asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government has offered an amnesty to all refugees in the Crimea; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will advise these refugees to accept these terms in view of the great need of conserving the resources of our own Treasury and of assisting our own distressed ex-soldiers and widows instead of undertaking indefinite responsibilities for the inhabitants of the Crimea?

The answer to the first part of the question is that the Soviet Government has offered to secure the personal safety of the refugees, on condition that General Wrangel surrenders. His Majesty's Government are not in position to give advice to Russian refugees in the Crimea, with whom they are not in communication, and in respect of whom they have no financial responsibilities.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the First Lord of the Admiralty declares that our ships are in Crimean ports for the purpose of succouring these refugees, and intend to do so, and how is it that there is this lack of co-ordination between the Admiralty and the Foreign Office?

I am not aware of any lack of co-ordination.

In view of the fact that an amnesty has been afforded, why are we going to risk a general war for the sake of these unfortunate people?

asked the Lord Privy Seal what were the terms of the telegrams referred to in the message from the War Office, dated 29th July, 1919, to the general officer commanding at Kern, but not printed in the Blue Book on military operations in North Russia?

asked the Lord Privy Seal when the communications and dispatches which passed between the War Office, the General Officer Commanding at Archangel, and the General Officer Commanding at Kern in June, 1919, and which are not published in the Blue Book on military operations in North Russia, will be published?

asked the Lord Privy Seal why certain communications and dispatches which passed between the War Office, the General Officer Commanding at Archangel, and the General Officer Commanding at Kern in June, 1919, have been omitted from the Blue Book on military operations in North Russia?

I have been asked to reply to these questions. As I stated in the introductory memorandum, the Blue Book was prepared to afford a complete statement of the reasons underlying the various phases of the military operations connected with the British evacuation of North Russia, This I think it does. It is not proposed to publish the mass of subsidiary and routine telegrams, the inclusion of which would only obscure the main issues.

Is it not a fact that General Rawlinson, within a week of his arrival, sent a telegram to advance on Petrograd, and, if so, why is that telegram not included?

I do not know of such telegram. On the contrary, I do know that General Rawlinson, from the moment he landed, set himself solely to evacuate the force at the shortest possible date, and that he rigorously repressed inclinations amongst his own officers and men who were unwilling to quit contact with an enemy whom they cordially despised.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any one of the documents relating to military operations in North Russia, which have been omitted from the Blue Book, in any way imply that the advance to Kottas and the attempted linking up with Koltchak were, in the intention of the Government or of any person or persons taking part in these operations, anything other than a necessary part of the policy of evacuation?

I have been asked to reply. The answer is in the negative.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government concurs in the opinion of Sir Henry Wilson, as stated in the recently published Blue Book on the military operations in North Russia, that the critical situation which existed in 1919 was due to the want of a clear-cut policy on the part of the Allied Governments?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. If the hon. Member will refer to my speech during the Debate on the Army Vote on Account, on 5th November last, he will see that Sir Henry Wilson's opinion is in general agreement with the views which I expressed on that occasion with regard to the Russian situation. Perhaps I might be permitted to read the. following passages from my speech:

Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that the Allies have no clear-cut policy?

I can only repeat what I have already said. If the hon. Member had been in his place on the 5th of November, he would have heard the answer.

When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement—[Interruption]— what are hon. Members afraid of?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Time!"]

Let the hon. and gallant Member go on. He will do no harm.

When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, was it not then his policy to invite an alliance with Germany against Bolshevik Russia?

I have never made such a suggestion, but I think there is a great deal to be said on the subject.

Do you believe in the Jekyll and Hyde theory?

I have repeatedly said that any statement I have made can be challenged in Debate, and there are many opportunities. Although there is a great deal said on this subject out of doors, there is a singular lack of desire to challenge my statements here.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why the latest document reproduced in the Blue Book on military operations in North Russia is dated 6th August, 1919, whereas the evacuation was not completed till 12th October?

asked the Lord Privy Seal when the documents relating to military operations in North Russia between the dates 6th August, 1919, and 12th October, 1919, will be published?

My right hon. Friend has also asked me to answer. Documents of a later date than 6th August, 1919, were not included in the Blue Book, as by that date Lord Rawlinson had sailed for North Russia to conduct the final phase of the evacuation, the programme for which had already been drawn up. Subsequently the plans made for the Allied withdrawal were not modified in any important particular, and the operations are described in Lord Rawlinson's despatch, as indicated at the bottom of page 18 of the Blue Book.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the document, or documents, will be published without which the message from the War Office to General Ironside, under date 18th June, 1919, reproduced in the Blue Book on military operations in North Russia, is unintelligible?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. If the hon. Member will refer to Paper L on page 36 of the Blue Book, I think he will find that the meaning of the telegram in question is quite clear.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state how, and by whom, it is proposed that the cost of establishing a permanent health organisation by the League of Nations shall be met; and whether it is proposed that the British taxpayer shall bear any cost of the application of measures for protecting the health of workers of other countries?

I presume that the expenses of an organisation set up by the League of Nations will be met from its consolidated funds, to which His Majesty's Government contribute among others.

How much actual cash is going to be contributed to this nebulous body?

it has been stated in this House how much has been contributed to the League of Nations, but I do not bear the exact figures in my mind, if the hon. Baronet will put down a question I will endeavour to satisfy him.

asked the Prime Minister whether the international labour office of the League of Nations will avail themselves of the information concerning labour conditions in Soviet Russia which has been brought home by the British labour delegation to supplement the information already published by the Labour Office in the volume entitled, "Labour Conditions in Soviet Russia"?

I understand that the International Labour Office now have this matter under consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Rustem Haibar Bey, representative of the King of the Hedjaz at the Peace Conference in Paris, has been recalled by the king in consequence of the latest developments in Syria; whether before leaving he lodged a protest with the League of Nations against the French action in Syria; and, if so, when the protest will be considered by the League of Nations?

I have no information as to the recall of Rustem Haidar Bey. The Hedjaz delegation lodged a protest with the League of Nations, but I do not know when it will be considered.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether the Arab government has been consulted regarding the negotiations in progress between Great Britain and France for establishing permanent northern and eastern frontiers for Palestine; and what attitude the Arab government has adopted:

(2) what is considered to be the southern boundary of the area under the French mandate in those parts of Syria which lie to the east of the River Jordan?

It is proposed that the boundary, which has not yet been settled, between the British and French spheres of influence shall be delimited on the ground by a Commission on which the respective local authorities will be represented, but the determination of the frontier itself is a matter for the principal Allied Powers, in whose favour Turkey is to renounce all rights in these regions.

When the right hon. Gentleman refers to the local authorities does he mean the Arab Government existing to-day?

No, Sir, we really mean the people who have recently been appointed in the district.

Are the Zionist community in Palestine to have any representative on this Boundary Commission?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's representative at Bucharest has asked the Roumanian Government for explanations as to the failure of that Government to meet its financial obligations to British holders of Roumanian Government Bonds; whether that Government has given assurances, and when; and whether effect has yet been given to the assurances, if any. by the Roumanian Government?

Repeated representations have been made by His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Bucharest, to whom the Roumanian Ministry for Foreign Affairs on the 16th July, 1919, signified their assent to the payment in London of the Coupons of the 1908 loan. The Roumanian Prime Minister stated on 2nd January that the financial situation of Roumania at that time rendered any such payment impossible and that he hoped to conclude a loan which would stabilise the situation, in which case the Coupons would immediately be paid. On 2nd February the Roumanian Government stated that the only loan paid in London was the 1913 loan. On 16th April the Roumanian Prime Minister and Minister for Finance both assured His Majesty's representative that they hoped to be able to pay these coupons shortly. No action has yet been taken by the Roumanian Government, in whose new budget the amount necessary for the payment of these Coupons does not appear to be included. His Majesty's representative at Bucharest has been instructed to represent to them the importance of fixing a definite date for payment.

asked the Prime Minister whether further consideration has now been given to the question of the abolition of the British Railway Mission in Roumania, and the consequent reduction of expenditure involved to the State in connection therewith; and whether such duties as the Mission is now called upon to perform could be efficiently discharged by His Majesty's Legation at Bucharest?

I am in communication with His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest and the Minister of Transport upon the matter. It is probable that the Mission will be abolished earlier than was contemplated. It would be quite impossible for the staff of His Majesty's Minister, which consists of one Third Secretary and one Archivist, to undertake the work, even if they had the technical knowledge.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British residents in Roumania wonder what on earth this Mission has to do, and think it a waste of time and public money being there?

I have said already that the matter is under consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Polish Government, in failing to empower its delegates to negotiate peace when applying to the Soviet authorities for an armistice, was acting under the advice of or with the consent of the Allied Governments; and whether he has any official information showing that this action of the Poles was with the object of gaining time for the reorganisation of the Polish army under the direction of the Anglo-French Mission?

I would venture to refer the hon. Member to the statement on Poland that the Prime Minister is to make this afternoon.

Are we to understand that the function of this Government, which was to make the peace of the world, now is to frustrate every effort at peace, and is this country to be thrown into suicide?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to anticipate the Prime Minister's statement.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that at the present time (or, at any rate, until within the last few weeks) the War Graves Commission were having the bodies of our men in France exhumed and buried in other cemeteries without in any way communicating with the relatives, in spite of the fact that every day numbers of relatives are going over to France furnished with particulars of where the original graves of their dead relatives are?

The Imperial War Graves Commission is not charged with the exhumation and reburial of bodies referred to by the hon. Member. The work of concentration of graves is carried out directly under the control of the War Office through the Director of Graves Registration in France. Throughout this work the rule has been laid down that no bodies should be removed except in cases where such a step is absolutely essential owing either to the graves being isolated or to valid objections on the part of the French authorities to their being left where they are. The number of isolated and other graves which it has been necessary thus to concentrate is about 231,000, and it will be obvious to the hon. Member that, in view of the magnitude of the task, it has not been possible to communicate with the relatives individually before concentration took place.

The information regarding exhumation and concentration is forwarded to the War Office with as little delay as possible, though necessarily in many cases a few weeks must elapse before this information has been collated and is received in London. It is communicated to inquirers who apply for the latest news before proceeding to France. The necessity for so doing has been repeatedly emphasised by me in the House, and notifications to that effect have been published from time to time in the Press.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the terms of the Treaty, it is possible for relatives to purchase a grave in France; and, if so, whether they may be given the opportunity of purchasing the necessary amount of land, and thus be saved the added pain caused by the official communication that the body has been exhumed and placed in some other cemetery?

No question arises as to the purchase of the site except in connection with isolated graves, as in all other cases the land is acquired in perpetuity by the French Government at the cost of the French nation. Where relatives desire to purchase the site of an isolated grave the Imperial War Graves Commission has no power to intervene, though whenever consulted they have strongly advised against such procedure, as it is difficult to see how satisfactory arrangements can be made for maintenance in perpetuity of such graves, for which, of course, the Imperial War Graves Commission is unable to take any responsibility. The number of such purchases in France has been small, and no objection has been raised so far by the French Government, though it is known that their desire is that graves should be concentrated as far as possible The Belgian Government, on the other hand, has consistently insisted on all graves being concentrated, and has refused to permit such individual purchases.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the total number of the British Army of Occupation in Germany at the present time and the units of which that Army is composed; what are the principal places where the Army is located; and can he give the approximate cost of this Army per month?

The total number of the British Army of Occupation in Germany, exclusive of plébiscite troops, is approximately 13,360. This figure comprises, in addition to the Headquarter Staff, Cavalry, Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Infantry, Machine Gun Corps, Tanks, and the usual ancillary services. These troops are located principally in the vicinity of Cologne. The approximate cost per month is £300,000.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to reduce this Army of Occupation in view of the announced policy of alliance with Germany?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether accommodation for the families of soldiers upon the married list has now been provided in Germany in connection with the Army on the Rhine; and whether it is intended to use the existing married quarters, which were formerly erected for the accommodation of German soldiers, for this purpose?

Yes, Sir; it is hoped that those families for whom accommodation is ready will leave by the end of this month. The remainder, up to the number authorised and for whom accommodation is available, will be sent as soon as arrangements for their reception are completed. As regards the latter part of the question, the families will be accommodated, as far as possible, in existing married quarters formerly erected for German soldiers; others will be accommodated in lodgings under arrangements made by the General Officer Commanding.

Is it not a fact that the accommodation both for officers' and soldiers' wives is totally inadequate?

I am not able to answer that question without notice, but I will inquire.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the total strength of the Army that is kept in the London area at present; can he give the names of the regiments now quartered in the London District; the names of the localities where these men are housed; and if they are all in permanent barracks?

The total strength of the troops in the London District is 737 officers, 9,804 other ranks.

These troops comprise the following regiments in addition to the ancillary services, and they are quartered as shown:

asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the special annuity of £50 per year granted to a recipient of the Victoria Cross who is totally unable to earn a livelihood in consequence of age or infirmity is no longer adequate, and having regard to the rise in the cost of living that has taken place since that amount was first fixed, he is prepared to consider an increase of the amount to the total disablement rate for a private in the Great War, as fixed by the Royal Warrant of September, 1919, namely, 40s. per week?

I am at present considering, in conjunction with other Departments, the question of making some increase in this annuity

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to announce the amount which it is proposed to add to the sum annually allotted for meritorious service medal annuities; whether, in view of the large waiting list of applicants for the medal, some of whom have been registered over 20 years, he can give an assurance that fell claims will be considered according to seniority; and whether he will permit men whose claims to the decoration have been approved to wear the ribbon pending the issue of the medal itself?

It is not proposed to increase the annual allotment. All claims are considered in order of seniority, but it is not possible to award the medal to all those who have been approved for registration, and I regret that a candidate registered for the award cannot be permitted to wear the ribbon in anticipation.

If more money cannot be given—which I can understand—why cannot the man who has his claim proved wear the ribbon?

Because approval for registration does not necessarily mean that he gets the medal.

If he can be given the medal, why cannot he be allowed to wear the ribbon?

As soon as he is approved for the medal, he gets the medal and the ribbon.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state how much surplus hay of last year's crop not required for Army purposes is still in the possession of the Army authorities; and whether, in view of the shortage of old hay in this country and the desirability of realising surplus stores, and especially perishable stores, as far as possible, he will give directions that this hay shall be at once put up for sale by auction, and that, so far as possible, it be put up in lots convenient for the requirements of private purchasers?

There is no hay of last year's crop in the possession of the Army authorities. Such hay as is still held by the Army authorities belongs to the crop of 1918, but none of this is surplus to Army requirements.

Does that mean that the War Office is going to keep the whole of this 1938 crop, a great deal of which must now have perished?

No, it does not mean that we are going to keep it, but that we are going to use it as necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council have yet, as it was promised they should do after the War, and as again promised by the Minister on the 22nd March last, considered the creation of an Imperial Medical Service, or other steps, with a view to efficiency and economy of effort; and with what result?

Yes, Sir; the proposal put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend has been carefully considered, but the Council are not satisfied that it would b practicable or in the best interests of the Army, and they are not therefore prepared to carry the matter further. I would, however, point out that the Army is only partially concerned with the question of the formation of an Imperial Medical Service, and that there are other Departments, namely, the Ministry of Health, which are more vitally interested.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the advisability of guarding against the breakdown of medical arrangements and of securing greater physical efficiency in military operations by placing the Director-General of the Army Medical Service on the Army Council with responsibility and power to secure the full consideration of health matters and the execution of all medical arrangements?

Whenever matters affecting medical organisation or administration are under consideration, the Director-General, Army Medical Service, is called upon to give the Army Council the benefit of his advice. I do not think, therefore, that there is any advantage to be gained by making him a member of the Council.

Is it not realised that the Director-General has to deal with a very large number of medical problems that arise in ordinary strategic questions, and as to which he alone can give any information?

Yes, Sir, that has been very carefully considered. Of course, we have the benefit of the advice of the Director-General of Medical Service at any time, and of a great many other very highly skilled technical officers, but that is not a reason for adding these officers to the Army Council.

How-does the right hon. Gentleman propose to get over the difficulty that hospital arrangements in a campaign come under the head of three different Departments, and three different members of the Army Council? There must be divided councils, and you will get difficulties arising, as they always arise.

I do not think there is any great difficulty in practice arising from that. As a matter of fact, most of the Admiralty Departments serve two or three Lords of the Admiralty, and the idea of a common service department rendering service to different departments of the administration is not in the least inconsistent with good administration.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the motor traction. being used in the military operations in the various parts of the world is all the property of the Government; if not, if any proportion of the vehicles in use is now the property of the Slough Trading Company; and. if so, what are the terms upon which the Government is permitted to use the vehicles which were recently sold to the Company under the Slough contract?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative, and the second and third parts do not, therefore, arise.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he can indicate when a decision will be given concerning the conditions of service, etc., of inspectors of ordnance machinery which were said to be under consideration in December, 1919?

I hope very shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will see fit to recommend that medals should be awarded to the members of the Heugh Battery, at Hartlepool, in consideration of their gallantry on 10th December, 1914, in engaging at a point-blank range of 4,150 yards, with only three 6-inch B.L. Mark VII guns, three German battle-cruisers, who at first flew the English White Ensign before running up the German colours, firing 70 11·2-inch, 8·2-inch, and 5·9-inch guns, thereby causing the death of 130 persons, the injury of 454 others, and great damage to buildings and property, during which action the Heugh Battery, manned by Territorials, registered many hits on the said cruisers, dismounting two guns, killing 10 men and wounding 19 on the flagship "Blucher," and inflicting such damage on her that she lay in Kiel for a considerable time, repairing and refitting, and also seriously damaging the "Seydlitz" and "Von der Tann," besides killing on them 80 men and wounding 200 others?

The question of the award of a medal to the troops referred to is being considered with other exceptional cases.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, which at last recognises the maxim Summa lex, summa injuriai But may I further ask him whether he will see that equity is restored also at the other end of the scale, and that those Falstaffs may be deprived of their spurious military honours, who never heard a shot fired in the War, and many of whom never so much as mastered that complicated manœuvre known as the goose step?

I hardly know how to answer that question.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that an award granting an increase of wages to the building trade operatives in Bury St. Edmunds and district is not being observed in the Royal Engineering Department at Bury St. Edmunds; and whether he will give instructions that the award must be observed?

There would appear to be some doubt as to the rates that are being generally recognised by the local employers. My Department is in consultation with the Ministry of Labour on the subject, and it is hoped to reach a decision this week. I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether men mentioned in despatches prior to the issue of Army Order 45 of 1917, which amended paragraph 1,157 of the Royal Pay Warrant of 1914, are eligible for the additional pension of 6d. a day mentioned in that paragraph, or whether, in order to qualify for such additional pension, they must also have been in possession of the Victoria Cross or the Distinguished Conduct Medal?

Under Article 1,157 of the Royal Warrant for 1914, the grant of an addition to pension, as a reward for an act of gallantry, was conditional either on the possession of the Victoria Cross or Distinguished Conduct Medal or on the act being the subject of a specific recommendation at the time when it was performed. An ordinary mention in despatches would not, in itself, carry the addition.

But the fact that the man had not had the particular medal would not disentitle him, I understand? Am I right in that?

I am afraid I cannot answer any further question without notice.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that men in receipt of pre-War pensions as warrant or noncommissioned who won the Victoria Cross or the Military Cross in the War after being promoted to temporary commissions are not permitted to draw the annuity of £10 or the extra pension of 6d. per day respectively, which is granted to warrant officer recipients of those distinctions on the ground that they were earned after promotion to the commission; and whether, in view of the fact that these men are not entitled to retired pay as officers, but may only have their pensions re-assessed according to their pre-War rank as warrant or non-commissioned officers under Army Order 325 of 1919, he will consider the grant to them of the annuity of £10 or the extra 6d. per day, respectively, seeing that paragraph 9, Table 5, of the Army Order in question clearly states that soldiers granted pensions under this warrant will remain eligible for the additional pension awarded in respect of gallant conduct?

I am conferring with other Departments of the Service on the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of the substantial increase in rents sanctioned by Parliament, ranging from 2s. a week upwards, it is proposed to increase the separation allowances for waves and dependants of soldiers?

No, Sir; it is not proposed to increase the allowance as suggested. The joint income of the soldier and his wife is adequate, and the man has every facility for making remittances to supplement the allowance if desired.

Was this allowance in excess of what was adequate before the increase of rent took place?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, may I ask was not this matter submitted to the Treasury some time ago, long before the rents were increased, and when are we going to get an answer to that question?

I do not know to what matter the hon. Gentleman refers, but if he will write to me I will be pleased to send him an answer.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a large number of soldiers still in hospital at a distance from their homes are without the necessary means to enable them on occasion to visit their families, and that members of their families, for the same reason, are unable to visit the hospitals; and whether he will make representations in the proper quarter with a view to these men or their families being granted travelling facilities at cheap rates?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. In certain circumstances, soldiers so placed are enabled to travel at single fare for the return journey. As I have previously explained, the special facilities for relatives to visit hospitals, granted during the War, have been discontinued and a return made to the ordinary peace practice.

Who has the authority or the right to refuse cheap facilities for these people to visit their husbands or relatives in hospital?

The railway companies will not carry them for nothing, and it is therefore a question between the railway companies' and the War Office.

Exactly what steps must a relative take to get reduced fares?

There are, as I have said, no reduced fares now for relatives. Special facilities were granted, but they have been discontinued.

If the facilities have been discontinued, has any further authorisation been given for these people to apply to any Department for facilities under present conditions?

I am not aware, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will inquire.

Is not the word "relative" rather wide and far reaching? Should it not be confined to the parents or a direct relation of the wounded person?

I cannot without notice say how far it goes.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether disabled officers are being resigned from his Department while men with no real war service, with considerable private incomes, have been appointed to sectional directorships?

I am informed that only one disabled officer is under notice of discharge, and every endeavour is being made to find him further employment, suited to his experience. I may add that no ex-service man, whether disabled or not, is discharged from the Air Ministry until his case has been considered by the Air Ministry Ex-Service Men's Employment Committee, on which a representative of the ex-service men sits. The suggstion that the claims of disabled officers are not given every possible consideration is quite unwarranted.

Is it not a fact that the recent appointments to the sectional directorships are held by men as stated in this question? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a great many more than one disabled officer who have served throughout the War now being resigned from his Department?

I have made enquiries, and do not think that the facts at all bear out that view.

I will raise this on the Adjournment on Thursday.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that in New-castle-on-Tyne there are 50 pensioners awaiting concurrent treatment and training; and if he will say what local facilities for these purposes exist in that city?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that there are still 50 pensioners awaiting concurrent treatment and training in Newcastle.-on-Tyne; and if he will state what local facilities exist for men in that city who are awaiting Government treatment and training?

There are at present a number of men in Newcastle-on-Tyne awaiting admission to a convalescent centre for concurrent treatment and training, whom it is proposed to send to the nearest available centre, the "King's Lancashire," Blackpool. This centre, with accommodation for 600 men, is at present full, but a considerable extension of its capacity is now under consideration, with a view to meeting the requirements of the situation. In the meantime these men are being provided with any medical treatment recommended for their disabilities.

Can the Minister give any approximate idea of the time for which this accommodation is needed?

I can only say that developments are going forward as is shown by the recent large addition at Epsom. We are working on the same lines elsewhere.

How many pensioners have already received training?

About 2,000 up to the present, but these do not include those trained by the Ministry of Labour.

Are these men in receipt of full-time allowances pending training?

Yes, if they undertake to go through the training.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of men registered as unemployed at the Labour Exchange, Lancaster, at the present time; what number of the men so registered are ex-service men and disabled ex-service men; whether he recently received a deputation from the Lancaster branch of the Discharged Sailors' and Soldiers' Association to discuss, amongst other things, the proposal of usefully employing ex-service men, and particularly disabled ex-service men, at the National Projectile Factory, Lancaster; whether he has informed the secretary of this association that seven disabled ex-service men who have recently been given notice to cease work at this factory have only been suspended temporarily; whether he is aware that they were given notices of dismissal; whether he will take steps to secure that these notices are modified in accordance with his statement: and whether he proposes to take any action to further the proposal made by this association for the provision of work for unemployed ex-service men?

The number of men registered at the Lancaster Employment Exchange as at 23rd July was 460, including 281 ex-service men, of whom 99 were disabled. On 1st June the Minister of Labour received the deputation to which my right hon. Friend refers, and later the information which had been received from the Department responsible was conveyed to the secretary of the association. This was to the effect that seven disabled ex-service men who had been given notice to cease work had only been suspended temporarily, and that they would be re-started at the first opportunity. I have since been informed (although I have not yet been able to verify the information) that the document handed to each of the men was a notice simply to the effect that his services would not be required after a certain date. I am, however, in further communication with the Department responsible. As regards the last part of the question, the whole problem of unemployment is at present receiving the most careful attention of the Government. In the meantime my Department, with the assistance of its local employment committee, is continuing to do everything possible to minimise unemployment amongst ex-service men.

asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men have been reabsorbed in industry; and how many of these have found employment through the medium of the employment exchanges?

Of the total number of men demobilised or discharged up to the end of July, approximately 5,000,000, it is estimated that the number not yet reabsorbed into industry is about 200,000, and it may be assumed that the balance of about 4,800,000 have been reabsorbed into industry or provided for otherwise. The number of such men for whom employment has been found through the medium of the employment exchanges is 564,403.

Does that refer to men only, or does it include officers?

I believe it includes officers, but without notice I am not quite certain.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the orders issued by the Sinn Fein leaders that no more Income Tax is to be paid in the South and West of Ireland; whether he can state if the Sinn Fein orders are being enforced; and what steps the British Government is taking to collect the tax?

I am not aware of any general refusal to pay Income Tax, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that all possible steps will be taken to make the collection effective.

asked the Postmaster General whether he can state the amount of old age pension money that has been stolen by the Sinn Feiners from the Post Office; and whether the loss has been made good by the British Treasury or by the ratepayers in the districts where the robberies took place?

I will endeavour to obtain the figures asked for by the hon. Member and will communicate with him.

What is the answer to the last part of the question?