asked the Secretary of State for India, considering that under the revised rules for pensions of the Indian Army, a lieutenant-colonel is given an Indian element of £200 per annum, if he will state for what reason is a colonel limited to an Indian element of only £100 per annum; and how is this reduction consistent with the statement in Army Instruction (India), No. 448, of 1920, that the Indian element is for service in the Indian Army?

Under former rules a colonel of the Indian Army received the same rate of pension as a lieutenant-colonel, but at the recent revision a higher rate of pension was given to substantive colonels, with a maximum intermediate between that for a lieutenant-colonel and that for a major-general. At the same time it was decided that the maximum pension for general officers should be the same as in the British Service, and it was therefore necessary to reduce the Indian element in a colonel's pension, as otherwise the maximum pension for a colonel would have been the same as for a major-general. I see no inconsistency between this arrangement and the Clause in the Army Instruction (India) referred to by the hon. and gallant Member.

Is the position accepted that for the extra years' service colonels and generals are to receive no compensation?

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that certain officers of the Indian Army who entered the service prior to 1st July, 1881, and who accepted the offer made to them by the Indian Government of an immediate payment, on attaining 38 years' service, of £50 per annum if they would surrender their right to succeed to the colonel's allowance of £1,127 per annum have, since the 1st of April, 1919, on which date they became entitled to the revised rate of pension granted on account of the rise in the cost of living, been denied payment of that £50 per annum; whether, seeing that this £50 per annum was given in exchange for the surrender of their colonel's allowances, he will explain in what way a revised rate of pension open to the Indian Army generally is held to affect what is a special payment guaranteed in exchange for value received; and will he give directions therefore that the £50 per annum retained be refunded and continued to these officers?

The position is not quite correctly stated by the hon. and gallant Member. There has been no offer of an "immediate payment of £50" and no question of "exchange for value received." Officers who entered the Indian Army before 1st July, 1881, had the option of retiring on a pension of £750 per annum or remaining on the unemployed list on £700 per annum pay, with the chance of succeeding to colonel's allowance. During the War retirement was suspended and the option therefore ceased to be effective. Accordingly, in order to remove any possible hardship, such officers were offered unemployed pay at £750, provided that they relinquished their claim to colonel's allowance, which would thus put them in the same position financially as if they had retired. It must be clear to my hon. and gallant Friend that this has nothing to do with the rate of pension to which they are entitled under the new rules.

They were asked to accept the £50 as immediate extra payment on completion of 38 years' service. Is that extra £50 now to be withdrawn?

I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member is putting the case quite correctly. If he will look at the answer, he will see that these officers have no grievance.

asked the Secretary of State for India why, considering that acting rank is given to officers of the Indian Army serving with Indian troops in Waziristan, it should be denied to officers serving with Indian troops in Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Turkey, and whether he will have this injustice remedied?

Acting rank is granted only in areas in which active operations are in progress. The question of reintroducing it in Mesopotamia and in the Black Sea is under discussion with the War Office.

Why is Palestine taken out? Are there not continual Arab raids and other things?

I think Palestine is in a different position.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Indian National Congress at Calcutta in September, calling upon the people of India to support the programme of non-co-operation drawn up by Mr. Gandhi, including abstention from all association with the new councils under the reform scheme; whether he will state the number of renunciations of titles, resignations of public offices, or from the public services, and withdrawals of candidature for election to the assembly and the councils which have taken place in consequence, and any other facts in connection with the political situation in India likely to be of interest to this House, especially in connection with the progress of the elections for the legislative councils?

With the hon. Member's permission the latest information at the disposal of the India Office will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. Friend has asked for a report to enable him to reply specifically to the hon. Member's questions, and hopes to be in a position next week to supplement the information now given.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Governor-General's Executive Council has been increased by the addition of a member for industries; and whether this is a permanent or temporary appointment?

The number of members of the Governor-General's Executive Council was increased to eight in July, under the provisions of Section 28 of the Government of India Act of last year The opportunity was then taken to appoint a member in charge of the development of industries. The ultimate constitution of the department which he now administers is not yet settled.

asked the Secretary of State for India what is the present de facto government in the Khanates of Khiva and Bokhara?

The administration actually in power in the Khanate of Khiva is a body recognised and supported by the Moscow Soviet, with whom it concluded an economic treaty on 13th September. The administration of Bokhara is believed to be in the hands of the Young Bokharan party, as the result of a rising which took place on 31st August, in conjunction with an invasion by Bolshevik troops. The Amir of Bokhara is in flight.

Are the Young Bokharan party Bolshevists, or something of that character?

I have not any very exact information, but I will endeavour to discover for my hon. Friend, if he will put down a further question.

Has the Amir of Bokhara arrived in Afghanistan?

I have no information as to his whereabouts at present.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how far mine-sweeping operations are still being carried on in the North Sea; and what steps are being taken in this direction to protect deep-sea and coastwise traffic from the danger of drifting mines?

Mine-sweeping operations are still being carried out by the German forces in the North Sea to clear the dangerous areas to the eastward of the meridian of 40° E. between the parallels of latitude of 56° 10 N. and 54° N. About 70 per cent. of the original mined area in existence in the North Sea at the Armistice which was allocated to Germany has been reported by them as cleared. Constant pressure has been, and is being, brought to bear on the German Authorities to expedite the work. The precautions taken to deal with drifting mines, as set forth in my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gateshead of the 13th May, are still in force.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the mines recently discovered in the English Channel are coming from the German mine-fields?

Notice ought to be given of that question.

What steps do the Government take to verify the facts as given to them by the Germans who are sweeping for mines?

There is no question about that. The Admiralty are very careful.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the limitation of naval officers' travelling facilities to return tickets to London and naval ports practically offers no concession to naval officers belonging to the west country ports, seeing that these officers have not to travel to London to go home; whether, in view of the high cost of railway travelling and the limited means of so many naval officers, more especially Royal Naval commissioned and warrant officers, he can see his way to issue an order to the effect that all officers of the Royal Navy may be allowed a first-class return ticket at the ordinary first-class single fare from London or any of the naval ports or bases to any station in the United Kingdom, tickets to be available at the principal station in the vicinity of each base; and will he further consider the possibility of allowing the present privilege of optional uniform when travelling to remain in force in such cases?

The Admiralty have the whole question of concession fares for naval officers now under consideration, and pending decision I am unable to give any answer to the question raised as to extension of existing privileges. In regard to the last part of the question, I may add that officers are not required to wear uniform in order to obtain the concession fares at present in force, and there is no intention of altering the present orders under which officers are required to wear uniform or permitted to wear plain clothes on the same occasions as before the War.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the specific point to which I have drawn attention is under consideration?

Certainly; that is indicated by the answer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to give a reply to the chargemen of trades' petition presented to their Lordships in December, 1919?

It is expected that it will be possible to issue the reply within the next week or two.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is delaying the payment of prize money to those officers and men entitled thereto; when it is expected that payment of the outstanding claims will be settled; and whether interest will be paid in addition to those officers and men whose payments have been so greatly delayed since the date of their first payment?

Payment of prize money is proceeding as rapidly as possible, and it is hoped that the present issue will be practically completed early in 1921. There is no provision for the payment of interest on individual shares. The method of dealing with claimants in sections has been adopted to obviate the useless accumulation in office of claims, certificates for service, etc. It is quite impossible to make payment to all claimants at once, but the additional letters "C, N, O, P, U and V" were notified in the Press for payment last week, and all claimants whose surnames begin with those letters should apply for their shares as soon as possible in accordance with the instructions on the Prize Fund Notice displayed in Post Offices.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction amongst the men who are entitled to the prize money at the very great delay which has taken place; and is he also aware that the whole of the active list were paid in March and June and that it has taken up to the present date to pay two or three classes and all the others entitled to prize money?

No, Sir. As a matter of fact I have evidence of the great satisfaction which has been expressed about the rapidity with which the prize money has been distributed. It is a very large question and the staff had to verify all the records and that takes a great deal of time.

May I ask if the Admiralty are getting interest on this money all this time and if so, what is going to happen to it and could it not be added to the claims which are being made now?

No.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the official account of the battle of Jutland will be published?

It is not now proposed to publish an official account of the Battle of Jutland. Since the original intention to do so was announced and the compilation of the record begun, a mass of information has been accumulated from unofficial German sources which throws considerable light on the progress of the Battle from a new angle, and the conclusion has been reached that any record based on British official evidence only, would inevitably present a one-sided version, tending to distort the true facts and create a wrong impression of the battle as a whole. Moreover, Sir Julian Corbett's Naval History of the War, in course of publication under the authority of the Committee of Imperial Defence, whose volume includes Jutland, is likely to be published in the course of next year, and the publishers have made representations that they would have strong reason to complain of the simultaneous publication by the Admiralty of any such narrative. However, all the material prepared by the Admiralty will be placed at Sir Julian Corbett's disposal, which will expedite his publication.

May I ask if that answer will not undoubtedly give rise to the idea that the Admiralty have something to hush up, and would it not be much better to give a full account, if accounts differ, from all sources, and all the information which is at the disposal of the Admiralty?

It is made clear in the last paragraph of the answer that all the material prepared by the Admiralty will be placed at Sir Julian Corbett's disposal.

Is there any truth in the rumour that the delay in publication is due to any difference between Lord Beatty and Lord Jellicoe?

No, Sir, there is not the slightest foundation for any such rumour, because I happen to know that both gallant Admirals have seen the report and have acqiuiesced in that report being handed to Sir Julian Corbett for incorporation in his work.

May I ask whether Sir Julian Corbett's account will in any way be censored by the Admiralty before publication?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the regulations applied to the lower deck with reference to the age at which the marriage allowance is paid?

The regulations in regard to marriage allowance for the Navy are contained in monthly order 2165 of this year, which was promulgated to the Fleet on 17th July.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cost of upkeep and running of the Admiralty yacht during the period of the last voyage on which it was employed by him and the purpose for which it was employed?

The expenditure occasioned by the recent cruise was approximately £3,270—when not on cruise the normal upkeep amounts to about £12,000 for a similar period. Its purpose was to enable the First Lord, by personal inspection of the Fleet, its harbours and bases, and by conversations with naval officers and officials on the spot, to get into the closest possible touch with the work of the Department for which he is responsible.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the shore staff at Milford Haven still occupy two houses, an old hotel, and a new brick building, the same amount of accommodation as during the War, though the staff has been reduced from 40 officers and a large number of ratings to six officers and men in proportion; and whether, in view of the need for economy and the shortage of houses, he will cause some of the accommodation to be relinquished?

The Admiralty occupation of these premises has ceased. The hotel was surrendered on the 21st instant. The Admiralty tenancy of the two houses (which are now empty) will cease on the 25th December, 1920. Negotiations for the disposal of the brick building to the owner of the land are in progress.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, inasmuch as the question of increases in the pay of schoolmasters of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines has been under consideration for a very long time, if he is now in a position to state that the Treasury has approved of these increases being ante-dated to 1st February, 1919, as was the case with all other officers of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines?

Yes, Sir; these increases will be ante-dated as from 1st February, 1919.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will explain the nature and purpose of the technical clubs proposed to be set up on several of His Majesty's ships; whether it is proposed to give instructions in electrical work and the various branches of engineering, such as turning, etc.; for what purpose; who will be the teachers; whether skilled engineers in the Navy will be compelled to give such instruction against their will; and whether men so taught in the proposed technical clubs will be utilised in the Navy for work done by skilled men such as electricians and engineers?

The Admiralty have no information as to the formation of these clubs, but if the hon. Member will let me know the names of the ships to which he refers, I will have inquiries made.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to reply to the letter addressed to their Lordships of the Admiralty by the members of the dockyard and parliamentary committee dated 1st May, 1920, suggesting that the artificer engineer on promotion should be awarded 3s. a day as a special allowance, and also explaining the question of special training?

It is regretted that approval cannot be given to the suggested allowance of 3s. a day, which is the amount by which the pay of Sub-Lieutenants qualified and employed on engineering duties. Mates (E) and Lieutenants (E) or Engineer Lieutenants (old scheme), exceeds that of Sub-Lieutenants, Mates and Lieutenants, in view of the fact that the training in engineering of Warrant and Commissioned Engineers cannot, in their opinion, be regarded as equivalent to the training carried out by these other officers, which qualifies them to receive such special appointments as those in the dockyards and at the Admiralty and in charge of the machinery of the most important vessels in the Fleet. Steps are, however, contemplated and will shortly be announced under which the disability with regard to their total emoluments suffered in certain cases by ratings on promotion to Warrant rank will be removed.

will the hon. Gentleman convey that decision to the Dockyard Parliamentary Committee?

Certainly.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether General Baron Wrangel and his chief of staff were officially received and entertained to dinner on board His Majesty's Ship "Ramillies" on 19th August last; whether members of the late British military mission to Baron Wrangel were present; and whether this is in accordance with the declared policy of His Majesty's Government?

There is no information at the Admiralty concerning this matter.

I gave notice of this question last week. May I ask whether inquiries were made, and can the hon. Gentleman state, if the facts as stated in the question are correct, whether it is not contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Is there any reason why they should not be?

We have no information about it.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he did make the inquiry when I put the question down a long time ago? I gave very long notice. Will the hon. Gentleman be able to get the information if I repeat the question?

Certainly. Everything will be done to meet a question put on the Paper; but since it was put down no information has reached the Admiralty.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if his attention has been called to the allegation that Messrs. Krassin and Kameneff, the Russian delegates, had used their position in this country to bribe the Press and to carry on a campaign of Bolshevist propaganda; If the Government possess proofs bearing cut this statement; and, if so, whether in these circumstances it is proposed to continue the negotiations with Krassin and to allow him to remain in this country and to be at liberty to carry on such propaganda work?

For the reasons stated in the question, the Government were compelled to ask M. Kameneff to leave the country, but did not find it necessary to take the same course in regard to the rest of the Russian Trade Delegation. As I stated yesterday, the Government propose to resume the negotiations when the conditions laid down have been fulfilled.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a plucky speech recently made by a member of the Cabinet dealing with this important matter; and on the strength of that information does not my right hon. Friend think it necessary and advisable that every care should be taken to see that this propaganda is stopped?

Oh, yes; I fully appreciate the necessity of stopping the propaganda, but there are so many plucky speeches made by members of the Cabinet that I cannot remember the one to which reference is made.

Who was the plucky man?

Is it not the fact that there was no evidence whatever that M. Krassin had taken part in this propagandist work in conjunction with M. Kameneff?

As my answer states, the matter was carefully considered by the Government, and we thought it was necessary to tell M. Kameneff to go; but it was not thought necessary in the case of the other members of the mission.

My question was: Is it not the fact that there was no evidence that M. Krassin had been taking part in this work?

The answer I have given is surely sufficient. We did think there was ground for the action taken against M. Kameneff; we did not think there was any ground for taking action against M. Krassin.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the infringement of international law by French fishermen who trawl within the three-mile limit without check in the neighbourhood of Plymouth and Ram's Head; and will he take immediate steps to put an end to this practice?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, except that it is not correct to state that the infringement is carried on without check, as two of His Majesty's Fishery Protection Vessels are stationed in the English Channels with headquarters at Falmouth. One of these vessels on the 15th September arrested a French trawler within the three-mile limit off Ram's Head, with subsequent legal proceedings, resulting in convictions and penalty of £5 fine.

May I ask, seeing that the punishments now inflicted on these men do not seem to be sufficient to deter them from fishing in our waters, the hon. Gentleman will assist mo to get legislation for further punishment to be given?

That is a matter for the Leader of the House. I could not say what possibility there is of such legislation. It may be that the fines in these cases can be increased. I will look into it

Having regard to these recurring fishing disputes, will the Government take into consideration the whole question of the three miles' limit, in view of the fact that that limit was fixed at a time when the range of naval guns was about one-tenth of what it is to-day?

That is rather a large question to arise out of the point raised.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of people drawing out-of-work donation in Belfast during the months of July, August, and September, respectively; and how many in each case were ex-service men?

The numbers of persons drawing out-of-work donation at Belfast at the end of July, August, and September respectively were 2,975, 3,433, and 2,519; except for a few merchant seamen, numbering less than 50, these were all ex-members of the Forces.

May I ask whether there has been any extension of the scope of this donation to other than ex-service men?

Not to my knowledge. The present out-of-work donation is for ex-service men and women and merchant seamen only.

May I ask whether the employees in the shipyards, sent from their work for political reasons, are being paid out-of-work donation now, and especially whether ox-service men, who are being driven out for political or religious reasons are receiving it?

I do not know anything about political or religious reasons. An ex-service man thrown out of employment gets his out-of-work donation under the rules.

Are non-ex-service men who have been driven out of employment for political reasons being paid the out of-work donation?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not hoar my previous reply, in which I said that the out-of-work donation applies to ex-service men and women and merchant seamen and not civilians.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the men out of work is due to the army of occupation in Ireland?

asked the Minister of Labour when the Government will be prepared to introduce legislative proposals for dealing with the causes that make for unemployment and under-employment in normal times, apart from the special emergencies of to-day?

My hon. and gallant Friend is closely familiar with the steps we have taken, and are taking, to meet the hardships of unemployment. I recognise that his question is designed to go much deeper than the provision made to meet the hardships of unemployment as and when they arise. Without attempting to pre-judge the question as to whether or not the causes of unemployment can be effectively dealt with by legislation, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the whole question which he raises is one which is engaging the close attention of the Government.

asked the Minister of Labour if premises which were formerly a café were taken in St. Martin's Lane, Exeter, as a training centre for disabled ex-service men desirous of instruction in watch and clock repairing; what rent is being paid for these premises; and were they taken by the advice of the Technical Advisory Committee?

The premises referred to by my hon. and galland Friend appear to be those known as Deller's Old Café, Exeter. They were taken as a centre for training disabled men in the watch and clock and certain other trades. The rent payable is £450 a year. They were approved by the Local Technical Advisory Committee as suitable for training in the watch and clock repairing trades.

Was it necessary to pay such a big rent, and could not other suitable quarters have been found for much less?

The premises were approved by the T.A.C., and the rent was only arrived at after protracted negotiations.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many men are in training?

No, but I will let ray hon. Friend know. I have not got the precise figures by me.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the men and women who will be out of work on and after 6th December are not to receive benefit unless they have been in work during each of the previous four weeks; and, if so, whether, in view of the prevalence of unemployment and the distress which will be caused, he can see his way to modifying this arrangement?

Persons who become insured for the first time under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, will become entitled to benefit for eight weeks as soon as they have been in work and paid contributions in each of four weeks from 8th November. Those previously insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1911 to 1919, will in most cases have paid already the qualifying number of four contributions, and will consequently be in benefit at once. As the new Act is on a contributory basis, I cannot hold out any hope of any general modification of this requirement, which in fact is already very favourable to those newly entering into Insurance. As regards ex-service men, however, who stand in a special position, I am considering what arrangements it may be possible to make after 8th November, on which date the special extension of Donation now payable comes to an end.

How soon will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make an announcement with regard to the ex-service men and special arrangements?

It will have to be before this next week, obviously, and I am doing what I can to secure a decision being taken as early as possible.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the discontinuance of sanatorium benefit at the end of the current calendar year, he will either provide for the compulsory transfer of members of staffs of insurance committees engaged on sanatorium benefit work to the new authority or provide adequate compensation for all officers displaced by reason of the discontinuance of sanatorium benefit on the same lines as other public servants whose duties are abolished by Statute?

The sanatorium benefit work of insurance committees is only a part of the work of those bodies, and is, to a largo extent, carried on by officers and servants of the committees who have other duties. I am sending my hon. Friend an extract from a circular letter which was issued in June last to insurance committees in regard to staffing arrangements in connection with the discontinuance of sanatorium benefit at the end of the year. I have not received representations from any quarter that there is need for provision being made on the lines indicated in the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that as a result of that circular letter County Council authorities have sent round letters to the officers hitherto engaged in the administration of sanatorium benefit, saying that they can hold out no hope whatever of their being employed on other work, and is he aware that a number of clerks and others were employed in administering sanatorium benefit at the beginning of the Act and are now being thrown out of work altogether and given no other alternative at all?

I am afraid I am not acquainted with those facts at all, and if my hon. Friend has anything to support them, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

asked the Minister of Health whether; in view of the representations which he has received from the Rural Districts Councils' Association, and the resolution which was passed at the last annual conference of rural district councils of England and Wales as to the inadequacy of the extra remuneration authorised by the general housing memorandum, No. 17, to be paid by rural district councils to their clerical staff for services in connection with housing schemes, and the inadequate nature of the provisions of that memorandum, he will at once take into consideration the desirability of substantially increasing the sum of £100 per annum authorised by that memorandum, and of extending the period of one year from the date of the inception of a housing scheme during which such extra remuneration is payable?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Lane-Fox), of which I will send him a copy.

asked the Minister of Health whether any increase of the present superficial floor area is contemplated in connection with the houses built under the housing scheme; will he consider the desirability of recommending an increase of the floor area to 2,000 feet, or whether, in the view of his Department, the present limit of 1,400 feet is adequate for growing families of four or five members; and whether he will consider the desirability of some encouragement being given to builders of houses of a larger floor area than 1,400 feet which can be let at an economic rent, as distinct from those which will automatically involve an additional burden upon either rates or taxes, or both?

I am advised that the floor area at present allowed for State-aided housing schemes and houses erected under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act is sufficient to provide adequate accommodation for the average working-class family, and I doubt whether it would be desirable to increase the present maximum.

If a body of men are building their own houses under this housing scheme, and do not happen to be working-class men, why could not they be allowed the same help in regard to their costs?

There is very considerable latitude. I have often enlarged it, and am continually being pressed to make alterations here and there, but you cannot always be doing so.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received communications from local authorities asking permission to be allowed to assess the new houses for rating purposes the same as pre-War houses of similar size and convenience; whether he is aware that if rent is to be taken as the basis for rating purposes the new houses will be rated nearly three times higher than pre-War houses; and will he take steps to comply with these requests?

I have received a few representations on this matter, but I would remind the hon. Member that the question of the basis of assessment of new houses has been considered by Parliament this Session upon the Rent Restriction Bill, and a provision was inserted in that Bill which limits the gross estimated rental of such houses for the purpose of the valuation list.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that under powers given in the Public Health Act many houses have been closed by the local authorities; whether many of these could be put in habitable repair at a comparatively small cost, and by that means help to reduce the overcrowding prevalent; and whether he will call for a return of such houses and the estimated cost of repairing the same, and if found practicable give the necessary powers to the authorities to proceed with the work?

According to my information, the number of houses which have been closed and could be rendered fit for habitation at comparatively low cost is very small, and I do not think that I should be warranted in the circumstances in asking for a return such as the hon. Member suggests. Local authorities already have powers under the Housing Acts to carry out essential repairs in suitable cases if the owner fails to do so.

asked whether houses provided under the Housing Act at an approximate cost of £900 are being let at approximately £35 per annum instead of at an economic rental of approximately £72 per annum; whether such houses let at £35 per annum pay rates based upon assessments having relation to the subsidised rentals paid, and not to rentals based upon economic cost; if so, whether ratepayers occupying non-subsidised premises are subsidising the occupiers of premises let at non-economic rents in that the occupiers of subsidised premises are enjoying all the benefits provided by the total rates for the locality, but are not paying their share towards them proportionate to the economic cost of the premises provided under the Housing Act at rentals representing less than half the actual cost for interest and sinking fund on the money expended to provide such premises; and whether such a state of things indirectly throws upon a section of the general body of ratepayers a burden for the benefit of the occupiers of subsidised houses, which operates on ratepayers not enjoying the subsidised rentals, by indirect effect, as an excess of what they pay in the form of the penny local rate limited by the Act, and consequently constitutes an additional and sectional burden by means of local rates beyond the burden imposed under the Housing Act by Imperial taxation?

The hon. Member is, I think, under some misapprehension. The rents of the new houses are not like the rents of the old houses, protected by the Increase of Rent Act, and the object of Parliament in inserting the provision as to rating of new houses in Section 12 (9) of that Act was to secure that so long as the rents, and consequently the assessments, of the old houses are artificially, restricted, the occupiers of the new houses should not be unfairly rated by reason of such restriction.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when 100,000 new provided houses have been built, costing approximately £100,000,000, the assessment of these houses will be based upon the rental paid or upon the economic value; if these houses are assessed on the rental value—

I should like to see that question on the Paper.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a letter from the Harrow-on-the-Hill urban district council stating that the Harrow housing scheme, which was proceeding satisfactorily, is held up for lack of materials, with the result that men have been discharged; and whether he has taken any steps to relieve the situation?

Yes, Sir, steps have been taken to expedite the delivery of materials for this scheme, and I am informed that supplies are now being received.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will defer any inquiry into schemes of such magnitude as the Leeds and Bradford boundary extension inquiries until a Royal Commission or a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament has been appointed, and reported on the whole question of local government areas?

I am not prepared to adopt the course suggested.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling against these extension schemes in every one of these areas that are affected, and will he meet a deputation of West Riding Members of Parliament and others from the areas affected on this subject at an early date?

I am well aware there is strong feeling, and I am afraid it is often, in fact always, aroused by these extensions. I have in fact this morning directed a communication to be sent to the West Riding City Council, I think, about a deputation, but I can only see them on general questions relating to costs and so forth. I cannot have a preliminary hearing of the cases, which have to be dealt with by inspectors according to the Statute.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the cost to these localities in opposing these extension schemes, and does he not think that the money could at the present time be better spent than in this way? Surely some scheme could be brought about that would obviate this tremendous and wasteful expenditure?

I entirely agree that there is a gross waste of money in these inquiries, and the object that I hope to attain in the deputation which I sent for this morning is on that very point, to try and avoid all this gross waste of public money.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to see that the failure of the Yorkshiremen to combine together for the extension of their boundaries in a sensible and reasonable way shall not injure Staffordshire in attempting to do the same?

In view of the great cost to county councils of these inquiries, which is estimated at about £100,000, can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to defer granting the inquiry until it is more thoroughly gone into?

I really cannot overrule Acts of Parliament. The Act of Parliament requires that we shall hold an inquiry in certain circumstances. If those circumstances arise, I have no option but to hold an inquiry. I hope at the deputation that we shall have, where I hope many of the parties will be present, to try and arrive at some sensible arrangement to save this wasteful expenditure, but while the Act stands I am bound to see that it is administered.

Has he not the right under the Act, if special reasons are shown, to defer granting an inquiry?

I am well aware of that, but the presence of opposition is not a special reason. It is always present.

asked the Minister of Health whether or not, if the Leeds extension inquiry proceeds, he will fix a specific date for hearing the case and taking evidence for and against the city administration, and separate dates for hearing the case and taking evidence for and against the two boroughs, eight urban, and three rural districts whose administration is sought to be interfered with, in order to prevent the waste of time and money and reduce the length and cost of the inquiry?

I am advised that the arrangement suggested would not be practicable and would not be likely to shorten the proceedings at the local inquiry or reduce the expense.

May I again ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that this Leeds extension inquiry, which affects all these local authorities, may last something like 50 days, that some of these urban districts have employed two counsel, engineers, and experts of all kinds, and that it may mean to them a 2s. or 3s. rate fighting at this inquiry, at a time when the money is needed for housing, for health purposes, and for unemployment?

I entirely agree, and it would be a useful thing if these councils would not rush into the cost of employing expensive counsel and expert witnesses. I am informed, as a matter of fact, that the West Riding Council were prepared to come to an agreement with the City of Leeds that they would not employ counsel and expert witnesses, but these various councils persisted in this extravagant course, and that is what I am hoping we shall get them out of.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the City of Bradford have refused to come to such an arrangement with some of the small authorities who are willing to work on those lines?

I know there are a lot of Yorkshiremen who seem anxious to spend a lot of money fighting one another.

And you help them.

I am doing all I can to try and get them to arrive at some more sensible arrangement.

Is not that all the more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should exercise his powers to defer the inquiry until the special Committee has been appointed to report to the House on the whole question?

I cannot use powers I do not possess. I have to administer an Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament requires me to hold an inquiry, and I have no option in the matter. Until the Act is altered I am bound to administer it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that this very extravagance to which he has alluded constitutes a special reason, which he has admitted would entitle him to postpone the inquiry?

I have answered that. Opposition, of course, is constantly present.

Extravagance.

I cannot be a judge of extravagance before it is incurred. I am doing everything I can to induce authorities to avoid incurring these great costs. If I could prevent them I would, but I have no power to do so.

In view of that statement and the general sense of the House that he ought to have this power, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in an Emergency Bill?

asked the Minister of Health if he will institute an inquiry into the conditions affecting the Metropolitan Water Board and the causes alleged to render necessary the proposed substantial increase in charges; whether the effect of the increases in assessments in the Metropolitan area will more than meet the deficit of the Metropolitan Water Board and thus render unnecessary any increase in charges; whether there is any foundation for the suggestion that an application has been made by the Metropolitan Water Board to be taken out of assessment; and, if so, whether he will refuse to grant such application?

An inquiry such as my hon. Friend suggests has already been undertaken by a Departmental Committee, and I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy of their Report. The charges of the Water Board cannot be increased without legislation, and I understand the Water Board are considering the question of introducing a Private Bill for this purpose next Session. I am not aware of any such application as is referred to in the latter part of the question.

Does it not amount to a matter of nearly a million pounds?

I must have notice of that.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Frank O'Dwyer and Edward O'Dwyer, sons of William O'Dwyer, farmer, of Ballydavid, near Bansha, were dragged from their father's house by uniformed men on the night of the 18th October and shot dead; that shots were fired into the bedroom whore the aged father and mother were lying; that on the same night Patrick Doyle, of Bally gar, near French Park, County Roscommon, was dragged from his house and shot by uniformed men who arrived in motor lorries; whether he still accepts responsibility for these acts; and, if not, what steps are being taken to punish the perpetrators and prevent their repetition?

The circumstances attending the deaths of the two brothers O'Dwyer are at present under investigation by a military court of inquiry, and, until the finding of that court is known, I am not in a position to make any further statement. The death of Mr. Patrick Doyle has already been investigated by a court of inquiry, which found that Mr. Doyle met his death by a gunshot wound inflicted by some person or persons unknown. The whole available evidence was carefully considered by the court, and, in view of the fact that their finding contains no charge or imputation against the forces of the Crown, the latter part of the question does not arise.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the court which investigated the case of Mr. Doyle was largely composed of the people who are responsible in this part of the country for the conduct of the armed forces of the Crown, and can he tell me whether the court which has inquired into the deaths of the brothers O'Dwyer is also composed of the persons who would be accused if these charges were brought home?

The answer to both supplementary questions is in the negative. These military courts of inquiry are composed of at least three British officers of the Army in Ireland, and are selected according to the customary rota of the Commander-in-Chief in Ireland.

Is there now any censorship upon news coming from Ireland published in the British press, and, if not, in view of the fact apparently that most of these charges are without foundation, would it not be desirable to take some steps to see that they do not get into the press in the way they do at present?

Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously state to the House that the people of this country are to accept a tribunal of convicted persons, or the leaders of them, to decide these matters which are in controversy; and will he prosecute the journals in this country that are publishing these statements, as he is prosecuting Irish newspaper proprietors? May I ask whether some of these statements are not made by Unionist papers—organs of the present Government? Will we have an impartial inquiry into all these things so that the public may be able to judge for themselves?

In answer to the very long series of supplementary questions, it is impossible to deal in supplementary answers with a series of allegations, as to every one of which I deny the accuracy.

I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

I will be there.

In reference to the case of Patrick Doyle, who died from gunshot wounds, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he himself has read the minutes of evidence of that court, and will he tell me there is no evidence to show—

The hon. and gallant Member must put those questions down.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the majority of the police casualties in Ireland are due to the open attack of the Sinn Fein detachments on strongly fortified blockhouses?

Only a very small proportion of the casualties sustained by the police in Ireland have been due to open attacks on police barracks, to which I presume the hon. Member refers. As a rule the police barracks is an ordinary house situated in a row of houses. The majority of the casualties to policemen have resulted either from cold-blooded assassination of unsuspecting and sometimes unarmed policemen, or from ambushes of small police patrols in which the attackers have had all the cruel advantages of concealment, surprise, overwhelming numbers, and in many cases expanding bullets. The exact figures are as follows:—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the number of assassinations of innocent civilians?

I am not aware of any assassinations of innocent civilians, except by those who assassinate innocent policemen.

rose. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

On a point of Order—

May I—

Mr. Hogge.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he will state what is the precise charge on which the directors of the "Freeman's Journal" are being, court-martialled?

The directors of the "Freeman's Journal" are charged under Regulation 27 (a) and (b) of the Regulations under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act with spreading a false report, and a report intended or likely to cause disaffection. As the case is now sub judice, the hon. Member will see that it is not possible for me to furnish him with further information at the moment.

Is it not the fact that the reason the "Freeman's Journal" is prosecuted is because it attacked the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister?

It is not!

Why, if English papers publish—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—I am going to put my question! Why, then, have English newspapers that have published similar reports not been prosecuted?

I am not responsible for English newspapers, or for what they publish.

You dare not do it!

Is there an attempt to hide the truth by intimidating the Press in Ireland as well as the people?

And by intimidating the people.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the secret weekly intelligence summary issued to the units of the 6th Division of the British Army of Occupation in Ireland is employed as a means of propaganda against Sinn Fein; and whether propaganda of this nature is necessary for restoring law and order?

The Secret Weekly Intelligence Summary issued by the 6th Division is not issued as propaganda. It is issued to a limited number of subordinate units and contains information to assist those units to deal with an organisation which declares itself at war with the British Government. In this case a copy has fallen into the hands of the rebels and it is they who are endeavouring to use it as propaganda.

Is it not a fact that this circular is being used to inflame the antipathy of the British troops towards Sinn Feiners?

It is issued to give information to the troops engaged in suppressing the rebellion movement in Ireland.

asked the Prime Minister what was the total strength of British and Indian naval, military, and air forces stationed in Mesopotamia, both on the 1st August last and 1st October last; and further, what is the present total weekly cost of maintaining these forces in Mesopotamia?

The figures on the 1st August were approximately 80,000, and on the 1st October, 101,000; and the present cost per week is £591,700.

asked the Prime Minister what Government Department it is intended shall be charged with the administrative duties of Mesopotamia and Palestine; and, in the meantime, to which Minister should questions concerning those territories be addressed?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on Monday last to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford.

asked the Prime Minister whether the date on which the War will end has yet been fixed; and, if not, can he give the reasons for the delay in bringing the War to an end?

The Termination of the War (Definition) Act, 1918, provides that the date of the termination of the War shall be as nearly as possible the date of the deposit of ratifications of the last Treaty of Peace. There will be no unnecessary delay in the ratification of the Turkish and Hungarian Treaties, which are the last two outstanding treaties to be ratified.

Is there any reason why the Turkish Treaty should not be introduced immediately into this House?

I said there will be no unnecessary delay. The House will be aware how the time of the House has been occupied up to the present.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that local economic conditions do not warrant the application of the Education Act coming into force on the 1st January next; and if, in consequence, he will consider the desirability of postponing its operation?

It is not quite correct to say that the Act of 1918 comes into operation on the 1st January next, as the greater part of it is in operation already, but I recognise that the process of giving full effect to its provisions must be more gradual than I hoped when the Act was passed. I do not think legislation on the matter is required.

May I ask if that applies to the Scottish Act?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, is it not a fact that in Scotland the local authorities have refused to adminster the Act?

I hope not, but I shall require notice of that.

Are we to understand, then, that the operation of the Act has been delayed because we have spent so much money on other things outside education?

That does not in the least follow from the answer I have given.

Will legislation be introduced for the purpose of postponing those parts of the Education Act which can be conveniently postponed, having regard to the great strain on our resources?

I said that legislation, in the view of the Government, was unnecessary.

Is it because of the opinion of many in this House that education should not be given to the working-class families similar to what they give to their own, that they are now opposing the Education Act?

asked the Prime Minister what is the quantity of coal which, under the terms of the Spa Agreement, should have been delivered to France by Germany up to the 30th September last; and what is the amount that had actually been handed over at that date?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen on the 19th instant with regard to the carrying out by Germany of her obligation to deliver coal to the Allies under the Spa Agreement. I have no exact information as to the allocation of the coal by the Reparation Commission, but I believe that approximately 78 per cent. of the total deliveries goes to France and the remainder goes to Belgium, Italy, and Luxembourg.

Is it not material information, which this country should have, as to whether Germany is carrying out the arrangements entered into? Cannot our Government find out from the French Government what quantity of coal has been delivered up to a given date?

That information is material and is in the possession of the Government, and I gave it to the House in the answer to which I referred the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Is that up to the end of September?

Yes, I have given it up to the latest date.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason the specification for the construction of the Uashin Gishu Railway in Kenya Colony was not put out to open tender, and to whom the contract has been entrusted?

I would refer the Noble Lord to the reply given to the question of the hon. Member for East Nottingham on the 14th of Juno. The construction contract has not yet been completed.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this contract will be put out to open tender in the ordinary way?

If the Noble Lord will refer to the answer to the previous question on the subject, and also the question and answer of June, to which I have referred him, he will see a very full answer is given.

Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that no arrangement will be entered into with any firm until this House has had the opportunity of considering why this large contract has not been put out to public tender?

I will convey the suggestion to my Noble Friend.