asked the Pensions Minister whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. F. T. Webberley, M.M., late private No. 14,614, Royal West Kent Regiment, who has been twice wounded and has been refused a pension, gratuity, or training; whether he is aware that, owing to a shoulder wound, Mr. Webberley is quite incapable of performing manual labour; that he enlisted in his youth and served four years and is therefore totally untrained and unable to earn a livelihood; and that he is now dependent upon the earnings of his two sisters, who have already an invalid father to support; and whether he will cause special inquiries to be made into this case with a view to Mr. Webberley being provided with a pension, gratuity, or training so as to enable him to become self-supporting?

There is no medical evidence before the Ministry to suggest that Mr. Webberley is incapable of performing manual labour. He has been examined by two separate Medical Boards, neither of whom could find any existing disablement. He will, however, be re examined by a Medical Appeal Board, to whom the facts now adduced in his favour will be submitted, and their decision will be treated as final. The question of training is one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that this third examination shall take place at a time when the man is in work, because it is only when he is in work that his shoulder gets out? When he is at home under medical treatment and not working his shoulder appears to be perfectly normal.

I shall see that everything possible is arranged.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that 11 first-class warders in the Irish prison service have been without any increase in pay since April, 1916; that the General Prisons Board stated in April last that these cases were under consideration; and whether he can now state if any decision has been arrived at in this matter?

A reply has been received from the Treasury to the representations of these officers, and it is the subject of further correspondence, the result of which it is hoped to make known shortly.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will state the offence for which Warder J. J. Keane, of Cork male prison, was dismissed the service; and whether the officer was allowed to see the charge and reply to it on paper before he was suspended and dismissed?

Information was received by' the Government seriously affecting the trustworthiness of this officer, and he was dismissed from the prison service by the Lord Lieutenant.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the arrest and deportation from Limerick of Robert Cashin were ordered because the man had given evidence at the inquest of a girl named Johnson who had been murdered; and, if not, will he state the grounds upon which the arrest and deportation were ordered?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The arrest and deportation took place under Regulation 14b of the Defence of the Realm Regulations.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the arrest and deportation from Limerick of a young man named M'Niece was ordered because the man had given evidence against a policeman who had knocked down a soldier who had fought in the War; and, if not, will he state upon what grounds the arrest and deportation were ordered?

I have been asked to reply. I understand that James M'Neill, to whom it is presumed the question refers, was arrested by the military authorities under the Defence of the Realm Regulations. I have no information as to the suggestion contained in the first part of the question, but I have called for a report.

(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether all the political prisoners in Mountjoy Prison, or only those who have been hunger-striking, have been released; whether any conditions have been attached to their release; whether it is proposed to re-arrest these men when their health has been restored; and whether he will now make a full statement on this matter, in order to remove the prevailing doubt and misunderstanding regarding the Government's Irish policy?

I think the best course would be to read in full the message which I have this morning received from the Viceroy:

"Following the precedent of O'Brien authority was given to the Governor of Mountjoy Prison to liberate any prisoner awaiting trial or deportation who was certified by doctors to be in imminent danger of death and requiring treatment which could not be given in the prison. Under this Order 66 prisoners have been released on parole for a period which differs in each case according to the particular need. I should expressly tell you that mistakes have been made by the prison authorities. Some of these. 66 are men who had been convicted and who are serving sentences and who are in no case entitled to be released on parole. I think this should be expressly made known so that such action will not form a precedent. The whole action taken in regard to hunger strikers was based upon the decision in regard to amelioration. Release on parole was never intended to apply to cases of men who were convicted after trial."

Can the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the statements made in this House during the course of this week, give the House any information as to the reasons for this change?

I do not think there is any change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] So far as this is concerned, certainly not. We had precisely the same question here, only it was dealt with by the Home Secretary, in regard to Mr. O'Brien. I did say the Government would not release him, but that we were quite ready to send him to a nursing home owing to his condition. So far as I can gather, the same course has been followed in Ireland.

Might I ask whether the House may feel assured that the statement made in the public Press that these men have been released unconditionally is inaccurate?

That surely follows from the message which I have just read.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of setting up a Committee to ascertain whether there is any justification for the internment of the other prisoners who have been denied a trial, and not even told what the charges are?

That is simply putting the same question that has been put dozens of times. I can add nothing to the answer I have given.

In view of the great importance of the efficient prison administration in Ireland at the present time, may I ask whether any disciplinary action has been taken with regard to whatever official is responsible for the mistakes referred to by the Viceroy?

If I may say so, I would deprecate a question of that kind. I am sure the whole House knows what a very difficult task the Viceroy has, and I would certainly not complicate it in any way.

In view of what has happened, may I ask whether, in the event of the release of these men producing a very much improved situation in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman would not think this is a fitting occasion for some change in the Government's policy in relation to them?

We should only be too glad to change our policy if the conditions changed, but I really can say nothing more than I have said already, that we must take every precaution in our power to protect life.

Is it not a fact that on the last occasion that a large number of prisoners were released in Ireland it was the starting point of crimes and atrocities?

May I ask whether the Government have come to a definite decision as to keeping the Irish Bill on the floor of the House for the Committee stage, and, if that is so, has my right hon. Friend any intimation to make to us?

Yes, Sir. As I indicated in the Home Rule Debate, we hope that, for the general convenience of the House, we might adopt the same practice which was carried out so successfully with regard to finance before Easter. I propose, therefore, if the Whips of the other parties are agreeable, to set up a Committee now to allocate the time, which the Government suggest should be twenty days, for the whole of the remaining stages of the Home Rule Bill. Of course the practice adopted in regard to finance, where there was no Resolution of the House, depended on complete unanimity. I am afraid we cannot get that, from the indications which have been given, but, even so, I think, and I hope the House will agree, that it would be a great thing if we accepted the precedent of having the time allocated by the opinion of the House instead of by the Government, and I hope the House will approve.

Does my right hon. Friend intend to move a guillotine Resolution, or in what way does he propose to proceed?

Failing general agreement, which hon. Members below the Gangway have told me they cannot give, there is no alternative except to move a Resolution; but what the Government propose to do is to move a Resolution precisely in accordance with the decision of the Committee.

When is it proposed to take the Committee stage?

I cannot name the time for that, but we propose, if the House agrees, to set up this Committee at once.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give more than twenty days for the whole of the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading stage?

Twenty days is a long time.

May I ask whether my right hon. Friend can include in the Committee the representatives of the Unionist Reconstruction Committee, a very large body of its own supporters, who take strong views on this question, and who would like to have something to say as to the allocation?

I am sure it is the general desire that it should be a representative body of the whole House, as far as possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain Members in this House who think that any discussion in this House under the guillotine is very inferior to a discussion in Committee upstairs, and he must not assume there will be no opposition to this proposal?

I am not in the habit of assuming there will be no opposition to anything. My impression from the discussion on the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill was that the House as a whole was most strongly in favour of taking the Committee stage in the House, and we are trying to meet the wishes of the House.

I can only say again that we can take no share in the responsibility.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Mr. Keeling, who was imprisoned by the Soviet Government for his disclosures of the atrocities committed in Russia, was excluded from the British prisoners whose exchange was recently arranged; if so, on what grounds the exception was made; if he will state whether Mr. Keeling is still kept in Russia against his will; and what action the Government proposes to take to secure his release?

No exceptions were made to the agreement for the exchange of prisoners, but the Soviet Government reserved the right of detaining prisoners who were regarded by that Government as having committed grave offences. Negotiations are at present being carried on for the release of all British subjects in Russia, and His Majesty's Government hope that they will all have left that country before the end of May.

Will the Government make special representations in regard to the case of Mr. Keeling? There is a great deal of feeling about it.

I have great sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend. I can assure him that everything has been done to secure that all prisoners are released.

Why has an exception been made up to the present with regard to Mr. Keeling?

I do not think any reason has been given except that the Soviet Government has reserved the right to retain certain people whom they charged with grave offences.

Does our Government recognise their right to retain British prisoners?

The matter is under negotiation. I hope all prisoners will be free before the end of May.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will have an official British representative sent to the Ruhr district in order to report on the atrocities alleged to have been committed by the Baltic troops?

I do not feel that the despatch of such a Mission as that suggested by the hon. and gallant Member would serve any useful purpose.

Are we to understand that the method by which the Baltic troops carry out their mission in the Ruhr is of no concern to the Allies or to this Government?

It is the concern of the Allies, but we adopt in Germany, as far as possible, the policy which the hon. Member approved in Russia, and that is to interfere as little as possible.

Why, in that case, do you always interfere with a Red terror, but never with a White terror?

The answer to that question is a denial of the fact.

asked the Prime Minister if he has seen the photographs brought to this country by British officers direct from Kharkoff, Odessa, Kherson, Kieff, Irkutsk, and Bikal districts of Russia, showing the atrocities, murders, and mutilations committed by the Red Guards of Soviet Russia; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of such photographs being shown upon the screens of every cinema in the country to grown-up people to show the horrors committed in the name of the Russian Soviets?

A number of such photographs has been received at the War Office, and are of a peculiarly revolting character. They are of such a nature that they would be quite unsuitable for exhibition in the illustrated press or on cinema screens.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that large numbers of teachers in the elementary schools who are entrusted with the actual work of forming the minds of the incoming generation are still being paid at the rate of unskilled labour; whether he is aware of the fact that amongst these teachers there is a spirit abroad that is restless and prevalent enough to be injurious to the exercise of a beneficial influence upon the younger generation; whether he has read the reports of speeches delivered from time to time at recent meetings of the National Union of Teachers complaining about the rate of pay; and if he can make any announcement as to the steps proposed to be taken to end this unsatisfactory state of affairs?

The agreement arrived at last November by representatives of the Local Education Authorities and the National Union of Teachers, who sat as a Joint Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Burn-ham, has already had the effect of greatly improving the remuneration of the mass of teachers in elementary schools. That Committee is industriously pursuing the orderly and progressive solution of the salary problem, and I am sure that the best thing teachers can do is to give loyal and consistent support to that Committee.

asked the President of the Board of Education, (1) whether he is aware that the teachers in the Monmouthshire schools were supplied with cards, through the school authorities and on behalf of the Board of Education, entitled Salaries of Teachers in Public Elementary Schools of England and Wales, and stating that the cards were for use only in areas where the Burnham minimum scale was adopted or about to be adopted, and that in November last a scale was agreed upon which is substantially higher than the above scale; will he cause instructions to be issued for the withdrawal of these cards;

(2) whether be is aware that the teachers employed under the Newport (Mon.) education authority were supplied with cards which read for use in areas which were paying salaries above the Burnham scale; if he will state why this card was not supplied to the teachers in the county area; and whether he will state whether any effort has been made by the Board to induce the Monmouthshire education authority to withdraw the scale adopted in November last, and now operative, and to substitute the Burnham scale?

The cards referred to are required for statistical purposes. They are of two series: Series A, for use in areas in which the provisional minimum scale recommended by the Burnham Committee will be adopted, and Series B, for use in areas in which the provisional minimum scale will not be adopted.

The Monmouthshire Local Education Authority applied for, and were furnished with, cards of Series A. The Newport Authority applied for, and were furnished with, cards of Series B. When the Monmouthshire cards were returned it was found that the scale adopted by the authority differed materially from the provisional minimum scale. The cards', however, had been filled in so as to give the facts required by the Board, and they are consequently being treated as cards of Series B.

The reply to the last part of the second question is in the negative. Nothing has been said or suggested by the Board in this matter to induce the Local Education Authority to alter their proposals' for the payment of the teachers in their area. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Board's Circular No. 1146, which gives information regarding the returns referred to in the two questions.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that by raising to 48d. the limit under Article 6 (2) of the Regulations for substantive grant of elementary schools an extra annual charge of £7,000 will be thrown upon the rates of Nottingham; and whether the ratepayers will be consulted before such increase becomes operative?

I am aware that the alteration in the "prescribed amount" in Article 6 of the Regulations may make a difference to Nottingham, as to other areas, in respect of the year 1920–21; but I have received no information from the authority to enable me to estimate the amount of the difference.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a figure calculated by the responsible authorities, and that the rates in Nottingham are already exceedingly high, and will he endeavour to reconsider this imposition?

The Necessitous Areas Grant was originally created to deal with a very few exceptional cases and the poverty limit was fixed at the rate of 27d. Owing to the great increase of expenditure all over the country a great many more authorities are now qualified for this particular grant and consequently the Board felt it necessary to raise the poverty limit. It is possible when all the estimates are received that they may be in a position to lower the limit slightly.

Is it not possible to give the local education authorities more adequate notice of these proposed changes?

They have notice before they give their estimates.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider the advisability of allowing elementary school teachers who retired before 1st April, 1919, to participate in the benefits of the School Teachers. (Superannuation) Act, 1918?

I do not see my way to initiate legislation in the direction suggested by the hon. and gallant Member. He is doubtless aware that the question of pre war pensions is at present under consideration.

asked the Prime Minister the number and calibre of guns and number of aeroplanes now in Germany and capable of being used for war purposes; and what is the number allowed to Germany under the Peace Treaty.

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question.

The following totals of German guns have been reported to the Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control, as being available for destruction or for rendering useless, in accordance with Article 169 of the Peace Treaty:—

Field Guns (including spare gun tubes)	6,500
Field Howitzers (including spare gun tubes)	2,500
Heavy guns and Howitzers (including spare gun tubes)	5,000

In addition, in the permanent fortifications of the Southern and Eastern Frontiers of Germany, which she is allowed to keep intact, there are 4,125 guns and Howitzers. The Commission of Control have informed the German Government that of the guns in the fortifications only those actually in position may be retained; the remainder, totalling about 3,800, must be handed over to the Commission of Control for destruction or rendering useless. When the above are taken over, Germany will have surrendered about 17,800 guns and tubes. The Commission of Control are now engaged in checking and supervising the destruction of the artillery material reported by the German Government; until this has been done it is impossible to give an accurate statement of the number and calibre of guns in Germany which are capable of being used for war purposes.

Under the Peace Treaty Germany is allowed the following armament:—288 Field guns and Howitzers. Guns in the fortifications on her Southern and Eastern land frontiers. Guns in the coast defences on the North Sea and in the coast defences on the Baltic Coast East of longtitude 16 degrees East of Greenwich.

It is estimated by the Air Ministry that there are now in Germany 15,248 aeroplanes, which could in a comparatively short time be made available, and which would be capable of being used for war purposes. Under Article 198 of the Peace Treaty the armed forces of Germany may not include any military or naval air forces.

All aeroplanes in Germany are now in process of being listed, and will be inspected by the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control, which is the final authority for deciding which aeroplanes come under the heading of military and naval aeroplanes. All military and naval aeroplanes will then be taken over by the Inter-Allied Aeronautical Commission of Control.

Is it proposed to leave Germany in possession of any military aeroplanes for commercial purposes?

I think my answer fully covers that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Commission gets to work on that subject as rapidly as possible so that Germany may not keep such an enormous number of aeroplanes as 15,000?

The work is being accelerated with the utmost speed; but the surrender of this war material did not become operative until after the ratification of peace, and progress was quite good until the revolution occurred. Since then it has been very difficult to find competent authorities to deal with it. It is gradually improving, and we are pressing forward with the utmost speed.

Has any specific date been sot for Germany to perform her obligations under the Treaty in connection with armaments?

Yes. Everything is contained in the Peace Treaty itself, and I and my colleagues of the Cabinet have had long personal interviews with our representative there. We did not condone any deliberate delay on the part of the German authorities in the execution of the Peace Treaty. We are not being held up by that at the present time, but by the great difficulty of dealing with the matter.

In view of the fact that Germany has not carried out the obligations of the Treaty, has any date been set within which Germany is to carry out those obligations?

The German Government have furnished us with a list of the weapons in their possession; a very large number; in fact, the full number of guns. I am quite satisfied that the course which is being pursued by the British and the French Governments in common is producing one of the most important things we have to do, namely, the disarmament of Germany.

Has a time limit been fixed?

I think you must leave that to the Commission.

Is there any provision in reference to the land fortifications of Germany?

Yes; they are specified in the schedule. The Germans seem inclined to interpret it that they should keep the mobile armament, which means thousands of weapons, but we interpret it to be on the basis of the fixed armaments.

asked whether Lord Derby, British Ambassador to France, was ordered by the Government not to attend the Conference of Ambassadors; whether this state of affairs still, continues; and can the full text of the Anglo-French Note with reference to the action taken by France on the right bank of the Rhine be published at an early date?

Lord Derby is now attending the Ambassadors' Conference.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Notice of Motion placed on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland; and whether he will give a day for a discussion of the same? [That, in the opinion of this House, the use of coloured troops by the Allies to control the people of Germany is deplorable and should be immediately discontinued.]

The answer is in the negative.

Are we to understand that the Government approve of the policy of employing coloured troops in Germany?

It is not our action. I do not think that we should be asked to express an opinion upon the action of our allies.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government is directly or indirectly responsible for the statement issued by Reuter's agency on 10th April, which purported to give the views of the British Cabinet as a whole, and which said that the announcement that France had acted on her own initiative against the advice of the Allies was nothing but a statement of fact?

I hope for the reasons already stated that my hon. Friend will not press for an answer to questions on this subject.

asked whether any ex-German ships have been or are to be allocated or turned over to the charge of any of our Allies; and whether the ex-German ships now being surrendered retain any German officers or ratings on Board; in what ports they are to be berthed; and under whose charge the ex-German ships now being surrendered are to be?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but final details have not yet been definitely settled. There are no German officers or ratings upon ships now being surrendered. Those allocated to Great Britain will be berthed at Rosyth, with the exception of "Baden," which is at Invergordon. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply which I gave on the 12th April.

asked (1) whether America is a party to the Inter- Allied Commission charged with the control and discipline of the Army of the Rhine;

(2) whether the American troops serving with the Army of the Rhine are under the supreme command of Marshal Foch, or whether their movements are subject to the veto of Washington?

There is no Inter-Allied Commission charged with the control or discipline of the Army of the Rhine. All the Rhine troops, with the exception of the Americans, are under General Degoutte. The American troops are subject to the orders of the President at Washington as Commander-in-Chief of the American Army.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately the number of American troops on the Rhine?

I cannot say without notice.

asked what monetary payments have now been made by Germany to the British Empire for reparation and the upkeep of the armies of occupation, respectively?

I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 25th March to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Central).

Has there been no change in the situation since then? Is Germany paying anything now?

That is only a few weeks ago.

Do the Government agree with the French Government that the concessions to Germany under the Peace Treaty have gone far enough?

I do not think that that arises.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the allegations in Germany that the British Naval and Military Missions in Berlin favoured the Kapp enterprise, and allowed the wireless station that they controlled to disseminate the Kapp propaganda; and whether he will inquire into the matter and intimate that British policy is definitely opposed to Prussian militarism and Junker reaction?

No member of any British Naval or Military Mission in Berlin favoured the Kapp enterprise, and no member of any such Mission assisted in any way in the dissemination of Kapp propaganda.

On a point of Order. I understood that no Member could have more than three questions on the Paper on the same day. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has four questions on the Paper for to-day. Has there been any alteration?

I asked the clerk at the table specifically on that point about half an hour ago, and I was informed that I was entitled to put four questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Three!"] Otherwise I should not have put four.

I am afraid my memory is very short. I think it was three. I will look the matter up.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that Germany does not possess to-day an army of over 1,000,000 men, either under the guise of Lands Reich, Cadetten Corps, Reds, police, or other synonyms?

We have no exact figures, but the question of numbers and its relation to the Peace Treaty is being dealt with by the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control in Berlin.

Have the Government not even an approximate idea of the number of men under arms in Germany to-day, no matter under what guise they fight?

We have no absolutely reliable figures, but, of course, if constables and others are included the numbers are very large.

Does the action of France surprise the British Government?

Having regard to the various rumours preyalent, both as regards the military forces in Germany and as to whether Germany is starving or not, will the Government appoint a Commission to visit Germany and to give an intelligent report on the actual position?

We already have a Commission, which will give all the information that it is possible to get.

Is it not the case that all the police and other bodies to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are, in fact, trained soldiers?

I cannot say how many of them are, but it is precisely a point to be decided as to which of them are to be included.

asked the Prime Minister whether Germany has complied with the terms laid down by the Treaty of Versailles; if not, whether he can say how far she has defaulted; if he will inform the House whether Germany has violated the Peace Treaty, and to what extent, in regard to the disbandment of her army and the surrender of war-planes, tanks, field guns, motor lorries, and other paraphernalia of war; if she has fulfilled her obligations to Prance in regard to the delivery of coal; and, if not, what steps the Supreme Council, and the British Government in particular, are taking to enforce the observance of her pledges and to prevent further violations of the Peace Treaty?

asked the Prime Minister what terms of the Peace Treaty Germany has, within the specified time, duly carried out; and what terms which should have been carried out remain unfulfilled, either in part or entirely?

This is not a matter with which I can deal by the method of question and answer. As my hon. Friends are aware, the execution of the Treaty of Versailles is closely watched by the Ambassadors' Conference and by the Reparation Commission, and will no doubt form the subject of discussion at San Remo.

Is it not a fact that the Treaty of Versailles has been continually violated?

That is not a matter I can deal with by question and answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give Members of the House an opportunity of discussing what, surely, is a question of world-wide importance?

It is a question of world-wide importance. It can be dealt with better by Governments than by discussions in this House.

May I ask whether, if the British Ambassador in France is withdrawn, it is possible for the British Government to watch the execution of the Peace Treaty?

I have already said that an Ambassador is attending the Ambassadors' Conference, but that is by no means the only method by which the fulfilment of the Peace Treaty can be watched.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information from Hungary as to the number of suspected Socialists who are now interned in that country, and as to the conditions in the internment camps there?

As regards the total number of persons interned in Hungary, I can only refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on 23rd March. But I cannot say that all these persons are interned for purely political reasons.

As stated then, H M. High Commissioner, who had visited the principal interment camp, reported favourably on it. I may add that the Swiss representative of the International Red Cross Society, who visited the camp at the end of December last, found conditions as satisfactory as could be expected

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in Scotland large numbers of business men and women have been warned to leave shop and other premises at the forthcoming May terra; whether in many cases the premises have been purchased over their heads in order to provide places of entertainment and other luxury buildings, thus leading to widespread waste of money in the midst of the serious condition of national and local finance; and if, having regard to the fact that the inquiry of the Select Committee on the Rent Restriction Acts has been extended to cover shop and business property, he is now in a position provisionally to indicate the Government's attitude and so prevent the unnecessary and expensive removal of innumerable Scottish busineses, if not their extinction, because of the failure to secure other accommodation?

I have been asked to reply to this question. I am unable to make any statement as to the extension of the Rent Restriction Acts to business premises until the Report of the Committee has been considered.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in view of the proximity of the leaving day it is very important that some statement should be made now in view of the fact that tenants even now are leaving these premises without any other accommodation?

I quite appreciate the urgency of the question, and it should not be lost sight of.

asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware of the distress among tenants of business offices and shops in Manchester caused by the receipt of notices to quit without being given any option to buy or to pay increased rents; and whether he can bold out any hopes of giving such premises statutory protection before June quarter day or at all;

(2) whether he is aware that the business of electroplaters carried on by a number of ex-service men, under the style of Brunner Brothers, at 22, Oxford Road, Manchester, is threatened with eviction in June without having any possible alternative accommodation; and whether be will seek to extend to works of this type the protection afforded to dwelling-houses by the Rent Restriction Acts?

Pending consideration of the Report of the Committee on the Rent Restriction Acts, I am unable to make any announcement as to the extension of those Acts to business premises.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the removal of tenants from business premises is becoming quite as acute as housing, and will he assure the House that this question will be dealt with in the forthcoming Bill?

The hon. Member must be aware that the Report of the Committee was only received two days ago. We are now considering it, and the Bill will be introduced as soon as possible.

Is it not the fact that the Committee was more concerned with the question of housing and did not take evidence on the question of business premises.

I think the Report will be in the hands of the hon. Member today, and from it he will see that they referred to that question.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to a protest from the Stirling Trades Council against the rents fixed by the Stirling town council and approved by the Scottish Board of Health for new houses at Shiphaugh; whether he is aware that, while the rents of the new houses have been fixed at £24 to £28, the rents of houses of similar accommodation in the district vary from £8 to £17 10s., and that the rates of wages prevailing in Stirling make it impossible for any workmen to pay the rent demanded for the new houses; and whether he will have this question reconsidered?

I have seen the protest referred to. I am informed that before approving the rents fixed by the local authority for the new houses at Stirling the Board gave careful attention to the considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend. In respect of superiority in conditions and amenity of the new houses, and other considerations, the Board were satisfied, however, that the rents as fixed are in accordance with the regulations governing the matter. I am advised that numerous applications have been made by members of the working classes for the houses referred to. In these circumstances I do not think reconsideration is necessary.