asked the Minister of Pensions the number of whole-time medical men employed by his Department in Scotland; the annual cost in salaries and the number of cases treated and examined during the six months ending 30th November, 1920, with the corresponding figures for the same period of the previous year; and whether he is aware that the opinion in Scotland is that the administrative side of the Pensions Ministry is being run on very extravagant lines?

I regret that in the short time available, I have not been able to obtain the particulars desired, but I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend at an early date.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. We are in a very awkward position, as there are no questions printed. I have been to the Vote Office, but there are no Papers there.

That is quite true. I happen to have an advance copy, and if I can assist hon. Members in any way, I shall be happy to do so. I understand that copies will be ready for hon. Members by 3 o'clock, and, meanwhile, perhaps the Minister will read out the question as well as the answer?

Arising out of the answer already given by my hon. and gallant Friend, will he tell us what it is all about?

It is with reference to alleged extravagance in the Scottish administration of pensions.

asked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of pensioners examined in the Sheffield district during the last three months; the number abolished and reduced; and the number raised?

I regret that I have not this information.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman kindly see if he can let me have these particulars?

I do not feel that we should be justified in the elaborate research which would be necessary in order to go through many thousands of files for information in regard to this special district, but I have sent my hon. Friend particulars with regard to the whole of the cases.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the Victoria Tower hut, women's section, in which between 30 and 40 young people are employed, is inadequately warmed, one small stove only having been installed and placed at the extreme end of the room; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the health and comfort of the staff being adequately safeguarded?

There is no room in the Victoria Tower huts, accommodating more than 15 occupants, which is not provided with at least three gas stoves. The heating arrangements in these huts have not, however, given entire satisfaction, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works has the question of effecting improvements under consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether the decision not to publish the Harper Report in its entirety, and in a form agreed upon by Earl Beatty, Viscount Jellicoe, and Lord Wester Wemyss, can be reconsidered in view of the great importance in enabling the public fully to understand what happened at Jutland, and to assist the public in appreciating the value of the capital ships in action

The papers published on Friday last carry out in the fullest manner the undertaking made on the 1st November to publish all the reports and dispatches in regard to the battle, and I leave the public to form it's own judgment. It is not intended to publish anything further in advance of Sir Julian Corbett's volume of the Official History.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that since the issue of this Report public opinion about this battle is even more confused than before, and in view of the fact that charges have been made against the conduct of the Fleet, does he not think it very necessary that some sort of staff appreciation, either by Captain Harper or by somebody else, should be issued?

It is undoubtedly very important that the lessons of the battle should be studied.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that accusations have been made against the Navy about the conduct of this battle, and is it not necessary that there should be some authoritative statement summarising the evidence?

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is exactly the reason for not publishing Captain Harper's Report. along with all the other documents affecting the Battle of Jutland?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as the lay mind is concerned, it is utterly unable to grasp anything from the way these papers are published, and that what the lay mind is really asking His Majesty's Government to do is to publish a small précis, giving what, in the opinion of H. M. Admiralty, is a true account of what actually happened? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think he owes this to the Royal Navy, having regard to the extraordinary rumours which have got about in this connection?

The facts have been published. The Harper Report contains certain comments, and the feeling of the Government was that it was very essential that the whole of the facts should be published. The facts have been published. I am not aware that there have been any reflections on the Navy. There have been disputes on question of judgment, and as to whether certain decisions ought to have been taken or not. That is a different matter. There have been no reflections on the Navy.

asked the Prime Minister when the Committee of Imperial Defence will complete its investigation into the problems of new ship construction for the Royal Navy; how many meetings have been held and how many witnesses have already been examined; and will the Report of the Committee be completed and issued before the Navy Estimates for 1921 are laid' before Parliament?

In regard to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to his Question on the same subject on the 16th instant. .As regards the second part, the Committee of Imperial Defence has held two meetings, when various naval experts were present. In regard to the third part, it is impossible at this early stage to forecast when the Committee's report will be ready, nor. can I undertake, for obvious reasons, that the report will be published. The decision is a momentous one from a political, strategical and financial point of view for the Empire, and ought not to be rushed.

May I ask, without in any way wishing to press the right hon. Gentleman on the point, whether there is any intention to complete the Inquiry before the Navy Estimates are laid before Parliament?

It is very difficult to say whether it will be possible to do that until the Inquiry has proceeded at least some distance.

asked the Prime Minister whether the naval advisers of the Government regard the present arrangement under which the War Office and the Air Department are combined under one head as prejudicial to the interests of the Fleet; and, if so, when this dangerous expedient will be brought to an end?

I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply given by the Leader of the House on the 24th November to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan and Eastern (Major Glyn).

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any date when this arrangement, which was admitted by himself and his colleagues to be temporary, will be brought to an end?

Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that the present arrangement of the Air Service is not prejudicial to the best interests of the Royal Navy, and will he ask for a report from the First Lord of the Admiralty as to what are the requirements of the Lords of the Admiralty in this connection?

The Lords of the Admiralty are quite satisfied.

Is not the real question that the naval and air staffs should be brought together and meet together to compare notes?

I agree, and that is being done.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Air Ministry's letter of 6th November, 1918, on pages 18 and 19 of Command Paper 65, and to Lord Rothermere's disclaimer of responsibility for the transaction referred to therein circulated on Saturday last; and, in view of the fact that General Livingstone and Mr. Macanally gave evidence before the Public Accounts Committee bearing out the statements contained in the letter referred to, and produced documentary proof in support of their evidence, and seeing that Lord Rothermere's disclaimer amounts to a charge of dishonest conduct on the part of the officials referred to, what opportunity does he propose to give these officials to meet the charges made against them publicly by Lord Rothermere?

As I stated yesterday, the Treasury is to investigate this matter in conjunction with the Air Ministry, and an opportunity will then be afforded to all the officials concerned to substantiate any statements, in evidence or otherwise, for which they have made themselves responsible.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the extraordinary unbusinesslike administration of the whole air service, he will appoint a special committee to inquire into the financial administration of that service for the past two years, and whether he is aware that a number of the most important records of this service have unfortunately been burned?

Is not Lord Rothermere personally responsible?

Why was a comparatively small sum of money like this picked out and used against the Noble Lord, who did such great service during the War, when a waste of millions on useless ventures are passed over in silence.

This is the Public Accounts Committee, and Ministers sitting on this Bench have had to stand fire from the Public Accounts Committee, and newspapers published by this Noble- man and others have always given special publicity and drawn special attention to every attack of that sort made, and I do not see why they should not stand the racket.

Is it not the case that this item was brought before the notice of the Committee by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and under those circumstances is not the Public Accounts Committee bound to take up a question reported to them in that way?

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to appoint a Special Committee to inquire into the general administration of the Air Service?

asked the Prime Minister what were the terms of the Resolutions passed by the Assembly of the League of Nations on 17th and 18th December dealing with Mandates?

The report of the discussion has not yet been received, but the papers will be placed in the Library of the House when they have been received here.

Has no telegraphic summary of the three main recommendations been received yet by His Majesty's Government?

I do not think I have seen any telegraphic summary. I would not like to say that it has not been received, but I think I should have seen it.

When will the term's of the Mandates be laid on the Table?

I am not yet in a position to say.

asked the Prime Minister whether, as under the Housing (Scotland) Bill just passed by both Houses of Parliament, the grant made to persons for constructing houses is to be continued until the end of 1921, he will state what steps the Government propose to take to extend similar benefits to house builders in England and Wales, and of which they have been deprived in con sequence of the rejection in another place of the Miscellaneous Health Bill introduced by the Minister of Health, which contained provision for a similar encouragement to house builders in these countries?

My right hon. Friend proposes to introduce legislation at the beginning of next Session to provide for payments in full to those completing houses between 23rd December, 1920, and the date of the coming into operation of the new Act, and to extend by twelve months the period during which the subsidy. can be earned.

asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will lay upon the Table a statement with reference to houses constructed by the Office of Works at £980 per house, showing the complete details of the lowest tender of £1,638 per house for the same houses, together with the names of the contractors, the amount of other tenders with the names of the contractors, and including a complete bill of costs of his office, showing separately the costs of all materials, , from whom they were purchased, the cost of labour, number and type of men employed, the charge for use and depreciation of plant, all transport charges, and all overhead charges; and what special facilities, if any, were enjoyed by the office in carrying out the work?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer that question for him. A statement on the lines suggested by the hon. Member will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

Has the hon. Gentleman any idea when it will be circulated?

I am afraid I cannot say.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the First Commissioner of Works has the information in his possession, and that he gained the acclamations of the House for his speech the other night? Did he make that speech without his facts, or if not, where are the facts?

The promise is to issue the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that after tomorrow there will be no OFFICIAL REPORT? Does he propose to circulate the information as a White Paper which hon. Members will have circulated to them if they sign the pink form?

I am only answering for my right hon. Friend I cannot say what he proposes to do.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the widespread unemployment, he can now make any announcement with reference to the Channel Tunnel?

I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to my Noble Friend on the 6th December. A decision on this subject would not assist in the least to solve the difficulties of unemployment during this winter.

asked the Prime Minister the name of the person, persons or company with whom the Ministry of Munitions made the contract in connection with the disposal of aircraft surplus; the date of the contract; and the amount and date of the consideration paid?

( by Private Notice ) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the purchase by the Imperial and Foreign Corporation, Limited, of a monopoly interest in the disposal of all surplus aircraft property held by the Government; whether upon the day the contract was concluded between the Imperial and Foreign Corporation, Limited, and the Disposal Board it was transferred by the purchasing company to the Aircraft Disposal Company, Limited, whose debenture capital was £1,500,000 and whose share capital was only £600 in 1s. shares; whether it is considered by his Department a proper transaction, and will he cause to be published the text of the contract and the reasons which prompted his Department to approve of such a transfer?

Before the hon. Gentleman answers, may I be allowed to raise a point of Procedure?

The hon. Gentleman should raise a point of Procedure after Questions. He may put a supplementary question, if he wants to ask it, after he has heard the reply.

I have been asked to answer this question, and I will also answer the Private Notice Question which has been asked on the same subject by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Rose).

Is the hon. Gentleman entitled to take that course?

The contract was made with the Imperial and Foreign Corporation, Limited, and was transferred, with the consent of my Noble Friend, Lord Inver-forth, to the Aircraft Disposal Company, Limited. The date of the contract was 12th March, 1920, and the consideration payable was £ 200,000 on signature, £300,000 six months from the date of the contract, and £500,000 twelve months from the date of the contract, plus half the difference between the company's gross expenditure and gross receipts in respect of the material sold under the contract. There is no objection to the text of the Contract being published, and I shall be glad to supply it to my hon. Friends if they desire. The contract in all its bearings was fully investigated by the Select Committee on National Expenditure, and, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), they came to the conclusion that there was no ground for taking action upon it. may add that the Ministry of Munitions retains a lien on the assets of the purchasing company.

Is it not a fact that this contract was signed, on the morning of the date referred to, by the Imperial and Foreign Finance Corporation, that it was transferred, with the permission of the Minister, the same afternoon, to a company whose total capital was £600 in 1s. shares, and that this company took £1,200,000 of debentures; is it not a fact that the capital of the company in question is inadequate to deal with £60,000,000 worth of Government property; will he take steps to call upon this Committee to make another report; and is he aware that there is a desire on the part of this Committee to make a minority report, as they regard this transaction as detrimental to the best interests of British Civil servants?

I do not admit any one of the assumptions in the hon. Gentleman's question, and I may add that any transaction of a Government Department which passes my right hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), cannot have anything very wrong about it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is misleading the House, and that the conditions of the contract were that this company, with its £600 of capital, was to buy the total amount of surplus aircraft, and was also entitled to the whole surplus for the next two years; and does he consider that a company with £600 of capital, financed by the Imperial and Foreign Finance Corporation, is a suitable company to handle £60,000,000 of the taxpayers' property

I admit none of the assumptions and inferences of the hon. Gentleman.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to deny that the capital of this company is £600 in 1s. shares?

Yes, but the ordinary capital is very limited on the American basis—[Mr. BILLING: "Not the English"] and we look not so much to the way the company raises its capital, as to the assets on which we are secured, and to the profits we are to share.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this company has debentures issued for £1,200,000, and what does the Government hope to secure, in the taxpayers' interest, when a company with £600 capital has £1,200,000 debentures issued?

But we have a lien on the whole of the assets.

Does the lien stand before the debentures?

So I understand.

May I ask if the company's gross expenditure includes such things as the salaries of the chairman and directors; if so, how much is it?

I must have notice of that question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Aircraft Disposal Company could possibly call up the debentures and use them for another purpose, leaving only £600 in shilling shares as a security for all this Government property; and is he aware that the Chief Treasury Solicitor admits that possibility?

No doubt. As I have said, we have a lien on all the assets of the company, and I think that entirely disposes of that.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this company is rapidly getting rid of its assets and squandering the proceeds; is he also aware that the principal assets are some millions of pounds worth of raw material, and that they are squandering these, and leaving the Government with old derelict machines; may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to appoint during the Vacation a Special Committee to inquire into this extraordinary transaction between the Government and the company known as the Foreign Finance Association?

I presume the object of the company is not to squander its assets, but to make profits, and if they do make profits—

They are making big profits!

Well then, we take half.

How is it the hon. Gentleman cites the Public Expenditure Committee in defence of the Ministry of Munitions on this occasion, while he repudiates their considered opinion in regard to other questions

My hon. and gallant Friend has not followed my answer. I said that if there was anything in any Government Department which was proved or passed as satisfactory by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City (Sir F. Ban- bury), there was not likely to be very much wrong about it. If there had been, he would have noticed it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that these people are making profits? Is it not proceeds? How do you calculate proceeds upon property of the value of which you have no conception? Are these profits, for you cannot sell the things for anything like the price you paid for them. Is it not that half the proceeds are taken by these people who purchased a fundamental interest in this thing by instalments; and not paid for either out of the proceeds or the profits?

This explanation is half the difference between the gross expenditure and the gross receipts—our auditors have access to their books, and we have weekly reports.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that disabled ex-Regular soldiers, who were serving in the Army at the outbreak of the War, are held to be disqualified from receiving grants from the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department; and whether he will take steps to remove this disqualification?

; I have been asked to reply. I am aware that disabled ex-Regular soldiers who were serving at the outbreak of War are not eligible for grants from the Military Service (Civil Liabilities) Department, and would refer my hon. Friend to my reply given on 8th December. As I then stated, this scheme, as its name suggests, was designed to deal with the hardships inflicted on civilians whose careers were seriously affected by Military Service. The reasons which led the Government to distinguish between ex-Regulars and the men who interrupted their civilian occupations to join the Colours, was, broadly, that in the case of the first class of men, the War did not affect or break into their normal career. While profoundly sympathising with the case of the disabled ex-Regulars, I must point out the broad difference of principle which separates this case from the others.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an answer to the last part of the question?

I think I have. I explained the reason for the differentiation between the disabled ex-Regular and the man who left civilian life to take part in the War.

Will the right hon Gentleman take an opportunity to remove this disqualification?

Well, I will see if there is any voluntary fund that might in a hard case give help outside the Regulations.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received any instances showing that ex-service men have been forced to leave their work and join the ranks of the unemployed owing to the action of officials of the trades unions; whether he is investigating such cases; and whether he will consider any which may be brought to his notice.

Cases of the kind referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend have been brought to my notice, and I have taken such action as was possible whenever circumstances permitted. I shall be glad to consider any such cases brought to my notice.

What action has the Department taken in cases of that nature?

The cases which I have seen have usually been the results of the action of local workmen, and representations have been made to the central executive of their union, from the officers of which I have received assistance.

What action has the right hon. Gentleman taken with the unions concerned? What right have trade unions to dictate to an ex-service man in what particular industry he shall be employed?

I say I have communicated with the central executives, rather than with the local organisations. Some very lamentable cases have occurred. As to the question regarding the right of trade unions to dictate to ex-service men I am afraid I can give no answer.

Are we to understand it is the principle of trade unions to allow these men to be employed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of unskilled men are at present out of work through skilled men striking against the employment of an ex-officer to be trained as a bricklayer?

The cases brought to my notice have been rather those due to the action of local workmen, and in those I have communicated with the central executive of their union.

If the right hon. Gentleman only makes representations he propels a certain number of words at the executive. If there is no penalty then the representations are merely empty thunder.

My hon. Friend apparently did not follow my answer. I said the representations had not been without effect.

But you have no compulsory powers?

No.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received a resolution from the Wisbech branch of the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers protesting against the decision that the Civil Liabilities Department cannot assist ex-service men who are seeking to establish themselves on small holdings; whether this resolution represents the facts of the case; and, if so, whether he will explain the reason for this decision.

I am assured that no such resolution can be traced as having been received from the Wisbech Branch of the National Federation of Discharged and Demobilised Sailors and Soldiers. It is not the practice of the Civil Liabilities Department to refuse grants to establish ex-service men on small holdings. Many such grants have been made, but each application is treated on its merits. Perhaps my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any cases which he wishes enquired into.

I will do that.

asked the Prime Minister whether negotiations have been opened between the British or any other of the Allied Governments with Mustapha Kemal; and, if not, whether the opening of such negotiations is in contemplation?

The answer so far as I am aware is in the negative.

asked the Prime Minister when the promised publication of the documents found on Sinn Fein leaders proving their complicity in a German plot in 1918 will be published?

The White Paper will be published in a few days, but it will contain a good deal more material bearing on the German conspiracy in Ireland than the documents found on the Sinn Fein leaders.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the last number of the "Weekly Summary" issued to the police in Ireland, in which it is stated that the talk of negotiations for an Irish settlement is purely propaganda; and if he will say whether this statement was made with his sanction?

I have not seen the "Weekly Summary" referred to. As far as the Government are concerned, our efforts in Ireland are earnestly designed to secure peace and good will.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Weekly Summary" is published under the authority and supervision of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary; that the latter did not deny it, but stated specifically in the House that it was run under his Department, and that he would him- self endeavour to look into what appeared in the paper. In any case, is the Prime Minister aware that the Chief Secretary said that it is an official Government publication, and that the information in my question on the Paper to-day appears in it, and does he really think that that is a contribution to an Irish settlement?

Of course, I have not got the actual words used by my right hon. Friend, but my recollection is—and I was in the House at the time—that he repudiated the suggestion that he had any special responsibility for this paper, which was published by the police for their own information. He certainly could not control a paper of that kind.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Chief Secretary in this House—it is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT—stated that his Department was responsible for this publication and paid for it—that he was responsible, although he could not personally supervise it?

Oh, well, that is what I more or less have tried to convey to the House. No doubt my right hon. Friend is responsible as long as it is paid for out of Government money—and I assume that is the case. But he stated most distinctly that he gave no personal supervision to it, and could not be responsible for every word that appeared.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is very undesirable that an organ paid for by Governme'nt money should be pursuing a policy that is in opposition to the declared policy of the Government, as stated by himself, and under these circumstances would he make personal inquiry into the matter?

Seeing these facts are not denied, will the right hon. Gentleman have a denial printed in the next number of the "Weekly Summary"? Seeing that this looks like trick propaganda, will the right hon. Gentleman have it denied at once?

The suggestion, as far as I am able to follow it, is that the talk of negotiations for an Irish settlement on the part of the Sinn Feiners is pure propaganda, and not honestly intended. There is no suggestion that the Government are not honest. [An HON MEMBER: "Oh, yes!"]

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the public statement of Mr. P. .D. Sullivan, resident magistrate, at the sitting of the special court in Kilkenny on 8th December last, in which he stated that he had been threatened and assaulted by his own peace officers within the precincts of the court after being fully identified as the resident magistrate; and what steps are being taken to restore discipline among the police in Ireland?

My attention has been drawn to this statement, which, according to the police report, appears to have been made through some misunderstanding. Mr. Sullivan arrived at the courthouse on the 22nd ultimo, while a police search was in progress, and was refused admission by an auxiliary police officer, who did not know him. This officer committed the technical assault of placing his hands on Mr. Sullivan's shoulder, but no violence or threats were used. On Mr. Sullivan being recognised shortly afterwards by a member of the local police, he was admitted without further question, and both the county inspector and the auxiliary officer by whom he was prevented from entering apologised to him for the mistake.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this resident magistrate would have made that statement publicly in court unless he had been brutally assaulted, and is not this police force getting more and more out of hand?

I am sure that this gentleman, who is a member of the Bar, made the statement under the misunderstanding referred to in my answer.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether two brothers, named Patrick and Harry Loughnane, of Sharraglish, Gort, were arrested by auxiliaries on the night of 26th November last and taken away in a motor lorry; whether the bodies of these young men were subsequently found in a pond, mutilated and charred with fire; and what is the Government's theory of the cause of their deaths?

According to the evidence given at the military court of inquiry, these men were arrested by auxiliary police on the 26th ultimo, and escaped from custody in Drumharana .Castle the same night. Their bodies were discovered in a charred and mutilated condition near Kinvarra, about four miles from Drumharana Castle, on the 5th instant. No evidence was given to account for the manner in which they met their deaths, and the finding of the Court was that their deaths were caused by means and persons unknown.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this terrible occurrence is being talked about through the whole neighbourhood, and that the general opinion is that these men met their death through being dragged behind a motor car? Will he have further inquiries made to clear up this terrible occurrence?

I will have further inquiries made, but the condition of the bodies does not suggest that they were dragged behind a motor car.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how long Mr. Arthur Griffith, M. P., has been in prison; what is the charge against him; has Mr. Griffith been informed of this charge; and when will he be tried?

Mr. Arthur Griffith, M.P., was arrested on 27th November last. Inquiries into his case are being proceeded with as speedily as possible, but pending their completion I am not prepared to make any statement.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of arrests made in Ireland since 15th November; the number of Irish men and Irish women now in prison or interned; the number of such persons who are alleged to be active members of the Irish Republican Army; the number arrested on suspicion under Section 14 (b) of the Defence of the Realm Act; and the number it is proposed to charge and try?

I regret that I cannot give in detail the figures asked for, but the number of persons (all of whom are believed to be active members of the Irish Republican Army) against whom internment Orders under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations, No. 14B, have been made is 1,002. In addition, there are approximately 750 untried persons now in custody. Determinations for trial under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulation, No. 56, have been issued in the case of about 250 of these. The cases of the remainder are still under consideration, and they will be dealt with with the utmost possible despatch.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that these men, some of whom may be innocent, have been interned without any trial, that no provision has been made for their families, and that many of their families are suffering the greatest want; and whether the same pro vision could not be made for the families of these men which was made, as he knows well, for the families of the Boers in the field, whereby their women and children were kept from starvation? Will he give that matter his attention?

indicated assent.

Will the Prime Minister under no circumstances confuse murderers in Ireland with our gallant foes in South Africa?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, on the night of 30th November, an officer and two men in uniform entered the offices of the "Cork Examiner," in Patrick Street, Cork, and forced three of the staff, at the point of the bayonet, to insert a notice in the issue of that journal for 1st December, drawn up by the Anti-Sinn Fein Society, addressed to all citizens of Cork, warning them that, if any householder was known to shelter any rebel or subscribe to any funds of the society known as Sinn Fein, they had better increase their fire and life insurance, as it would be needed; and whether he will take steps to protect the staff of the "Cork Examiner" against a repetition of such an outrage?

I am informed that the allegation in this question is entirely untrue. So far as can be ascertained, no members of the Crown Forces were responsible for the drawing up or the sending of the notices in question, which I understand were received by the "Cork Examiner" through the ordinary post, and not in the manner described.

What inquiries did the right hon. Gentleman make, and on what evidence is he prepared to say the alleged facts given in the question are untrue?

Inquiries were made in the ordinary course through members of the Constabulary stationed in Cork to ascertain the facts.

Will any prosecution be undertaken of the people who are responsible for putting that notice in the paper?

No, it is quite obviously impossible, seeing that the notices were received through the post, to get any evidence against any person.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether on Saturday last, following an ambush in Tipperary in which two soldiers were killed, a licensed grocer's shop in the main street of the town was fired and an attempt made to fire other houses with petrol; whether on Sunday another licensed grocer's shop was burnt; whether these burnings are an infringement of General Macready's order of the 16th instant; and whether those responsible for the fires will be brought to trial?

The General Officer Commanding in Chief informs me that he is inquiring into these allegations, and if it can be established that a breach of the recent General Order has been committed, the honourable Member may feel assured that appropriate action will be taken.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the number of outrages upon police and soldiers since 1st October, and the number of police and soldiers who have been killed or wounded during that period; the number of civilians who have been killed or wounded, either by the military and police or by persons un-known; the number of deaths of civilians with regard to which the military inquiries have been held; and the number of private houses, shops, factories, and creameries, respectively, which have been destroyed during that period; and whether he can give an estimate of the value of the property destroyed?

I only received this question yesterday, and regret that it is impossible for me to furnish the information asked for at such short notice.

When does the hon. Gentleman expect that the inquiry will be concluded?

I am sure it is being done by the military authorities as quickly as it can considering the multifarious duties they have to discharge.

Is it the case that without any consideration of the general average of insurance the parties whose houses are burnt down are entitled to a full levy upon all their neighbours to replace the damage, and will he consider applying the law of general average to these burnings in order to prevent people having an incentive to burn down their own houses?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the decisions of the Brussels Conference with regard to reparations

The Conference of experts at Brussels has adjourned until after Christmas. The experts of each nation will report to their own Government, and it is intended that when these reports have been received and considered they shall be followed by a Conference of Ministers. It would clearly be premature to make any statement at present. I doubt, too, whether it would be advisable to make any statement till after the Geneva Conference

asked the Prime: Minister what is the cause of the delay in the introduction of legislation in Germany to give effect to Articles 367 and 368 of the Peace Treaty respecting emigrant traffic; and whether, in the interests of emigrants destined for North America and elsewhere from countries beyond Germany, adequate measures are being taken to prevent a recurrence of the scandals arising prior to the War from the system of German control stations and the arbitrary and monopolistic action of German shipping companies?

As a result of representations made to the German Government, I have hopes of being able to announce a satisfactory settlement very shortly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to give publicity to that in Germany?

Yes.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that difficulty has arisen with reference to the liquidation of accounts for goods supplied by British firms previous to August, 1914, to debtors residing in then German territory who, owing to the re-arrangement of territory as established by the Peace Treaty, are not now recognised as German subjects, and that this imposes hardship and prospective loss on the firms in question; and whether he can take steps to secure for them the same facilities as are given to firms whose debtors are resident in the territory which is still recognised as German under the terms of the Peace Treaty?

I have been asked to reply. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles with regard to the settlement of pre-War debts relate only to debts owing by or to German nationals who were resident in Germany at the date of the coming into force of the Treaty. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to deal with the claims of the British firms referred to under the Clearing Office system.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise the great hardship to British firms who are situated as stated in the question? Is there any method whatever by which the Government can assist them, not through the Clearing House system? Will the hon. Gentleman consider that?

I cannot see any way. We cannot alter the terms of peace. The remedy these firms have is to proceed against nationals who owe them money in their own country.

Would not the present rate of exchange make that a method inapplicable to these cases?

It makes it difficult. No doubt losses would be incurred, but it is impossible to legislate to govern people who are not covered by the Peace Treaty.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider if anything can be done if I communicate further information to him?

Yes.

asked the Prime Minister, whether the Government has assented to a modification of the Treaty of Versailles with reference to the taking of the plebiscite in Upper Silesia?

A modification was suggested in order to meet the special difficulties of the case, but I could not tell the hon gentleman, at present, whether that has been adopted

asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the nature of the credits or advances granted by the Allies to the late Government of Greece in connection with the operations against the Turkish Nationalists; what is the amount of these credits or advances; and from which of the Allies, respectively, have they been obtained?

No such advances have been made to Greece by His Majesty's Government. I cannot answer as regard's other Allied Powers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is not a fact that this expedition was largely financed by Sir Basil Zaharoff, G.B.E.?

asked the Prime Minister if before the House rises he can give any further indication of his plans for dealing with unemployment should there be a still further extension during the Recess?

I would refer the hon. Member to the very full statement made on behalf of the Government in the course of the Debate on Tuesday last. The Government will continue during the Recess to watch developments and do its utmost to deal with them.

Has the right hon. Gentleman received a reply from the Building Trade Federation as to whether they propose to accept the proposals of the Government?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in consequence of the serious number of men and women out of employment in West Ham the Board of Guardians have been compelled to grant £20,000 a week in outdoor relief, and that that means that our rates will be 30s. in the £ next year?

I am aware that there is a good deal of unemployment in that area. The Mayor of West Ham was on a deputation yesterday and stated the case very fully.

Will the Prime Minister use his influence in the direction of trying to settle the unfortunate dispute arising out of the demand of the employers in the shipping industry to reduce wages by 9s. a week, as a consequence of which 29,000 skilled men are out of work? If his services could be used to effect a settlement there it would have an immediate effect on a large number of unskilled workers.

I think the masters and the men prefer to settle that question themselves.

Are the Government still in negotiation with the trade unions on the question of the dilution of labour in order to employ the ex-service men, and when may we expect a decision?

I believe they are meeting in conference next week to consider the proposals of the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we have been given that answer for the last 10 months and no headway has been made?

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called by public authorities to the general wish that productive or useful work should in all cases be undertaken where assistance is given in any form to the unemployed; and whether he will make this the governing keynote of his policy in dealing with unemployment?

Yes, Sir. And that is the principle underlying the dispensation of recent grants-in-aid of relief work.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the efforts being made to provide work for the unemployed, he will urge the trade unions to stimulate as much as possible the activities of their members who are still in the factories so that still further unemployment may be avoided by firms having to reduce staffs who close down through ca'canny methods.

I have no authority to compel trade unions to take action in the direction indicated, but if my hon. Friend will supply me with particulars of any cases in which there appears to be danger of a reduction of staff owing to restrictive methods, I shall be glad to bring them to the notice of any trade unions whose members may be concerned.

Is it not the fact that a good deal of unemployment in this country is known to be due to the adoption of ca'canny methods in the past?

Would it not be better for the hon. Member to give information where this evil exists instead of making general statements of this kind?

The latter part of my answer covers that. I hope my hon. Friend will bring to my notice any cases as to which he has information.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the number of unemployed men living in Tollesbury, Essex, and that Tollesbury comes under the Mersea region for unemployment insurance, the distance to the labour exchange there involving a cross-country journey of 25 miles each day in order to satisfy the exchange that men are eligible for unemployment pay; and whether some arrangement can be made by the Ministry which will offer greater facilities to the men in question?

I am having inquiry made with regard to the cases mentioned by my hon. Friend. I may, however, explain that the personal attendance of a claimant for unemployed benefit may be excused in cases where an unusually long, expensive, or awkward journey is involved. Sanction has recently been given to the provision of a branch employment office at Tollesbury, and pending the opening of this office claimants in Tollesbury should make application by post to the Branch Employment Office, Public Hall Chambers, Mal-don.

Do I understand that these men will be excused from making this long journey while the right hon. Gentleman is considering the matter?

I am reviewing the Regulations with a view, while ensuring that public money shall be spent for the purposes for which it is intended, to seeing that these men shall not be put to undue hardship in having to make long journeys.

As this condition of affairs exists in many areas, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the idea of having a printed form applicable to the cases of persons residing in such areas, so that a halfpenny stamp instead of a twopenny stamp may be used?

I spent some time this morning on the point raised in this question, and in a question put by the hon Member for one of the divisions of Leicestershire a day or two ago, with a view to devising some plan which, while safeguarding the public funds and ensuring that they are properly used, shall, on the other hand, avoid undue hardship.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of having what we call an unemployment book at the Post Offices, which would obviate these difficulties?

May I point out that that is a common procedure in the trade union movement, and acts very efficiently?

asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed in the three or four trades which contribute most to the total of 550,000 unemployed according to the latest figures-available?

The trades or occupations in which the largest number of men were registered at Employment Exchanges at 10th December were: Engineering and ironfounding, 88,000 (of whom 21,000 were labourers); general labourers, 81,000; transport trades, 52,000; building and works of construction, 42,000' (of whom 16,000 were painters and 22,500 were labourers). The largest numbers of registrations among women were in domestic service, 26,000; textile trades, 24,000; clothing trades", 22,000. In addition there were, on 10th December, 88,042 persons on short time drawing Out-of-Work Donation or Unemployment Insurance benefit. Of these 50,474 were in the cotton trade; 15,325 in other textile trades; 8,555 in the clothing and boot and shoe trades; and 4,510 in engineering and ironfounding.

With regard to the number of painters and labourers who are unemployed—totalling some 38,000 —is it not the case that all of those men would be employed, and more, if the number of bricklayers were increased; and is it not the case that a large number of men in the finishing trades also would be employed if there were more bricklayers?

Speaking generally there are 42,000 men out, but 22,500 of these are labourers, and those would be absorbed if we could get more bricklayers. Not only all the labourers, but also the 16,000 painters and the others who come in at the close of the operations connected with housing would be absorbed if there were more bricklayers.

Why do you not insist on training bricklayers instead of flirting with the trade unions?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of firms and factories will be shutting down within the next two weeks, and will the class of men and women so thrown out of employment be entitled to unemployment benefit?

My hon. Friend had better give me particulars of the cases in question.

It is public property.

There is no civilian out-of-work donation; it is confined now to ex-service men. Such people as my hon Friend mentions would be entitled to the unemployment insurance benefit as amended by the Bill passed a night or two ago.

Is it not a fact that a very large number of these men and women will come under the new Insurance Act, and, as the factories will be shut down for 14 days or more, will they not be entitled to go to a labour exchange and register?

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not present an ultimatum to the Builders' Union that, unless they will train these men, the Government will train them themselves, and thus provide work for the others?

That question has been frequently asked and frequently answered.

It is a very important subject.

You have been sitting up all night, sonny!