asked the Pensions Minister whether paragraph (3) (1, b) of the Royal Warrant for the pensions of soldiers disabled, and of the families and dependants of soldiers deceased in consequence of the Great War, refers to men who have lost both legs below the knee; and, if it does not refer to such men, will he have the wording of this paragraph altered in order that there may be no doubt whatsoever as to what degree of disability is actually meant, so that a man's hopes may not be raised unduly?

Article (3) (1, b) of the Royal Warrant embodies a special concession which is granted only to a man who has suffered one of the three severest forms of disablement, namely, loss of both legs or of both arms, or total loss of eyesight. Strictly interpreted, loss of both legs implies amputation of both legs through the thigh, but in practice the concession has been extended, with Treasury approval, to cases where there is loss of one foot, provided that the other amputation is above or through the knee. An amendment of the Warrant is not considered to be necessary.

asked the Secretary for Scotland the approximate acreage of land purchased by the Government for the settlement of ex-soldiers in the Counties of Perth, Forfar and Kincardine; the number of holdings which it is proposed to establish in the respective counties; the number of applicants for holdings; and the number of applicants already settled?

The area of the properties purchased by the Board in the three counties referred to is approximately 3,480 acres. On these properties it is proposed to establish 87 small holdings, of which 34, 30 and 23, respectively, are in Perth, Forfar and Kincardine. The number of applicants for small holdings in these counties is 389, of whom 36 have already been settled on the properties referred to and 32 have been settled on lands secured under the procedure of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts.

asked the Secretary for Scotland on what principle the Scottish Board of Agriculture propose to fix the rents for ex-service men who receive holdings under the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919; and whether care will be taken that rents are fixed, not on a basis of the total costs which the Board may incur in purchasing the land and converting it into small holdings, but by consideration of what the tenants can reasonably be expected to pay if they are to make a living?

The Board are required by the Statute to let the holdings at a rent which in their opinion is reasonable. They take into account the value of the land, buildings and fences and fix the rents on the basis laid down by the Statute. The Board are satisfied that the rents as fixed by them will not prejudice the holder's chances of making a satisfactory living.

Will these rents be subject to review by the court?

I will consider that. I am not quite certain.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of two Swedes who were sentenced in Leith to six months' imprisonment for being in possession of pamphlets alleged to advocate Bolshevism; and whether, in view of the probability of these two Swedes being unaware of the Defence of the Realm Regulations under which they were convicted and of the fact that none of the pamphlets had been distributed, he will have the case reconsidered with a view to the release of the men?

My attention has been called to the case in question by petitions from the prisoners, and I have been in communication with the Sheriff. His report has been submitted, and is now r ceiving my consideration.

Have any representations been received in this matter from the Swedish Minister, or has the right hon. Gentleman received any notice from the Swedish Legation?

Speaking from recollection, I do not think I have received any representations from the Swedish Legation.

Is it not the fact that the most insidious form of Bolshevic propaganda is that carried out by certain foreigners who have access to these ports?

I quite agree with the-description that my hon. Friend has given of this propaganda. The particular set of circumstances of this case are at present being considered by me.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a resolution from the Parliamentary Committee of the Scottish Trades Union Congress expressing its indignation at the-dismissal from employment of a large number of ex-service men and others in the Island of Lewis because other ox-servicemen in need of lands and houses have-occupied certain parts of farms alleged to be the property of Lord Loverhulme; and whether he will give an undertaking that the Island of Lewis shall be made-no exception in the administration of the Land Settlement and other Acts of Parliament passed for the purpose of settling ex-service men and others on the land, and that no further delay shall take place-in making the larger farms on the island available for small holdings and homes for such of the people of Lewis as desire, land?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am at present in communication with Lord Leverhulme in regard to the position in the Lews, the difficulties of which I fully appreciate. I am endeavouring to find the solution which will be most in the interest of the community as a whole.

asked the-Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that there is dissatisfaction among the farming community in Forfarshire owing to the delay in granting licences for fat cattle for slaughter in Glasgow; if he is aware that considerable numbers of unfinished Irish store cattle are being slaughtered in Glasgow for beef; and if he will take steps to have both these matters inquired into and remedied?

I have been asked to reply. I am informed that owing to unexpectedly large arrivals a certain number of fat cattle were recently held up for a few days in Glasgow, but that steps have been taken to prevent the recurrence of this delay. Every endeavour is made to prevent the slaughter of immature cattle, and I cannot agree that the statement made in the second part of the question is correct. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member will supply me with detailed information on the subject the matter shall be investigated.

asked the Food Controller whether home-grown or imported meat has risen most in price since 1914; and the percentage of advance in each case?

The percentage increase in the price of home-grown and imported beef is practically the same—106 per cent. and 108 per cent. There is a considerable divergence in the percentage increase of home-grown and imported mutton, the former figure being 103 per cent. and the latter 91 per cent. This divergence is mainly due to the reduction in price effected to meet the temporary glut of Australasian supplies.

asked the Food Controller whether, in view of the rise in the price of bread, he proposes to initiate any propaganda to impress upon the public the need for stringent economy in the use of this commodity?

It is not proposed at present to undertake any special propaganda on this subject. I hope that the advance which must necessarily be made in the price of bread will itself act as a reminder of the need for economy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that bread is still the staple diet of a large section of our population, and that any reduction in quantity or deterioratoin in quality is the short cut to starvation?

Yes, I think we are all aware of those facts.

asked the Minister of Food what increase in the retail price of bread is probable in consequence of the reduction of the bread subsidy?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on Thursday, March 11th, to the hon. and gallant Member for East Lewisham.

asked the Minister of Food what charges are imposed, per cwt., on cattle, sheep, and pigs sold for slaughter; whether these charges have lately been raised; what total amount per month is produced by these charges; and whether there is any surplus after providing for expenses of administration?

The gross charge on cattle at the present time is 17s. per cwt., and that on sheep 2½d. per lb., plus 1s. 6d. per head. No charges are collected on pigs. The charge on cattle was increased from 13s. to 17s. per cwt. on the 27th February, 1920. The total amount which is produced by these charges varies considerably from month to month according to the numbers of cattle and sheep which are sent into market, and according to the sliding scale of prices paid to the farmers. It is not anticipated that there will be any surplus after providing for expenses of administration.

What is the total amount produced by these charges?

May I ask whether when control goes all these charges will entirely disappear?

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that his administration is not unduly extravagent? It works out in this respect at 2d. per lb.

It would be impossible within the limits of time permissible for an answer to a supplementary question to properly deal with the question of these charges which are not net charges. For instance, instead of 17s., only 3s. per cwt. is actually collected on cattle, and instead of 2d. per lb. on sheep only ¼d. per lb. is paid out by the Department, The system is of a somewhat complicated character and I shall be very happy to give full information to hon. Members who are interested if they will give notice of a question or write to me.

Is not the cost of 2d. per lb. borne by the consumer in the price he pays?

I must ask for notice of that.

Will these charges disappear when control is removed?

I assume so.

asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the shortage of sugar for domestic purposes, he will take steps to restrict the supplies of sugar used for sweets and fancy cakes?

The amount of sugar allotted to confectioners has already been reduced by one-half. The suggestion of my hon. Friend with regard to the use of sugar for sweets and fancy cakes is one which I am already considering, with a view to limiting the use of sugar for purposes of luxury or extravagance.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the course of employment before he cuts off further supplies of sugar from the confectionery trade?

Will he also consider its importance to child life?

In considering a reduction of the amount of sugar allotted to confectioners we have been very strongly influenced by the danger arising from throwing people out of employment, and by the fact that sweets of the cheaper variety are a substantial addition to the sugar ration of the juvenile population. What we propose to take steps to deal with is the use of sugar for fancy cakes and other purposes of luxury.

asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that March is the best month for the making of home-made marmalade; and whether he to allocate special supplies of sugar for jam making to be available during that month, either in whole or in. part, to those who desire to utilise it for the purpose of making marmalade?

I am aware that marmalade is usually made at this time of year, but it has not been found possible to allocate special supplies of sugar for its domestic manufacture. The issue of sugar for domestic jam-making is intended mainly for the preservation of summer and autumn fruits grown in this country. It would not, in any case, be practicable to arrange for any appreciable increase in the supplies of sugar to be in the hands of retailers during the present month.

In making the allowance for jam-making, will purchasers of fruit be considered as well as growers of fruit?

I should like notice of that question. I think that is arranged for.

asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the Government purchased from Australia in 1917–18 50,000,000 rabbits, and that the normal number of imported frozen rabbits to England before the War was 21,000,000; that 10,000,000 rabbits are on the way and awaiting shipment in Australia; that the Ministry of Food have issued an Order controlling the price of rabbits to be sold by wholesaler to retailer, with the skin on, at large rabbits per crate 46s., young rabbits 38s., small rabbits per crate 28s.; that objection is taken to the method adopted, and that if the present Order is maintained the packers of rabbits in Australia will cease operations as far as treating the carcase for export is concerned; that the rabbit is an absolute necessity for the working classes in this country; that at the present time rabbits are not being packed in Australia on account of the control Order that the skin not being food should be excluded from the control and only a maximum price be fixed for the skinned carcase, and the wholesaler and retailer be allowed to fix their price in accordance with the fixed price of the selling of meat and the value of the skin; that the value of the skin cannot be fixed, as it fluctuates with the skin markets of the world; that the cessation of export of rabbits from Australia is preventing many thousands of returned soldiers from getting a living in that country; and, in consequence of the English rabbits being de-controlled, if the Australians cease to export rabbits the price of the British rabbits next autumn will be excessive, will he take action in the matter?

The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. The terms of the Imported Rabbits Order and the maximum prices named in the Schedule to the Order were drawn up in consultation with an advisory committee on which importers, wholesale merchants and retail traders were represented, and in agreement with the Agents-General for New South Wales and Queensland. A maximum selling price per crate was specially arranged in order to meet the wishes of the representatives of the importing merchants and the custom of the trade. Representations on the lines suggested in the remainder of the question have been made to the Ministry of Food by two firms of packers who, however, decline an invitation to submit their costs for investigation by the Costings Branch of the Ministry. Great difficulty is experienced in obtaining accurate information as to the conditions of the trade in imported Australian rabbits. The Food Controller will watch the effect of the Order very care-fully, and will be prepared to consider its revision if experience proves that it it is likely to be detrimental to the British consumer.

Are we to understand that the Imported Rabbits Order is part of the Defence of the Realm?

For the moment the powers under which the work of the Ministry of Food is carried on are conferred by the Defence of the Realm Act.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is prepared to lay all the facts before the House of Commons and to give an opportunity for a discussion before committing the country to fresh military operations in Asia Minor;

(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the disquiet and apprehension still existing in India among Moslems on account of the continued reports to the effect that portions of the former Turkish Empire inhabited by a majority of Turks are to be placed under alien rule; and when he proposes to make a statement in the House of Commons on the Turkish Question other than that aspect of it dealing with Constantinople?

These questions were very fully discussed in Debate on the 26th of February last, and I cannot at present add anything to what was said on that occasion.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this House will have an opportunity of discussing the subject before military operations, large or small, are commenced?

We have no intention whatever of engaging in any military operations, but circumstances might arise which might make it necessary to do so, and it would be quite impossible to discuss it here.

Will the House then be informed at the earliest possible moment?

Most certainly it will. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite mistaken if he thinks that we contemplate any use of force at this moment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Indian aspect of this highly important question has not really received much attention in this House, and that Mahomedans, who are a very large proportion of the subjects of the King, really feel most acutely about it?

Yes, I quite realise that. But the hon. Member is mistaken in saying that this was not considered by the House. A very large part of the Debate was taken up in dealing with this very aspect of the case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that portion of the Debate did not include the Members who have had practical experience of Mahomedans and of India?

I cannot remember the names of all those who took part in the Debate, but the subject was certainly very fully discussed.

asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by the Allies to impress upon Poland, Roumania, and the new States created out of Austria-Hungary the need for the demobilisation of the million men stated by the Supreme Council to be still under arms in those countries?

Demobilisation in the countries referred to must be dependent on the re-establishment of peaceful relations with their neighbours, to the attainment of which the Supreme Council has been devoting every effort.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he can hold out any hope that the recommendations of the Committee dealing with Income Tax reform will be dealt with in the next Budget, and more especially with that proposing that such tax shall only begin when the income is £250 per year; and if it is his intention to apply the principle of graduation to all incomes over the sum named; (2) if he will state for how long it is his intention to maintain the excess profits tax which is hampering productive and commercial enterprise?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether male Income Tax payers are entitled under certain conditions to an abatement of £50 in consideration of keeping a housekeeper; and whether he will extend this privilege to female Income Tax payers who are in many cases obliged to work for their own living and are no less in need of keeping a housekeeper out of a small income?

I must ask my hon. Friends to restrain their natural curiosity until the Budget is opened.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many firms find considerable difficulty in obtaining ready money to pay these taxes, and will he favourably coasider the question that short-dated mortgages should be issued to these firms?

I can add nothing to the answer I have already given.

Will the Committee sitting to consider Income Tax reform also take into account the duplication of collectors of the tax—does that come within the scope of their reference?

The Royal Commission on Income Tax has reported, and if the hon. Member will wait a very short time he will have their Report in his hands.

When can we expect that Report?

There is another question on that later.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to circulate the Report of the Royal Commission on Income Tax?

I hope that the Report will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow afternoon. In the short time available to me since I received a copy of the Report, I have been unable to complete my study of it, but I have read enough to assure myself of its great value, and I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my deep sense of obligation to Lord Colwyn and the other Commissioners for the public service which they have rendered.

Will the full evidence also be published? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have only had extracts up to the present?

I must ask for notice of that. I think the evidence will be published, but it certainly will not be in the hands of Members to-morrow afternoon when the Report will be. It takes much longer to print the evidence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is published before the Budget is introduced?

I will see what can be done.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the number of effective Income Tax payers for the financial year ending 5th April, 1919; and will he say from how many of this number it was found impossible to obtain payment of tax due in respect of the year 1918–19, and the total revenue lost in consequence?

The number of effective Income Tax payers for the year ended 5th April, 1919, is estimated at 3,406,000. The information asked for in the second part of the question is not available, but my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that the proportion of duty lost is very small.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the many burglaries and thefts of jewellery, plate, etc., and other articles of value, including motor cars, in order to make the commission of these offences and the disposal of the goods less easy and the offenders more easily traced, he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation requiring a form of certificate of origin showing names of previous owner or owners, and subject to a revenue stamp of so many shillings in the pound, to be filled in, verified by the signature of a police officer to be appointed, or of some responsible person, and presented upon the sale of all such articles secondhand?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I believe the Commissioner of Police has made suggestions to the Ministry of Transport as to the registration of motor cars which he thinks might make the disposal of stolen cars more difficult than it is at present. With regard to plate and jewellery, it does not appear that any system of registration would be practicable or effective for this purpose.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the new essential industry which would have been liquidated if the Government had not agreed to take shares in the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company, Limited; what article is made by that company which established firms are not already making or have made offer to the Government to make;

(2) which Minister of the Crown will have to give his assent before debentures can be issued on the security of the assets of the new British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing (Parent) Company, Limited; and whether, in view of what has already occurred, he will undertake that no such consent will be given until Parliament has been consulted;

(3) what was the total of the debentures and the other charges on the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing Company, Limited, held by the Government Departments and by private individuals on 1st January last; and what were the names of the Government Departments and the individuals, respectively, and the amounts held by them;

(4) if, having regard to the statement made by him that the standing of the British Cellulose and Chemical Manufacturing (Parent) Company, Limited, was not such that it could have raised the necessary funds to continue its undertaking if the liability to the Government had been paid off, he will state what are the reasons and calculations that convinced him that the interests of the Government and the taxpayers' money would be adequately protected by the acceptance of preference shares in place of debentures?

The industry is the manufacture of cellulose acetate for which the Company was formed during the War, and for which its works will be available to the Government in case of future necessity. I have no knowledge of the extent, if any, to which articles to be made by the Company during peace are now being made by other companies. The agreement with the Company provides that the consent of the Minister of Munitions must be obtained before debentures can be issued. I am not prepared to undertake that Parliament should be consulted before any such eon-sent is given. The answer to the first part of the third question is £2,270,000. Of this amount the Ministry of Munitions held £1,450,000 on their own behalf, £500,000 as trustee for the London County, Westminster and Parr's Bank, and £200,000 as trustee for the Chilworth Gunpowder Company. The remaining £120,000 were held by private persons, a list of whose names and holdings appeared in Appendix A of the Report of Lord Sumner's Committee, but I do not know whether there has been any variation in this list since the date of that Report. As regards the last question, what I stated was that experience had shown that the previous arrangement described in my reply to my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for East Grinstead, on the 2nd instant, made it impossible for the Company to raise the necessary funds to continue its undertaking. As I have already explained I am satisfied that it would not be in the interests of the Government or the taxpayer to force the Company into liquidation, and that the public interests are best protected by the arrangements now made.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on what authority he tells this House he is not prepared to consult the House before investing one and a half millions of the country's money in this concern?

I have not said that.

What is the difference between investing in this company and investing a like amount, or a greater sum, in the mines of this country?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any scheme for popularising issues of housing bonds is under contemplation; and, if so, will the fact be emphasised that the houses for which the money is required are being built for all sections of the population, and that the Ministry of Health has instructions from the Government to watch closely the local authority in its allocation of houses built under the Housing Acts, 1919?

It is expected that local authorities throughout the country will open a publicity campaign in connection with the issue of local bonds for housing immediately after Easter, and suggestions for the campaign have been communicated to local authorities, but I do not think that it would assist the campaign to suggest that the choice of tenants would be subject to review by a Central Department, and such a course would, in fact, be quite impracticable.

But will the right hon. Gentleman consider the popularising of housing bonds by making them a form of lottery bond?

We have had a decision of the House on that question, and I cannot depart from that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has decided to ask for interest to be paid upon any outstanding amounts due for purposes of Excess Profits Tax; and, if so, will he state the amount upon which such interest is to be paid?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the question of imposing interest on outstanding amounts in respect of Excess Profits Duty and Munitions Levy comes within the scope of the Commission on Income Tax; and, if not, whether he will immediately refer this question to a representative Committee so that it can be dealt with in the Finance Bill?

The question of charging interest on amounts outstanding in respect of Excess Profits Duty and Munitions Levy is one which is outside the scope of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax. The matter is receiving my careful consideration, but I am not prepared to anticipate any proposals I may have to make on this subject in the course of my forthcoming Budget statement.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman in his last Budget Statement say that during the year he would consider this question? Has he done so? And will not something be levied in respect of these arrears?

Yes, I said I would consider the question in the light of the experience of the coming year and I have had it under my consideration.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total contributions of England, Scotland and Wales will be in a normal financial year to the liabilities set forth in the Third Schedule to the Government of Ireland Bill to which Ireland is to contribute £18,000,000?

In the Estimate for a normal year given last October (Command 376) Imperial services to a total of £617,500,000 were shown separately. This total is not exhaustive, as certain Imperial Services were not given separately.

On this basis the total contributions of England, Scotland and Wales would be approximately £600,000,000. But I must warn my Noble Friend that the very tentative sketch of the figures of a normal year was prepared for a quite different purpose and was subject to the conditions and limitations which were stated in the White Paper, and their use for other calculations may easily be misleading.

Does that not mean that under the Home Rule Bill the taxpayers of Great Britain will be contributing about three or four times as much per head towards the Imperial liabilities as the taxpayers of Ireland?

I cannot carry the actual figures in my head.

May I suggest that the Government do the sum before the Bill is introduced?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the price of silver has fallen from 88d. per ounce to 69d. in the last fortnight, and that the profitable coinage of silver money at the old rate of purity can be resumed at a profit when silver has fallen to 66d, per ounce, he will suspend the issue of new currency of silver at the lowered purity?

No, Sir. I cannot accept this suggestion.