexity, and no decision has yet been arrived at. There will be no unnecessary delay in dealing with the matter. This reply does not affect the canals which are railway owned and in the possession of the Minister as part of the railway undertakings.

May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman does not think it desirable to take possession of these canals at the earliest possible moment, in order that the tolls may be raised and an end put thereby to the subsidy now being paid?

There is a great deal to be said in favour of that course, but, as I intimated in the answer, there are difficulties in connection with it. The whole subject is being mast carefully considered.

Can the canals pay their way without a raising of the tolls?

Is it proposed to submit this question, with others, to the Committee the hon. Gentleman indicated?

That Committee has not yet been definitely appointed. This certainly will be a very convenient topic for its consideration.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the canals now controlled by his Department would revert to the canal companies on the expiry or revocation of the Defence of the Realm Regulations; whether, in such an event, the companies would be entitled to be placed in the same financial position as regards revenue and expenditure as they were before the War; and, if so, how it is proposed to effect this purpose?

The answer to to first part of the question is in the affirmative as regards canals controlled by the Minister under Defence of the Realm Regulation 9H. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, but it must not be assumed that the owners have suffered financially by the control.

Can the hon. Gentleman give me any assurance that possession will be taken of the canals before the expiry of the Regulation, seeing that there is great anxiety on the part of canal companies as to their position?

I can assure my hon. Friend that a definite decision will be arrived at long before that.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now state the cost to the public of the concession by which the Army when not travelling on duty receive their railway tickets under certain conditions for one-third of the rate payable by the general public?

The difference between the money value of the concessional fares paid by officers and men of His Majesty's Army when travelling on leave, and the full public fares, is estimated by the Railway Executive Committee to have amounted in April of last year to £470,000 for the month. As demobilisation has proceeded, there has been a progressive decrease. In October the difference had fallen to £158,000, or 66 per cent. less than in April, and a further reduction has no doubt since occurred.