asked the Secretary of State for India if he can now state what decision has been arrived at on the subject of an increase in the pensions of the widows, children and dependants of deceased officers of the Indian Army, the Indian medical service, and the Royal Indian Marine?

So far as the widows, children and other dependants of officers of the Indian Services who lost their lives in the Great War are concerned, the benefits admissible have been substantially improved by the Warrant of 2nd July, 1920, the main provisions of which will be applied to the Indian Services. As regards the dependants of officers who died before the War, or whose death was not due to service in the War, I much regret that it has not yet been possible to come to a decision, as it has been necessary to take into consideration the effects of the provisions of the Pensions Increase Bill which is now before the House. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I will do all in my power to expedite a decision.

Does the decision on this matter rest on the passing of this Bill now before the House, or when will a decision be come to?

No, it does not rest on the passage but it does rest on the consideration of these provisions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these provisions will be considered?

We are considering the matter now. It is very urgent to come to an immediate decision, and I am trying to get a decision as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the new Army Regulations in India include a Clause to the effect that no troops called out to suppress riots are to be allowed any ball ammunition; and, if so, what is the reason for this new order?

As far as I am aware, the answer is in the negative, but I am inquiring to make sure.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that military training is compulsory in Australia on all males between the ages of 12 and 26, why the Government of India should not be permitted to bring in a Bill on the same lines for all Europeans in India?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply which I gave to his question in this House on 28th July.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman can give any reason why this Bill, brought in by the Government of India, should be prohibited by him when a similar Bill in Australia is passed without any question?

If the hon. and gallant Member will refer again to my answer to the question on 28th July, he will find that I pointed out the difference between compulsory military training and compulsory military service.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what is that difference?

Is it not a fact that compulsory military training is so different from compulsory military service that this country would be ready to accept compulsory military training—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—but not compulsory military service?

The question of India is quite enough for me.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what was the total number of persons convicted of waging war and other crimes during last year's rebellion; how many were pardoned; and in how many cases were the sentences remitted or reduced?

I will circulate the telegram received from the Government of India in answer to my inquiries based on this question and a similar one by the hon. Member for the Wrekin.

The following is the telegram referred to:

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many people, out of the 1,700 affected, have been pardoned?

The hon. Member asks me for a series of figures. The two questions together required a very careful telegram to India. He will find the full information circulated. It is impossible for me to read the long series of figures, and for that reason I will circulate it. If he wants any further information on reading it I shall be only too glad to telegraph to India again.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not he is aware that many of these people who were pardoned are now joining Mr. Gandhi in starting a fresh seditious movement at the present time?

The hon. Member will see that none were pardoned when he sees the figures. Many were released—a very large number were released—under the terms of His Majesty's amnesty.

Are we to understand they were released on such terms that they are able to come out and straightway start a fresh movement?

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what were the difficulties which prevented the setting up of a committee during the months of May, June, and July to inquire into the disturbances in the Punjab?

During the months of May, June, and July martial law was still in force.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? What prevented the setting up of the Committee?

During the course of questions and answers and debate in both Houses an explanation of the delay was given by various members of His Majesty's Government. The hon. Member asked another question in order to supplement the information which has already been given. I pointed out one of the most obvious reasons—that the inquiry was promised when the fire was put out, to use my own words. I informed him before that the fire could not be considered to be put out whilst martial law was still in existence.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the reason he gave before was that this Enquiry could not be set up because of climatic conditions, and that when I pointed out to him that the High Court was sitting and that therefore climatic conditions could not affect it, he gave some other reason?

If I may summarise the various answers, there was the fact that order had not been restored; therefore, martial law was continued, and therefore if was impossible, in our judgment, to hold the Enquiry. There was also the war with Afghanistan; there were also the climatic conditions, and the necessity for choosing and electing the Committee. All these considerations together accounted, in our judgment, for the delay.

That did not prevent——

This is becoming a debate.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that great inconvenience is now suffered by those who have business relations with India, owing to the delay caused in the despatch of their telegrams; what proportion of the average of 200 telegrams sent by the Government daily viâ the Eastern Telegraph Company concern the India Office; and whether he will take steps, both on grounds of public convenience and public economy, to cut down the number of their telegrams?

I am informed by the Eastern Telegraph Company that the daily average of Government telegrams to India, Mesopotamia, and Persia is 106. of which 52 emanate from the India Office. Orders have already been issued, both in this Office and in India, that the number of telegrams sent must be restricted as far as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many officials of the India Office and Indian Government are authorised to send cables at the Government expense; whether his attention has been drawn to statements that individuals unconnected with the Government have messages sent under Government priority; and whether, if the statement is well founded, he will take steps to bring this practice to an end?

I regret that, owing to the short notice I have had of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, I am not in a position to give an exact answer to the first part. The approximate figures are 45 for the India Office and 400 for the Government of India. As regards the second and third parts, I should be obliged if my hon. and gallant Friend would send me the statements to which he refers. I may repeat that every endeavour is being made both here and in India to reduce the congestion of the telegraph lines.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the increases in the rate of provisions and allowances to naval ratings at Home ports and naval establishments?

It has now been decided to increase the rates of provision and leave allowance to naval ratings from 2s. 1d. to 3s. 6d. per diem, and the necessary Orders are being issued accordingly.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement regarding the provision to be made to meet the case of men of the lower deck who have been pensioned prior to the War on account of accidents attributable to the service and who find difficulty in living on their pre-War pensions?

Under a recent decision of the Government the pensions of men invalided prior to the War on account of injury attributable to the service may be increased to the amount which might have been granted under the post-War scales, which are now under consideration.

There will be no prejudice by the delay?

No. The post-War scale is at present under consideration, but, subject to correction, I believe that the benefits will accrue from the 1st April last. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants precise information, I think for accuracy he had better put down a further question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the recommendation of a Select Committee which dealt with naval expenditure and recommended an exhaustive review of the capabilities and use of the royal dockyards and, if necessary, the abolition of some has received any attention from his Department?

The capabilities of the royal dockyards were the subject of a full investigation carried out early this year by a Committee presided over by Lord Colwyn; its report was published in Command Paper No. 581. It has been decided to close the dockyard at Invergordon and the repair depôt at Lyness. The Admiralty were prepared to dispense with the naval yard at Pembroke if a satisfactory offer for its disposal could be obtained and proper arrangements could be made for the employment of the dockyard workers at that yard. The only offer to use this establishment entirely for commercial work was, however, not satisfactory, and arrangements are now being made to built mercantile tonnage there on the advice of the Colwyn Committee. The Admiralty have the needs and capabilities of the royal dockyards under continual review, and the hon. Member may rest assured that the suggestions of the Select Committee have not been and will not be neglected.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is delaying the publication of the official account of the Battle of Jutland, which was promised for the middle of July; will he ensure that this account is published before Lord Jellicoe's departure from this country; and will he state when he anticipates that it will be possible to publish this account?

Fresh evidence has recently come to light which must be considered before the official report, which had almost reached completion, can he published. I am unable to say, therefore, when publication will take place, but I am in constant communication with Lord Jellicoe, and shall certainly ensure that he will see the final form before publication.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a recent Admiralty weekly order, dated 19th June, 1920, to naval officers, stated that first-class return tickets to London only, when proceeding on leave, on payment of the first-class single fare, will be granted; why is this concession limited to London only, and not, as formerly, between any two stations; and can this matter be reconsidered in order to avoid so obvious anomaly?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the system now in operation, for the issue of cheap first-class tickets to London only, is the same as that in force before the War. The arrangement whereby officers could obtain cheap tickets between any two stations was a temporary measure during the War, and the change made by Admiralty Weekly Order of the 19th June last is therefore simply a reversion to pre-War practice. As regards the third part of the question, the whole of the existing naval cheap travelling concessions are under consideration, and a further announcement will be made in due course.

Will the hon. Gentleman not consider whether it does not create a very strange anomaly that an officer can go from Edinburgh to London cheaper than from Scotland to Newcastle?

I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend nothing will be overlooked.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the total amount so far realised by the sale of ships surplus to the requirements of the post-War fleet; under what Vote will such receipts be shown; can a list of the ships which it is intended to dispose of as being surplus to the requirements of the post-War fleet, and not already sold, be given; does the agreement between the Allies with regard to the breaking-up of all ex-German ships extend to the United States of America, to France, and to Italy; and when will it be possible to publish an up-to-date and complete return of the actual strength of the fleets of the world?

The total amount so far realised by the sale of ships surplus to the requirements of the post-War fleet is approximately just over £11,000,000. Of this some £10,380,000 accruing to the Admiralty is credited to Appropriation in Aid of Vote 8, Section 2, and the remainder goes to the Exchequer. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to give a list of ships which are surplus to the requirements of the post-War fleet, the details of which I have already given. The agreement between the Allies in regard to breaking up the ex-German ships extends to the United States of America, and, with certain limited exceptions, to France and to Italy. It is not possible to present the return asked for in the last part of the question until the sales of warships be-between countries have been completed, and until all countries have decided on their ultimate disposal.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has taken over the Navy's share of the excess canteens profits; if so, is the money to be administered by a Royal Naval benevolent trust controlled by Whitehall instead of being handed over to the Grand Fleet Fund, which is controlled by the lower deck; is the latter fund to be abolished; whether he is aware that the Army's proportion of the excess profits is being administered by committees of ex-soldiers under Lord Byng; and whether, as the money belongs to the lower deck and not to the Admiralty, he will take steps to have it placed in the trust of a committee or committees of ex-lower deck men?

The Admiralty have not taken over the profits of the Navy side of the Navy and Army Canteen Board, which are still being used as part of the working capital of that Board. The Grand Fleet Fund is a registered friendly society, which, under its rules, cannot be abolished except by consent of three-fourths of its members. The question of incorporating it with a new organisation, to which other benevolent funds collected for naval purposes might also be allocated, is under consideration, and the Admiralty are in consultation with representatives both of the serving Navy and of ex-service men on this matter. The hon. Member appears to be confusing the profits of the Army side of the Navy and Army Canteen Board with the profits of the British Expeditionary Force Canteens. I am not aware that Lord Byng or committees of ex-soldiers are in any way concerned with the former. The Admiralty have frequently pointed out that although legally any profits made on the Navy side of the Navy and Army Canteen Board belong to the Admiralty, such profits will not be allocated without ascertaining the wishes of the Fleet. Steps were recently taken to give effect to this, and the views expressed by the Fleet and the associations of ex-service men are receiving careful consideration.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to a recent case in which it was proved that several naval officers were dismissed His Majesty's service as the result of a secret inquiry held at Chatham; whether these officers were summoned to that inquiry without any pre-knowledge of the charges to be made against them; whether they had any opportunity of preparing a defence or being represented by counsel; whether they were denied any appeal against the sentences passed upon them; whether these are the regular methods as sanctioned by the Admiralty; and, if so, will he see his way to such amendment of procedure as to bring these methods more into conformity with the ordinary law and practice of justice?

I am aware that in the recent case of Turner v. "John Bull," Limited, in which the verdict was given in favour of Lieutenant Turner, R.N., reference was made to a Naval Court of Inquiry held by order of the Admiralty in 1918. No officers were dismissed from His Majesty's service as a result of that court of inquiry—"dismissal from the Service" being a punishment prescribed by the Naval Discipline Act, and inflicted by sentence of court-martial. The actual facts are, that the Admiralty decided to make no further use of the services of one acting sub-lieutenant, R.N.R., and removed his name from the list, and dealt with one lieutenant, R.N.R., and two acting sub-lieutenants, R.N.R., under Article 143 (addenda) of the Royal Naval Reserve Regulations, which provides for the discharge of Royal Naval Reserve officers who are unsuited to the Royal Naval Reserve, or prove unsatisfactory as regards conduct or capacity.

The court of inquiry was not held for the purpose of inquiring into charges against these officers—and the question of giving notice of charges or- of preparing defences did not arise. They were called as witnesses at the inquiry for the purpose of giving their own account of certain incidents, and the administrative action taken by the Admiralty in regard to each of them was based on the evidence which he himself gave at the inquiry. It has since been decided on several occasions not to reconsider the action taken.

The Admiralty are aware that this alternative of dispensing with officers services by administrative action, even on the basis of the evidence which they themselves may have given at a court of inquiry, needs to be used with caution, so as to avoid the possibility of injustice. In this instance, the action was decided upon after very careful consideration; and I understand that as regards those of the officers so dealt with who gave evidence in the recent case, the Lord Chief Justice stated in court that he would have ordered further steps to be taken had it not been for their youth and for the fact that the Admiralty had already dealt with them.

Is it not a fact that these officers were dismissed the service by the Admiralty as the result of a secret inquiry, in which no evidence was taken on oath, and in regard to which none of the witnesses, who were the officers, had any warning, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion made and follow the example of the Secretary of State for War and set up a Depart mental Committee to inquire into the whole system of these secret inquiries and Courts-martial in the Navy?

I have already stated that they were not dismissed from the service as the result of a secret inquiry. If the hon. Member wants any statements as to facts, as this is dealing with a case which occurred before I went to the Admiralty—although I have carefully reviewed it—I must ask him to put down a question.

Is it not a fact that the Lord Chief Justice, whom the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, asked the Admiralty to permit the British Court of Law to see the evidence given in the case of these officers, and expressed surprise that the Admiralty refused; and is it not a fact that these young officers called as witnesses were in the result treated as defendants, and that the Admiralty acted upon evidence given in secret and not on oath, and dismissed these young men from his Majesty's service without any chance on their part of standing on their defence or employing Counsel or their behalf?

It is quite obvious that a series of questions like that, not one, but half a dozen——

They are all one.

I must ask the hon. Members to be good enough to put them down. I do not accept their version of what happened. I desire, in any answer, to give the correct version. If they dispute it, I must ask them to give notice of questions.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that answer may——

the hon. Gentleman must give notice of any further questions.

I was about to do so.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, in consequence of the shortage of schoolmasters in the Navy, the school work in the Fleet has had to be abandoned and the standard of even the lowest form of educational test for, advancement considerably lowered; and, seeing that such a condition of affairs is detrimental to the general efficiency of the lower deck and prejudicial to the interest of those ratings in sea-going ships who, though desirous of qualifying for the higher educational tests are now debarred from receiving suitable instruction in the advanced subjects of those tests, will he reconsider the suggestion that this serious shortage can be remedied and the right type of schoolmaster obtained by offering candidates for such posts at least the pay and other privileges of other officers of the same rank and seniority?

While, it has not been possible, up to the present, to introduce in its entirety the new scheme of school instruction which has been drawn up, it cannot be said that schoolwork afloat has been abandoned. Difficulties naturally exist, but with the assistance of Acting Schoolmasters and the voluntary efforts of the officers, the work is still being carried on. The standard of the educational tests at sea has not been lowered. So far as their services afloat can be spared those rating who wish to take the higher educational test are sent to their respective depôts for instruction at the Depôt Schools in the advanced subjects of this test. It is not considered that the measures suggested would result in securing all the schoolmasters required for the Navy so long as the shortage of schoolmasters ashore continues to tie acute. A few fresh entries of certificated schoolmasters have just been made.

Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to Admiralty Weekly Order No. 1751, dated 9th June, which shows that the standard of education has been lowered?

I will refresh my memory about that.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty when the publication of the recently-revised rates of pay for schoolmasters, Royal Navy, may be expected; and will they be antedated to 1st February, 1919, as was the revised pay of all other naval officers?

The revised rates of pay for schoolmasters, Royal Navy, were published in Fleet Orders dated the 7th April, 1920, and have effect from the 1st January last. The question of antedating them to the 1st February, 19l9, is under consideration.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether their Lordships have under consideration the position of the Royal Naval Reserves, and also is any scheme under consideration to put them on a better basis as regards their retaining fee, gratuity, deferred pension certificates, and other matters, especially having regard to the work they did during the War and their general efficiency and value as an adjunct to the fighting force of the Navy?

The Report of the Committee appointed to consider the future of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve is under consideration at the present time.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is a British Naval Mission at Teheran; if so, what is its strength; and what duties is it performing?

In accordance with the Anglo-Persian Agreement, a joint Anglo-Persian Military Mission was set up in Teheran. Subsequently, a naval officer with a small staff—three officers—was added thereto to give advice on maritime matters.

Is it the fact that this Anglo-Persian Agreement is not operative on account of the unwillingness of the Persian Government?

That question, obviously, should not be addressed to me.

What can a Naval Mission be doing in an inland city like Teheran? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think this is a breach of Persian neutrality, in view of recent events and the complaint of the British Government that the Russians have broken Persian neutrality by landing at Enzeli?

The Admiralty would not have sent a Naval Mission if they had not thought there was work for it to do. If the hon. Member is doubtful about the Agreement he had better address himself to the Foreign Office or to the Prime Minister.

If we have no longer an interest in the Caspian Sea, does it not put an end to the necessity of sending a Naval Mission to Teheran?

The answer is that an end has not been put to it, because we have sent a Naval Mission, and it is there.

Can the right hon. Gentleman account for the Bolshevist Mission in this House?

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that sub-lieutenants, mates, lieutenants, lieutenant-commanders, and commanders, Royal Navy, receive no allowance of any kind, except in exceptional cases such as a store appointment, to support a wife and family; that an Army captain receives, if married, £289 per annum, and, if unmarried, £184 per annum more than a lieutenant, Royal Navy, of the same standing; that a lieutenant-colonel in the same way receives £307 per annum, if married, and £249, if unmarried, more than a commander, Royal Navy; if he is aware that the cost of removal of Army officers' families, baggage, etc., by land and sea is borne by the State, while the naval officer can get no assistance towards taking his wife to a foreign station, though indulgence passages were recommended by the Halsey Committee; that the naval officer is not allowed to take up his rations in kind out of his ship or any allowance in lieu; and if he can give any reason for this inferior position and treatment of the senior service?

I am aware of the facts mentioned in my hon. and gallant Friend's question. Comparisons between the emoluments of particular ranks in the Navy and Army, however, do not give any real idea of the relative advantages and prospects of the two Services. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that in spite of the absence of a married allowance, a normal successful naval officer receives more remuneration from the State during his career than the normal successful Army officer, whether married or single. The conditions of service in the two forces differ so vitally that it is impracticable to give corresponding advantages to each in every particular. My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension in thinking that a naval officer who is not victualled in kind receives no allowance in lieu. An allowance at the rate of £80 per annum is granted to an officer who for any reason is not victualled in kind.

The Admiralty will not, therefore, prevent men from marrying?

That is so.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what British interests are being guarded by British men of war in Crimean ports, in view of the statement by the Government that no responsibility is being taken for General Wrangel or his administration in the Crimea.

Our general interests are similar to those in any part of the world where it is necessary to keep in touch with affairs directly or indirectly governing commerce. But we have a special interest in the Crimea because the Allies have made themselves responsible for the evacuation, care and maintenance of a very large number of Russian refugees from the Black Sea provinces who would otherwise have suffered at the hands of the Bolshevik forces. These refugees, numbering thousands, are in camps at Cyprus, Lemnos and Egypt. A gradual and slow reabsorption of these unfortunate people into the Crimea is taking place, as accommodation can be found, and this alone requires close touch being kept.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if it is a fact that we are sending refugees back to the Crimea who have already been taken from South Russia to Cyprus and other places, and are we going to keep the Crimea inviolate from the Russian Government whom the right hon. Gentleman calls the Bolsheviks?

No, I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman must draw any such assumption from my answer. These refugees are only temporarily in these places of refuge, and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, it is extraordinarily difficult to make satisfactory provision for them. Some must be reabsorbed in other parts. They cannot possibly remain in these places to which they have only been moved temporarily.

Did the right hon. Gentleman not tell us that he was sending these refugees back to the Crimea?

I said some of them will be re-absorbed in the Crimea.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that as long as these unfortunate people need protection, British men-of-war will remain in the Crimea to protect them?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a blank refusal on his part to give the information asked for in this question—which is intended to embarrass the Navy in the discharge of their duties—would meet with the approval of a vast number of thinking people in this country?

Are we to be responsible indefinitely for all these refugees until they are sent back to the Crimea, and are we now sending them back to the Crimea?

The first part of the question is obviously not for me to answer; it is a question for the head of the Government. The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that the case of these refugees is most heartrending. The British Government have done their best to help them in circumstances of special difficulty; we are doing our best and we shall continue to do so. As to the number who are being re-absorbed in the Crimea, I cannot say off-hand. As I have stated, they are in places in which it is only possible to make temporary provision. Having regard to the action of the British Government, which is a purely charitable action, I do not think we ought to be assailed by questions which make it still more difficult for us. In answer to my hon. Friend (Captain Loseby) I do not hesitate to say that—for whatever these questions be intended I do not know—some of these questions make it extremely difficult for the head of the Admiralty to give an answer which is adequate without embarrassing the public service.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object of these questions is to prevent the British Admiralty from embarking on a state of war with the Russian Government, which the Prime Minister does not want?

The right hon. Gentleman cannot say what is in the minds of hon. Members.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the serious position in Cornwall through the stoppage through slackness of the tin mines in that area; and whether he has any suggestion to make that would enable the tin mines to be worked partially through a difficult period?

I have been asked to answer this question. The position of the Cornish tin mining industry has for some time past engaged the serious attention of His Majesty's Government. Various proposals, all involving some form of State financial assistance, have been put forward by interests concerned, but after careful consideration of all the circumstances, the Government do not see their way to recommend to this House that such assistance should be given. If the commercial prospects of the industry are such as to warrant its continuance, the interests concerned should have no difficulty in raising the capital requisite for development in the ordinary way.

Is the slackness owing to over-production or to the prevailing high price of Cornish tin?

It is owing to a great many causes, but largely owing to the mines having got into arrears in the way of development.

Is it not due to the fact that the Government asked these mines during the War to pick out the eyes of the mines and develop them to the best of their ability in order to assist with munitions, and in view of the debt that the Government owe the mines on that account are the mines not now entitled to get some assistance?

Is it no part of Government policy to take an interest in the business concerns of the country and their prospects?

With regard to the first question, no doubt the Cornish mines did work hard during the War like everyone else, and all that has been taken into consideration. As to the second question, if assistance is given in a case like this there would be scores of other cases which have an almost equal claim; and with a desire to enforce economy in every direction, I do not think the House would wish to embark on a precedent that would be so very dangerous.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having a general inquiry into the state of these mines?

There has been an inquiry.

Is not one of the causes the poor means of transit; and if that is so, is the Board of Trade prepared to assist by providing better facilities for transport?

That is a question for the Ministry of Transport.

Is the Department of the Government immediately concerned not the Board of Trade; and cannot that Department indicate to the Ministry of Transport what is required to put the mines on an economic footing?

We have considered this from every possible aspect for a very long time, and very carefully, and that is the deliberate conclusion we have reached.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of women employed at the Unemployment Branch at Kew; the number engaged since August, 1914; how many of these are on the temporary and how many on the permanent staff; and how many are girls under 21 years of age and their minimum and maximum rate of pay?

The office at Kew is a result of the centralisation of the work of keeping records of contributions and payments in connection with unemployment insurance. It was not completely installed until June, 1917, when the total number of women (excluding cleaners) was 655, of whom 136 were permanent officers and 520 temporary. The total number of women employed on the 23rd July, 1920, was 1,236, of whom 451 were permanent officers and 785 temporary. The increase in the number of staff employed is mainly the result of the introduction and partial continuance of the out-of-work donation. Of the present total, 205 permanent women officers and 220 temporary women officers are under 21 years of age. The minimum and maximum salaries of the 205 permanent women officers are, respectively, £110 per annum and £164 10s. per annum (both inclusive of War bonus). Of the 220 temporary women officers, 150 officers receive salaries ranging from 25s. to 45s. per week, and 70 officers receive salaries above 45s. per week and not exceeding 52s. per week. These salaries are inclusive of War bonus. It is principally among the latter temporary officers that the further substitution, to which I shall refer in my answer to the next question, will be made.

asked the Minister of Labour whether nearly 1,200 women are employed at the Unemployment Department at Kew out of a total staff of about 1,700; is he aware that the less responsible duties in the ledger section at present done by young girls on the temporary staff could be done by any ex-service man of average intelligence who has had previous clerical experience; and, in view of the large number of ex-service men out of work, will he take steps to have this substitution made?

Substitution of ex-service men for women has already proceeded at the Kew Office to a substantial extent, with the result that the proportion of ex-service men to the total temporary staff has increased from 12 per cent. on 1st July, 1919, 18·7 per cent. on 1st October, 1919, 29·7 per cent. on 1st January, 1920, 37·1 per cent. on 1st April, 1920, to 44 per cent. on 23rd July last. Further, it is proposed to proceed at once with substitution in 200 additional posts, which will increase the proportion of ex-service men to 54 per cent. of the temporary staff. The question of the provision of permanent staff for the work referred to in the second part of the question has already received my serious consideration. It is routine work, for the discharge of which the Permanent Civil Service grade of women writing assistants, recruited at the age 16–17, was established. The commencing salary of this grade, the lowest in the Civil Service, is 18s. a week (with war bonus 42s. 4d.). A number of permanent writing assistants have already been assigned to Kew. In the meantime that part of the work to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, which is not performed by permanent staff, is carried out by junior temporary women clerks at salaries ranging from 30s. to 45s. per week inclusive of war bonus.

Arising out of that reply——

I really think we have had enough of it.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the provision of the Italian unemployment decree, whereby advances may be made out of the 50,000,000 lire fund to groups of unemployed who may desire to band themselves together for the purpose of starting an enterprise; and whether a similar provision in this country would meet the case of many demobilised officers and men who are unable to find employment?

My attention has been called to the decree in question. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, the Civil Liabilities Fund was created to help to resettle individual ex-service officers or men, who have suffered financial hardship owing to military service. The Regulations under which the Civil Liabilities Fund is at present administered do not permit of grants on the basis outlined in my hon. Friend's question. I may add that the whole administration and scope of the Department concerned are being considered by the Select Committee on Pensions. My hon. Friend may wish to put his suggestion before them.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will state what are the rates of benefit paid under the unemployment insurance schemes of Italy and Switzerland, respectively?

The rates vary according to circumstances, and I am circulating in tabular form, in the OFFICIAL REPOKT, the information which my hon. Friend desires.

The following is the information referred to:

1. Italy.

Under the provisions of the Italian Unemployment Insurance System, as laid down in the Decree of 19th October, 1919, the daily benefit for unemployment is fixed as follows, according to the wage-scale of the contributor:

In no case may the daily benefit exceed one-half the daily earnings.

Is it not the fact that the rates in Italy and Switzerland are more favourable than the rates granted in this country?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Table and try and form some sort of estimate with the rate of Exchange, and then form his own judgment. I endeavoured to do so this morning, and I should not like to give a definite answer off-hand.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has appointed any new and principal officers during the present year; if so, will he state how many have been appointed; what are their duties; if all or any of the same are ex-service men; and what is the total of the salaries paid to such officers?

During the present year eight new appointments have been made of men not previously in Government employ to posts in the Ministry of Labour carrying a salary in

2. Switzerland.

The amount of relief in cases of total unemployment as laid down in the Federal Decree of 29th October, 1919, which sets up a provisional scheme, is 60 per cent. of the normal earnings, or 70 per cent. where the person out of work has others legally dependent upon him, but the daily rate must not in any case exceed the maxima shown below.

excess of £500 per annum. All these appointments are temporary, and are associated with the training of disabled men. Six of these appointments were filled by ex-service men, and before the two civilians were appointed the most exhaustive efforts were made to secure qualified ex-service men. The total amount paid in salary to these officers is £5,950 per annum.

Have no ex-service men been found qualified to be appointed to these positions?

I have just said that six out of eight are filled by ex-service men. Two of the positions are highly specialised posts. If these two men had not been appointed there would have been great difficulty in training hundreds of disabled soldiers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what are the duties of these people?

One is Deputy Divisional Director in London, and the other is the Chief Technical Officer in the Manchester area.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue a circular letter to all local government authorities calling their attention to the summary of the provisions of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, and asking them to take every step practicable to bring the contents of the Act to the knowledge of the inhabitants of their district?

T doubt whether there would be any advantage in issuing a Circular to the local authorities who have no responsibilities in regard to the administration of the Act. I am, however, taking steps to secure that a summary of the provisions of the Act shall be given the widest possible publicity. It will I hope be obtainable on bookstalls to morrow.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Boards of Guardians throughout the country are passing resolutions in favour of a scheme for widow's pensions in order to provide for the maintenance of father less children; and whether he can state the proposals of the Government on this matter?

I have received a certain number of resolutions on this subject, but the Government do not feel able to introduce a scheme.

Does that mean that the Government are going to ignore the opinion of the House of Commons on this question?

I do not know to what decision the hon. Member refers, but it is estimated that the scheme would cost £50,000,000.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the numerous and unsuccessful applications which have recently been made by municipalities for the extension of their boundaries and of the expenditure to which local authorities have been put in resisting these pretensions, he will, in order to discourage reckless applications in the future, take such steps as may be necessary to vest in the inspector who holds the inquiry full discretion to direct that the costs of any party there to be paid wholly or in part by any other party?

The proposal of the hon. Member would require legislation. I. have issued during the past few days revised instructions with the view of simplifying and cheapening the procedure in regard to applications for the extension of borough boundaries, and I am considering what further measures can be taken to reduce the expense in these cases.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that a referendum will be taken of both boroughs, and unless there is a substantial majority in favour that the application should not be allowed to go forward?

In view of the large costs imposed on local authorities, can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

We have no power to do that at present.

asked the Minister of Health whether the provisions of the Housing (Additional Powers) Act relating to the restriction of luxury building have proved adequate for the purpose?

Experience has shown that these powers require some strengthening, and I intend to lay proposals on this subject before Parliament as early as practicable.

asked the Minister of Health how many of the local authorities have exercised the powers given them by the Housing (Additional Powers) Act relative to the restriction of luxury building?

According to returns received from local authorities, the number who had taken action under these powers up to the 30th June last was 65.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the London County Council have taken any action under these powers?

I think so, but I would prefer to have notice of the question.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that an application made to his Department by the Corporation of Cheltenham in reference to the subsidy for houses on the 11th June and repeated twice in July remains unanswered and unacknowledged; and if he will be good enough to secure that this corporation may be accorded the ordinary courtesy of a reply to their communications?

I regret the delay which has arisen in replying to the communication referred to. A reply was sent on the 30th July.

asked the Minister of Health whether the subsidy to be paid to the local authorities under the provisions of the Housing (Assisted Scheme) Regulations, 1919, will be determined as in 31st March, 1927, or whether the subsidy based on the revised Estimate to be prepared at that date will be continued throughout the remainder of the loan period?

The Exchequer subsidy will continue to be paid after 31st March, 1927, and will be based on revised estimates of annual income and expenditure made from time to time during the period allowed for repayment of loans.

asked the Minister of Health if he has received the resolution of a housing conference held at Nottingham a few days ago in which it was stated that only 10 per cent. of skilled labour in the building trade was engaged in the erection of houses; if he has any official information to this effect; and, if so, will he say what steps he proposes to take to ensure a greater proportion of skilled labour being diverted to the erection of houses?

I have received a copy of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. According to my information, that resolution overstates the proportion of skilled labour at present employed on housing schemes. The whole question of the provision of an adequate supply of labour for the carrying out of the housing scheme is engaging the immediate attention of the Government. I hope that it will be possible to bring the matter before the trades concerned to-morrow.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the sanitary inspector of Durham has reported that the condition of the Palace Theatre in that city is such that an actionable nuisance exists; and whether he has any power in the circumstances to insist, in the interests of the public health, that legal action shall be taken?

I have been in communication with the Town Council in reference to this matter, and am informed that the Palace Theatre has been frequently examined by the sanitary inspector, who states that no actionable nuisance exists. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Has my right hon. Friend not been misinformed, and is not the statement that an actionable nuisance exists?

The information I have is that there is no actionable nuisance.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the action of the City of London Guardians, who have refused to allow a mother to visit her children who are in the guardians' charge; whether he has any power in the matter; and can he state if he proposes to take any action thereon?

My attention has not been previously called to this case. I am making inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the local authorities all over the country view with alarm the increase in local taxation necessitated by carrying out the provisions of recent Acts of Parliament and by the constant fresh requirements emanating from Government Departments; and whether the Government propose to take steps to deal with this question?

I have received a certain number of resolutions on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend, but I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply given earlier this Session to the hon. Member for the Frome Division of which I am sending him a copy.

Can the Government give an assurance that no further legislation entailing further burdens on local taxation will be introduced except in cases of great urgency?

asked the Prime Minister whether he gave a pledge during the War that the inhabitants of the then German colonies would be consulted with regard to the Power to subsequently protect or govern them; when and where this has been done, and with what result; whether any of the communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have been consulted with regard to the mandatory Power to assist and advise them as laid down in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations; and when and where this has been done, and with what result?

This subject has more than once been discussed in Debate, and I cannot add anything to the statement already made.

May I ask if it is a fact that there has never been a discussion on the first part of the question, and did not the Prime Minister state that the chiefs of these German colonies were well qualified to express the views of their people, and why has that not been done?

The hon. and gallant Member is a regular attendant in this House, and I ask him to remember that I have myself participated in the discussion of that subject.

What is the policy of the Government? If a pledge was given, is it being carried out, and, if not, why not?

The "if" is the large part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

If there is to be a poll of these East-African niggers and other coloured races, will it be taken on the principle of proportional representation?

Will the women be allowed to vote?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will provide an opportunity for discussing the Motion with reference to the situation in Ireland which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for the Lanark Division of Lanarkshire (Captain Elliot) on the Order Paper for to-day—

["That this House, while willing to arm the Government with all such extraordinary powers as may be necessary to enable it to combat successfully the campaign of organised murder and outrage in Ireland, declines to proceed with sporadic coercion measures unless it receives an assurance that the Government will not ash the House to adjourn until it has given an opportunity of passing the Government of Ireland Bill in which its remedial policy is embodied."]

I cannot add anything to what was said on Monday last in answer to questions by my hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to secure a discussion of this Motion?

What can be discussed does not depend on me, and so I have no good offices which I could, exercise.

asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has taken over the disused Lambeth Workhouse in Princes Road, S.E., for the purposes of insurance; will he state for what branch of insurance the building is to be used, the number of male and female clerks that will be housed therein, and if they have been removed from any other building; and, if so, will he state what buildings and for what purposes the vacated buildings will be used?

The Lambeth Workhouse in Princes Road, S.E., has been leased by His Majesty's Office of Works for the accommodation of certain of the staff of the Ministry of Health. The staff at present accommodated in this building is employed on special temporary operations in connection with the registers of insured persons, and numbers 487. This staff was removed from Nos. 1–4, Thurloe Place, in order that these buildings, which were requisitioned in connection with the War, might foe surrendered to the owners. It is proposed that at a later date the workhouse in question should be used also for the accommodation of the staff to be employed in connection with the Census of 1921.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture what is the total strength of the coastal staff of the fisheries branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; how many of the staff are permanently and how many temporarily appointed; how many of the permanent staff were appointed according to the instructions of the President of the Board, dated 25th February, 1919; what are the duties which fall to be performed by the coastal staff other than the statutory duties performed by the local Sea Fisheries Committees; under what authority these appointments were made, and what is the salary paid to these officials; and whether, in view of the urgent need of economy, he will refrain from making any further appointments of this kind, and will terminate at an early date those which are of a temporary nature?

The coastal staff numbers 19, of whom 17 are permanent and two temporary officers. All permanent appointments since 25th February, 1919, have been made in accordance with the instructions referred to. The duty of the coastal staff is to represent the Ministry on the coast, to keep it informed and well advised on all matters affecting the fishing industry, and to help fishermen and the fishing industry by all means in their power. They will shortly also be required to take over the duties of the Fish Distribution Officers of the Ministry of Food The appointments were made under the general authority of the Ministry, with the sanction of the Treasury, and the salaries paid vary from £150 to £600 per annum. I am not prepared to give the undertaking suggested in the last part of the question.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, owing to the increase in the cost of pauper lunatics in mental hospitals, there is an increasing tendency on the part of boards of guardians to retain patients in workhouses where they can be kept at a lower cost; and whether, in view of the fact that there is a lack of trained mental nurses and proper accommodation in workhouses for the treatment of these patients, he will have inquiries made into this matter?

I am not aware that there is in fact an increasing tendency to retain patients in workhouses, but I am making inquiries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the past these mental hospitals have been very seriously overtaxed owing to boards of guardians sending patients who were merely suffering from senile decay and who ought to have been kept in the poor law institutions?

I think it has been a very debateable point, and I could not express an opinion in confirmation of that offhand.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any hope of an early issue of the mandate for the administration of the Tanganyika territory; whether he is aware that the delay in issuing the mandate is very detrimental to the economic progress of that territory; and whether, pending its issue, he will instruct the administrator to issue provisional titles and leases so that the various commercial undertakings can commence operations?

As regards the issue of that mandate, I can add nothing to what was said by the Prime Minister on 22nd July in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore). I am not aware that the economic progress of the Tanganyika territory, which is open to trade and commerce like a British Protectorate, is being retarded by the delay in the issue of the mandate. It is due to special reasons, the nature of which I explained on 28th July in reply to another question by the hon. Member for Stafford, that it is not possible to make grants of land in the territory for the present.

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the failure of the Government to incorporate the coastal zone in Kenia Colony penalises all commercial undertakings in that area of East Africa comparatively with those of the hinterland; will he inform the House why the adjustment of this matter continues to be postponed; and when can he hold out a prospect of the incorporation of this area with the Kenia Colony?

I am not aware of any commercial disability arising from the fact that the coastal region has not been annexed. As part of the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar the coastal region is the subject of international arrangements, and I cannot at present hold out any nope that it will be annexed to the Crown.

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government intend in the near future to construct a deep-water wharf at Kilindini as a fitting terminus to the Uganda Railway; what action, if any, has been taken, or is proposed to be taken in the near future, with Professor Simpson's or any other town-planning scheme for Kilindini and Mombasa; and if he is aware that delay renders the sanitary re-organisation of these towns a matter of greater difficulty and greater cost?

A scheme for a Government deep-water wharf at Kilindini has been approved, and specifications are being prepared with a view to tenders being invited for its construction. The Governor is giving close consideration to the question of town-planning in the Colony and Protectorate generally, but any large schemes of sanitary re-organisation must await the provision of loan funds, which may, in the first instance, have to be devoted to more directly productive services.

Does the term "town planning" in this question mean the compulsory segregation of Indians and Arabs from Europeans?

The advice we have had from the sanitary experts is to the effect that different races should as far as possible be kept apart in planning towns.

Then it does mean segregation. It means putting Indians in ghettoes in Kilindini?

No. It is intended that every race, Indian and native, should be given ample and suitable space in which to live.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he intends to set up an advisory or other committee to deal in any way with the fabrics of ancient cathedrals and churches; and, if so, what are to be the terms of reference and powers of such, body?

I have appointed an Advisory Committee consisting of Lord Beauchamp (Chairman); Lord Ferrers; Sir Martin Conway, M.P.; Lieut.-Colonel the Hon. C. James, M.P.; Right Rev. Bishop Browne; Sir Hercules Bead; Sir Lionel Earle; and Mr. Peers, the Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments, with the following terms of reference:—

Will this reference extend to any ancient and historical synagogues?

I am afraid there are none in this country which can be regarded as historical monuments.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether there has teen any contribution from Germany, towards the expenses of the British Army of Occupation on the Rhine; and, if so, what proportion does this contribution bear to the total expense?

As stated by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 1st June, in answer to the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir W. Davison), approximately £4,000,000 has been paid by Germany in supplies of local currency for the use of the British Army of Occupation. The total cost of the force to the end of May, 1920, was about £49,000,000. The question of payment, I may add, rests with the Reparation Commission.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of establishing something in the nature of octroi duties, so that we should not incur further debt to Germany than we have already incurred?