asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any reports of inefficiency on the part of the wireless telegraphy watchers instituted under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; and, if not, whether he would be prepared to consider such reports, if submitted to him, with a view to amending, if necessary, this Act?

I have received statements to the effect that watchers are in some cases inefficient, and I will be prepared to consider any definite reports that may be placed before me.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a considerable loss of British shipping during the employment of this class, and, further, that actual cases have come up in the courts which were open to his officials to investigate?

It is under consideration.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the officials of the defunct Food Ministry are sending out circulars and forms to tradesmen requiring them to give minute detailed returns of all the motor vehicles they own, what they carry in them, what drivers they employ, and other particulars which will cause great trouble to supply; that indignation is being expressed at the waste of time involved in making these returns; what use will be made of these returns; and at what date will the activities of the Food Ministry and its officials cease?

The Food Department have called for returns in view of the duty laid upon them of providing transport for foodstuffs in the event of an emergency. I am not able, at the moment, to say when the work of this Department will be finally concluded.

Why should they not have been sent out a long time ago? These notices were sent out only last week, after three months' coal strike?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether all Government orders for foreign coal are to be cancelled immediately British miners decide to return to work; and, if not, will the coal be sold in this country or diverted elsewhere?

Orders which have been definitely placed cannot be cancelled. Such of the Government coal, if any, as remains unsold, after the resumption of work in the mines, will be disposed of in this country or elsewhere to the best advantage in the circumstances.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of coal pits which, owing to the damage done to them during the coal dispute, will either be permanently closed or shut down until such time as the necessary repair works can be carried out; what is the number of men ordinarily employed at or in connection with the pits that have been damaged; and whether these men will be entitled to receive unemployment benefit when the dispute is over?

I am afraid it is quite impossible to make any estimate of the extent of the damage done to mines by the stoppage or of the number of mines damaged. In many mines no one has been below ground since 31st March, and the present condition of the workings and roadways is quite unknown. With reference to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to the hon. and gallant Member for Clackmannan and Eastern on the 8th June.

Are we to understand, in reply to the last part of the question, that none of these people are going to get Out-of-Work Donation or Unemployment Benefit?

I have answered that by referring the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer of 8th June.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the allegations in this question are from Sinn Fein sources?

The hon. Member for Silvertown has not any idea what Sinn Fein means.

asked the Prime Minister whether Sergeant G. Payne, No. 2,646,487, 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, a Reservist called up during the recent emergency, has been thrown out of employment by his firm, Messrs. Thomas Tillings, Limited, road transport contractors, Peckham, S.E., on account of his being unable to continue at his work for a period owing to having been mobilised for Army service; whether many employers have dealt in a similar manner with Army Reservists; and, seeing that such a course of action is both prejudicial to the national interest, inasmuch as the Reserve was mobilised for the preservation of public order, and unfair to the individual Reservists who responded to the call, what action he proposes to take to have Sergeant Payne reinstated in his former position?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The facts were as stated in the first part of the question, but when they were brought to my notice, I asked the chairman of the directors of Messrs. Thomas Tilling, Limited, to see me. He told me that this non-commissioned officer was engaged as a "mate" on a Foden steam wagon and that, owing to the coal strike, all Foden steam wagons are at present off the road. The chairman of the company has, however, promised me that when the wagons are again used, this non-commissioned officer will be the first to be reinstated. I am glad that this case is satisfactorily settled, and I will undertake to inquire into any other case to which my attention may be called, and to take such action as is possible. I know of no other case at present. The response of the Army Reserve on the present occasion was as prompt and universal as it always has been. The cases of failure to report were in- finitesimal in number, and I am glad to bear grateful testimony to the patriotism of these tried soldiers, who came forward to undertake, if necessary, the duty of preserving public order.

asked the Prime Minister the total cost to the Exchequer of expenditure connected with the coal stoppage; and what Supplementary Estimate will be needed to meet such charges?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Supplementary Estimates already presented for Emergency Services and Rail way Agreements. Further Supplementary Estimates will be required for Navy, Army, and Air Services, the total cost of which, to date, including terminal charges still to be incurred, is estimated at about £9,000,000. As the coal stoppage still continues and the net result of Government purchases of coal for essential services cannot yet be determined, it is impossible to give any final figures.

Will the House of Commons have an opportunity of discussing this Supplementary Estimate?

I am reminded that the Railway Vote is being taken on Thursday. The remainder of the question should be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Are we to take it from the answer that no further Estimate will be required for the railways?

As I have already said, it is impossible at present to give any final figure.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the reception of the Government's offer of a contribution from the taxpayer of £10,000,000 by those engaged in the coal industry and of the unsatisfactory conditions under which the ballot on the question of its acceptance has been conducted, he will reconsider the granting of this large sum at the present moment?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the letter which I addressed to the Secretary of the Miners' Federation on Saturday last, and which has been published in the Press.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister if he has received intimation from the Miners' Federation that the miners' strike has to be continued; if so, will he give an assurance to the owners of collieries that protection will be afforded, where necessary, to men willing to go to work; and whether such men will have a proportion of the £10,000,000 added to their wages, provided they start work during this week?

The answer to the first and second parts of the question is in the affirmative. As to the last part of the question, it is plain that it would be impossible to allocate the grant of assistance which the Government offered, unless upon a plan operating throughout the whole coalfield, and that the acceptance of the Miners' Federation was accordingly always necessary as a condition precedent to the payment and distribution of that sum. That acceptance was not forthcoming within the time. As to this matter, I must refer my hon. Friend to the letter which I sent to the Miners' Federation on Saturday, a copy of which has already appeared in the Press.

What will the Government do now?

Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider granting a portion of the £10,000,000 in a flat rate distributed to those men who desire to return to work?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that would not meet the case, because there are certain districts where the £10,000,000 would not be needed at all, and therefore the flat rate is not applicable, because there are certain districts where the wage demanded could be paid at present without any assistance.

Could not the rate be varied according to the district?

asked the President of the Board of Trade to what countries Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill will apply if the Bill is passed into law this year?

It is impossible to say until the findings of the Committees to be set up under the Bill have been received.

Are we to understand from that answer that the Government do not know the effect of a Bill which they have introduced into this House?

Is the right hon. Gentleman unable to give the House definite information as to the particular Clauses in the different Treaties, and to say specifically to which countries this Bill applies, especially in view of the fact that this question has been on the Order Paper for six days?

I think the information for which the hon. Member asks is contained in an answer I gave him last week, but he has got another question down on the same subject.

How can the House discuss this Bill if we do not know the countries to which it will apply, until some Committees are set up under the Bill to determine to which countries it will apply; and, if we cannot have that information, do the Government propose to continue the discussions on the Committee stage, without supplying the House with that information?

I think this would be much better debated on the Bill itself.

Might I call the attention of the Leader of the House to this question? Is the Leader of the House aware that we are informed that we shall not know the countries to which this Bill applies until certain Committees have been set up under the Bill, and will he see, before we reach the Committee stage, that the House is put in possession of this information?

If the hon. Gentleman requires an answer from me to a question of such magnitude, I shall be grateful if he will put the question on the Paper, and give me an opportunity of considering it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House cannot possibly discuss this Bill unless they know the countries to which it will apply; and will he give us an undertaking that, before we are asked to consider it in Committee, we shall have the information?

No, I am not aware that the House cannot discuss this Bill in Committee, where I presume the information which the hon. Gentleman seeks can be given.

No.

Then will the hon. Gentleman put his question to me down on the Paper, and let me have an opportunity of considering it?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if there is any Clause in any Treaty, Agreement, or Convention with France, Italy, or Japan which will stop Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill being applied to each of those countries if the Bill is passed during the present Session?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for East Newcastle (Major Barnes) on the 13th June.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he refers directs the attention of the House to commercial Treaties, Conventions, and Agreements applying to

The total value of the Imports of all goods, except Food and Drink, into the United Kingdom, consigned from Germany, registered during the year ended 31st December, 1920, amounted to £28,319,000.

some 25 countries, and in view of the impossibility of any hon. Member being able to satisfy himself as to the exact bearing of each Clause of the Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman state specifically what is the answer to the question on the Paper?

Are we to understand from the list of countries which has been given that we have no commercial Agreement or Convention with France in any matter, shape, or form, and that that will be the only country to which this Bill will apply?

I wish to give notice that, at the end of Question Time, I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance in connection with this Bill.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the figures of the total value of the importation of pig iron and steel, respectively, from Europe to the United Kingdom for the year January, 1920, to January, 1921, and the value of the imports of all kinds of goods, exclusive of articles of food and drink, from Germany during the same period?

With the hon. Member's permission, I will have a statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the Statement:

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether taximeters, speedometers, spare parts, etc., for taximeter cabs and other commercial vehicles are subject to import duty; and, if so, on what grounds?

Whether imported "accessories" or "component parts" of motor ears are charged with duty depends upon the nature of the vehicles in connection with which they are used. As taxicabs are liable to tax, their accessories, etc., are also chargeable, but the accessories, etc., of certain exempt classes of trade vehicles are themselves exempt.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to retain the publicity section of his Department?

No, Sir. I have decided to abolish the publicity section of the Board of Trade as from the 15th July next.

asked the President of the Board of Trade how many officials in his Department are at present receiving a salary of £1,000 or over; and how many received such salaries in June, 1914?

The number of whole-time officials in receipt of basic salaries of £1,000 or over are as follow: 1914 32 1921–22 permanent 54 1912–22 temporary 30 The hon. Member will, however, realise that the volume of work in the respective years is not comparable.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any ex-German ships allotted to this country by the Reparations Commission, and announced to be available for British and Allied nations only, have been sold to German ownership through a German broker; and whether he will give particulars of these sales, the names of the broker and purchasers, and the reason for so selling the ships?

The sales of ex-German ships are being conducted by Lord Inchcape on behalf of the Reparation Commission, but I understand that 10 ex-enemy ships, nine of which had been advertised for sale on the British market, have been sold to Mr. Sloman of Hamburg, the brokers being Messrs. Arthur Capel and Company. These were 10 special ships which had been engaged continuously in the Baltic on repatriation work under the auspices of the League of Nations. They flew the German flag and carried German officers and crews, and had never been placed on the British register. No satisfactory offers for any of these ships were received from any British firm.

Why were they not kept at their present duties and then offered for sale along with the rest of the ex-enemy ships?

They were not released until the particular work they were busy with was completed.

What is the meaning of not being on the British register?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman had better put a question down.

Why was it necessary to sell these ships before the duties to which they were assigned were finished; why did they not wait till the duties were finished?

We wanted to get the best price we could. They fetched very much better prices; and prices of ships have been falling every day since.

Was the Chamber of Shipping consulted?

Are there not more ships in this country than we can usefully employ, and is it not well to dispose of the ships we do not want?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the German Government has yet issued an official notice to German traders guaranteeing to them the repayment of the 26 per cent. duty levied on goods exported from Germany and consigned to the United Kingdom in accordance with the undertaking given by the German Government, as stated by the Lord Privy Seal?

So far as I am aware, no such notice has been issued by the German Government, but I understand that they are informing inquirers that exporters will be indemnified for the amount of the levy.

Will that indemnification be paid to the German exporter at the current rate of the exchange of the day or at some nominal exchange of so many marks to the pound, as obtained before the War; it is a very important matter?

I would like notice of that question.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether a credit cash balance, belonging to a British subject, in a German bank during the War was a debt owing by the bank to the British subject; if so, why a regularly proved claim for such a debt lodged 18 months ago with the British Clearing House for enemy debts has remained unpaid; and what are the grounds upon which the German or other authorities allege that such debts have lost their character of debts and have become the proceeds of liquidation, in view of their sequestration by the German authorities under German war emergency legislation?

A credit cash balance in a German bank belonging to a British national resident in British territory on 10th January, 1920, is a debt within the meaning of Article 296 of the Treaty of Versailles, provided the balance existed before the War or arose out of a pre-War transaction as defined by that Article. A great number of claims in respect of such balances have been admitted and paid. In certain cases, the German banks have paid the moneys to the German public trustee under war emergency legislation. With regard to these cases, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Exeter on the 15th inst.

asked the Prime Minister what is the position of British creditors in respect of debts due to them by Germans; which debts have been paid to the German public trustee; what steps should British creditors take, under the Peace Treaty of Versailles, to compel the Germans to pay these debts; and whether each individual British creditor must go to the expense of bringing each case before the next arbitral tribunal?

I have been asked to reply. As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Exeter on the 15th June. It may be assumed that when the question of principle has been decided by the mixed arbitral tribunal in the test case referred to, it will be accepted by Germany as governing similar cases.

Does that mean that the particular creditor of the German will be obliged to go before this tribunal?

No, as I understand it, the German Government will accept the test case as governing the others.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this tribunal has met only once or twice, and is there any prospect of its resuming?

I hope it will do so without delay.

asked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement on the present situation in Upper Silesia; and what steps have now been taken to bring about a settlement?

I am not prepared to make a statement at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the German regular troops have been withdrawn the Allied troops are remaining there, and the territories are being handed over to the Polish insurgents, which is likely to lead to a general outbreak?

I do not think that represents the situation. I have heard rumours to that effect, but I do not think that they are quite accurate.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many members of the Allied Commission are at present in Upper Silesia; and what is the nationality and official position of each?

According to the latest figures available, 520 members of the Inter-Allied Commission are in Upper Silesia at present, of whom 294 are French, 85 Italian, and 141 British.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Allied Commission in Upper Silesia are in agreement as to the best methods of restoring order in the territory under their control; and, if not, whether there is any prospect of an immediate meeting of the Supreme Council to which their difference might be referred?

I do not think it desirable to make a further statement on the subject at this moment.

Does the Hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make any further statement on this matter within the next few weeks?

My hon. and gallant Friend will have heard the reply given by the Prime Minister on that subject.

It was altogether indefinite. May I ask if the hon. Gentleman has or expects to have any information to give the House?

Of course I can add nothing to what the Prime Minister said.

Is there any truth in the statement which has appeared in the Press that there has been trouble between the French and German forces there, and that two British subjects have been killed in the trouble?

Perhaps the hon. Member would give me notice of a specific question of that kind?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Germany has in all respects carried out the terms of the ultimatum which was recently presented by the Allies with regard to the execution of the Treaty of Versailles; and, if not, will he state which conditions still remain unfulfilled?

Yes, Sir. My information is that the terms of the ultimatum have been either actually fulfilled or are in course of execution. As regards some of the terms, the time limit has not yet expired.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether an eight-hours law is in force in Germany; whether in a large number of instances the workpeople have refused to carry out the provisions of this measure; and will he endeavour to obtain particulars of the hours and wages prevailing there in a number of leading industries, and statistics as to output, with a view to this information being made available for the guidance of employers and workpeople here?

I have been asked to reply. Hours of labour have been legally restricted to eight per day or 48 per week in Germany since November, 1918. Cases of evasion of the measure are certainly being reported by the factory inspectors, but there is no evidence of widespread refusal to carry out the law. Information as to hours and wages is made accessible to the public through the quarterly journal, "Labour Overseas," issued by the Ministry of Labour. Official German statistics of output are issued for two industries only, i.e., coal (monthly) and iron and steel (yearly). I will send my hon. and gallant Friend the forthcoming issue of "Labour Overseas."

Is it not the fact that the workmen of Germany are crying out against this eight-hours day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and has it not been shown that the whole desire of the workpeople in Germany is to increase their output, and to work the number of hours necessary in order to give a reasonable return—

That question ought to be put on the Paper, and not asked as a supplementary question.

Who are the pro-Germans now?

On a point of Order. Has not an hon. Member who has received a certain reply from the Government a right to interrogate the Minister, seeing that it is impossible to anticipate the answer likely to be received from the Government Bench?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is pursuing an argument. Will he be good enough to ask the next question?

[ Question 18. See col. 864.]

asked the President of the Board of Trade to whom was the farina manufactured at King's Lynn disposed of; what sum was received for it; and what was the profit or loss on the transaction?

The portion which has been sold was placed on the market in the usual commercial way through a broker. As a considerable portion of the farina manufactured remains unsold it is impossible to state what will be the profit or loss on the transaction. For fuller details of those transactions I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts (House of Commons Paper, 231).

Would it be right to say that the land has since been lying waste?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

Has the Government disposed of all its mills?

Not all yet.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been directed to the fact of the purity of the atmosphere in London during the coal stoppage; and whether, when normal mining conditions again prevail, all possible steps will be taken in the interests of coal conservation, as well as public health, to limit and eventually forbid the wasteful burning of raw coal in this and other great cities?

I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West on the 1st instant, of which I will send him a copy.

asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been arrived at on the recommendations of the seventh Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure, 1918, as to the, form of Public Accounts?

The new system has been introduced in the War Office, and has-also been tried experimentally in certain cases in the Admiralty. I am not satisfied that it is suitable for Votes-other than War Office Votes, or for Civil Votes generally, but the whole matter, including the question of the possible increase in staff and cost involved by the proposed change, is under consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of inviting the leaders of capital and labour to a new industrial, conference when the present disputes in coal, engineering, and cotton have been closed, to see if it is possible to avoid such disastrous results as have been brought about by the present differences, not only to capital and labour immediately concerned in these disputes, but to the whole country?

I can add nothing to what has already been said in reply to questions on this subject.

asked the Prime Minister what steps are now being taken to bring about peaceful conditions in Turkey-in-Asia; whether any efforts are being made to call a fresh conference to discuss a settlement between the Greeks and Turks; and whether the Italian troops have been withdrawn?

This matter is now under consideration between the French Prime Minister and my Noble Friend the Foreign Secretary (Earl Curzon), pending a report from whom I am not in a position to make any statement. As soon as I receive definite information I will take an early opportunity of informing the House.

Yes, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can give us any comforting assurance to the effect that his Noble Friend has come to an agreement with the French Prime Minister?

I would rather make no statement till my Noble Friend comes back.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability, under Article 11 of the League of Nations, of exercising the Friendly right of any Member to draw the attention of the Council of the League of Nations to the present dispute between Turkey and Greece that again threatens the peace of Europe?

My hon. Friend may rest assured that His Majesty's Government will not lose sight of this possibility, if at any time it appear to them likely to advance matters in any way.

Will the Prime Minister say whether the present situation in Asia Minor is not due to the mistakes of the Imperial Council, and would it not be a good thing to hand this dispute over to some other body?

I cannot answer that question. It is a matter for the League of Nations.

Has this situation not been altered by the arrangements made in Paris yesterday?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that no expenditure in respect of men, money, or material aid to Greece will be incurred without obtaining the sanction of the House of Commons?

I would refer any Noble Friend to the answer which was given to him by the Lord Privy Seal on Thursday last, in reply to a supplementary question on this subject.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the resolution moved by the ex-president of the Chamber of Shipping and passed by the North of England Steamship Owners' Association on Monday, the 30th ultimo, demanding a free and unrestricted world's market for the sale of tonnage; and whether this war-time restriction will now be removed?

I have been asked to reply. As indicated in the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 9th June, I think that the sooner we can get back to a condition of complete freedom from restriction the better it will be. But this particular restriction was imposed by special Acts of Parliament—the British Ships (Transfer Restriction) Acts—and those Acts remain in force for three years after the official end of the War. After carefully considering the matter in all its bearings, I do not think the time has yet come for proposing the repeal of these Acts, but in the meantime each case in which it is desired to transfer a ship to a foreign flag will be carefully considered on its merits.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous excess of tonnage in this country at the present time, and under the circumstances is it not advisable to remove this embargo in order that tonnage may be transferred to other countries?

asked the Prime Minister what steps, if any, the Government propose to take in the direction of reducing the salary of the Minister without Portfolio, in view of the strong feeling both inside and outside the House, more especially as expressed at the recent bye elections of St. George's and East Hertford?

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will leave to a free vote of the House the payment of a salary to a Minister without Portfolio;

(2) whether he can give an assurance to the House that it is not his intention to appoint an additional Minister without Portfolio at a salary?

I hope, in the course of the Debate, to give the attitude of the Government on this subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the result of the Heywood election?

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it would be off considerable assistance to the House if he would state if this Supplementary Estimate is going to be made a matter of confidence or not?

That is exactly the question which has been put to me.

The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question as to whether he can tell us beforehand whether this Vote will be made a matter of confidence or not.

I said in my reply that in the course of the Debate I would give the attitude of the Government.

That is not an answer to my question.

asked the Prime Minister how many Ministers have no departmental duties; and what is the total of the salaries paid to such Ministers?

The Lord Privy Seal and the Minister without Portfolio have no departmental duties, and receive salaries of £5,000 per annum each. The Paymaster-General has no departmental duties, and is unpaid.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of naval and military officers who are drawing salaries without doing any work?

What about the Lord President of the Council?

He certainly has departmental duties, some of them very important.

asked the Prime Minister at what rate money is now being provided out of the British Exchequer for the maintenance of refugees of various nationalities throughout the world; and what is the total number of refugees who are a charge upon the British Exchequer?

The refugees being maintained by His Majesty's Government consist of Russians and Armenians. There are also some Assyrians who fought for us and who took refuge in Mesopotamia. These also have been supported by us but they are being settled in Mesopotamian territory, and a final charge of £400,000 for them, including present maintenance and final settlement charges, appears in the recent Estimate for the Middle East. In addition, a sum of £3,000 has been placed at the disposal of the Committee for the Relief of British Subjects from Russia in the current year, and there are some Russian refugees in Serbia, Cyprus, Egypt and Mesopotamia—the latter having come from the Caspian Sea. Approximately, the total number of refugees of all foreign nationalities including the Assyrians mentioned above, is 37,500, and the monthly cost of maintenance, £90,000. The number will be reduced to 17,700 when the Assyrians are settled and the Russians at Basra shipped to Vladivostock as proposed.

Will the Treasury consider the advisability of reducing the grants for these refugees by the same amount as the unemployment donation is being reduced in this country?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the nature of the obligation under which the British Government lies to support for an indefinite period Russian, Armenian, and other refugees; and whether, seeing that any undertaking made on behalf of the Government, whether by express or implied sanction, has been redeemed by the long-continued maintenance in idleness of these people, the Government will now announce to them that within a month from an early given date they must, like others, fend for themselves?

The Russian refugees, for whom His Majesty's Government have assumed responsibility, consist of the remnants of the Volunteer Army who were evacuated from South Russia early in 1920 under an assurance given on behalf of His Majesty's Government that the families of General Denikin's officers should not suffer if the anti-Bolshevik forces were defeated. There are, in addition, a small number of Russians at Basra who had to be evacuated from West Persia towards the end of last year. While His Majesty's Government do not regard their obligations as indefinite, they cannot desert refugees for whom they assumed responsibility, until some means have been found for enabling them to earn their own living. The Armenian and Assyrian refugees took up arms on the side of the Allies during the War, and since the Armistice have been maintained by His Majesty's Government until arrangements can be made for their future settlement. In this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech of the Secretary of State for the Colonies made in this House on Tuesday last.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there is an obligation to the British taxpayer over-riding these obligations which it might be held to have been handsomely discharged?

My hon. Friend knows as well as any Member of the House how anxious the Government are to rid themselves of this responsibility, but it still remains a responsibility.

Do we understand that this is one of the residuary obligations of the anti-Bolshevik adventures earlier last year, and could we have a revised Estimate showing exactly what the public has paid for these unsuccessful adventures?

The figures relating to these Russian refugees have been frequently given.

Will the hon. Gentle man undertake to apply a similar principle to British unemployed who want maintenance?

That does not arise out of the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will see that an opportunity is found in the course of the forthcoming Imperial Conference with the Dominion Prime Ministers to secure their approval to an urgently needed amendment of the British Nationality Act of 1914, to enable the children of British subjects of British blood resident abroad to be recognised as British citizens, although born in a foreign country of a father who was not himself born within His Majesty's allegiance but is of full British blood?

I can add nothing to the answers already given to my hon. Friend in reply to questions on this subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Secretary said the arrangements of the agenda was not a matter for him, but for the Prime Minister, and can he say if he will, informally at any rate, consult the Dominion Prime Ministers upon a matter on which they are certain to agree, and it is only a question of securing their approval?

We shall be discussing the agenda to-morrow, and I will call their attention to it.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the anomalous position which has arisen owing to the Education Act of 1918 having been brought into partial operation in certain areas and forbidden by Cabinet decree to be brought into operation in other areas of the country, he will introduce a short Government Bill suspending the operation of the Education Act of 1918 for a period of years until the financial state of the country is in a better position to bear the heavy expenditure involved by the Act in respect of continuation schools and other matters?

Having regard to the fact that the best assets left in this country are the brains of the country, will the right hon. Gentleman not disregard the views of the hon. Member opposite?

I think my answer will satisfy both parties. I do not consider that the temporary difficulties arising out of the present financial circumstances call for such general legislation as my hon. Friend suggests.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the anomalous position we are in when a large part of the country where they put the Act into operation is compelled to provide 50 per cent. of the educational expenditure, whereas other parts are forbidden to put the Act into operation by Cabinet decrees?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the heavy financial obligations imposed on this country by the War, His Majesty's Government has made approaches to wealthy Zionists throughout the world with a view to their assuming full financial responsibility for Palestine; and, if not, will such approaches now be made?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. As long as this country continues to act as mandatory State in Palestine, His Majesty's Government is of opinion that it is incumbent upon them to accept the responsibilities, financial or other, which such a position involves.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Zionists, rich and poor, throughout the world have been most generous in contributing to the resettlement of their compatriots in Palestine, and will he refute the suggestions made in the hon. Member's question?

Is the hon. Member aware that the wealthy Zionists referred to have offered to finance a defence force, which will be a considerable relief to the British taxpayers?

Is it not right that this great and patriotic race should have a say in the determination of their own land?

And the defence of it?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a committee representing the Trades Union Congress, the Labour party, and the Co-operative Union have issued a statement discredit- ing the official index figure of the cost of living as being far too low; and that, on the other hand, the figure is also discredited by the statistical investigations of Dr. A. L. Bowley and the London School of Economics as being far too high and applicable to no more than a small proportion of the wage-earners; and whether, seeing how largely wage readujstments and industrial unrest are related to this doubly-discredited official figure, he will forthwith invite a few impartial statistical authorities to review the basis of calculation of the figure in the light of these new facts?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to criticisms of the accuracy and reliability of the Board of Trade index respecting the cost of living; and whether, to re-establish any weakened confidence in it, he proposes to issue an official statement on the subject?

I have been asked to reply. I have seen the statement issued by the Joint Committee referred to. No details have yet been published by the Committee showing how their percentage has been arrived at. We are inviting the Committee to supply us with details comparable with those which have been published in connection with the Ministry of Labour index number, in order that we may be able to consider to what extent the differences revealed establish a case for investigation. In the meantime I think it will be recognised that criticisms which are so mutually destructive as to imply that the Ministry of Labour index number on the one hand understates, and on the other hand overstates, the actual increase would appear, when taken in conjunction, to support rather than to discredit the conclusions reached by the Ministry of Labour.

Do not both agree to this extent, that the Board of Trade index figure is utterly fallacious in its basis?

I am not certain whether my hon. Friend refers to the Board of Trade index figure or that of the Ministry of Labour. If he is referring to the latter I have already intimated that if he or his Committee will send us the information he desires we will go into the matter and see if there is any ground for further investigation.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the matter has already been gone into by independent statistical experts?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trade unionists of the country have for a long time contested these index figures, and have themselves appointed experts who have examined into, and reported against them?

That was stated in the original question.

Why are there two sets of figures?

One set relates to wholesale, and the other to retail prices.

Was not the method of calculating the figures changed during the War, because the Board of Trade figures were considered to be too high?

That is not the fact.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has taken into consideration recent efforts towards constitutional government in China, its culture, and vast potentialities; whether he is aware that the census brings the population up to 447,000,000; whether, in pursuance of our historic mission of encouragement to China, the Government will now raise the status of our diplomatic representative to that of ambassador, as has been done in the case of Brazil with a population of 31,000,000; and whether any negotiations will be opened with the five other Powers who have post offices in China for the withdrawal of these post offices in recognition of China as a great Power?

His Majesty's Government naturally consider all facts of importance relating to China. There are various estimates of the population, which is believed to exceed 300,000,000. It is not proposed to raise the status of His Majesty's representative in existing conditions in China. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

In regard to the inferior status of the diplomatic repre- sentatives from and to China, is the hon. Member aware that the British Minister as well as the Allied Ministers gave a pledge at Pekin in August, 1917—I quote it verbatim—that the Powers would do all that rests with them to insure that China shall enjoy in her international relations the position and the regard due to a great country," and is not the hon. Gentleman's answer a violation of that pledge?

I do not think I can discuss that matter by way of question and answer.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Japanese occupation of Port Arthur under the original terms of the lease was to expire on 27th March, 1923; whether, as a result of the Japanese 48-hour ultimatum of 7th May, 1915, China abandoned her claim for the return of this territory; whether, in regard to this and other results of the ultimatum, the United States in May, 1915, notified their refusal to recognise these results; and whether, as they affect our undertaking to return Wei-hai-Wei when Port Arthur is returned, we will notify China that we will not take advantage of negotiations to which we were not a party and will now negotiate for the return of Wei-hai-Wei?

The facts are as stated in the first part of the question. By one of the Sino-Japanese treaties of 25th May, 1915, the term of the lease of Port Arthur, which was originally 25 years, was extended to 99 years. On 15th May, 1915, the American Legation at Peking sent a Note to the Chinese Foreign Office recording the refusal of the United States Government to recognise such articles of the Sino-Japanese Agreements as might conflict with the provisions of any existing treaty between China and the United States. His Majesty's Government as at present advised do not propose to take any action in the sense suggested in the last part of the question.

asked the Prime Minister if the Irish Department of Agriculture has employed counsel or is being legally represented at the Royal Commission on the Importation of Store Animals; has the Department other representatives in attendance in addition to legal representatives; will the expenses be provided out of public funds; and what will be the amounts payable?

The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland are being legally represented at the Royal Commission on the Importation of Store Cattle. In addition members of the Department's staff are in attendance from time to time to furnish the Commission with figures or other information as required. The expenses will be provided out of public funds. It is not at this stage possible to say what they will amount to.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it is fair and reasonable to provide counsel to help on one side of the inquiry, and to pay nothing on the other side

The Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland are safeguarding one of the most important industries of the country.

Are we to understand that they are representing the Government view in this matter?

Are the Scottish Board of Agriculture providing their own counsel?

They can if they like.

Can I have an answer to my question? Are the Irish Department of Agriculture presenting the Government view on this question?

They are presenting the view which they entertain with regard to Ireland.

And is that view different from that held by the Government?