asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the German potash contract has been concluded; what profit the Government have made on this contract; whether the Treasury have collected such profit; and, if not, why this has not been done?

The German potash contract has been concluded. The net profit on the contract amounts to £28,700. This has not yet been paid to the Treasury. A balance is owing by the agents who distributed the potash on behalf of the Board of Trade. Steps are being taken to collect this balance.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that all the cold storage depots in London are now full up of imported meat, and that a number of ships are in the London docks full of meat which cannot be unloaded; whether this glut of imported meat is caused largely by the fact that the importers are demanding high prices for the same, which prices react on the retail butchers and stop sales to the ordinary working-class buyers; and whether his Department has any powers in order to compel any reductions in the wholesale and retail prices of imported meat?

I am not aware of any acute difficulty in obtaining cold storage space in the Port of London. A certain congestion has been caused by the storage of commodities other than meat, and arrangements have now been made to relieve this congestion. The suggestion contained in the second part of the question would appear to be incorrect, since the consumption of meat throughout the country is normal. The third part, therefore, does not arise.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if there is any reason why His Majesty's Government should not make an immediate advance of 50 per cent., as requested by the British subjects who have claims against the Turkish Government and recommended by the British Chamber of Commerce of Constantinople, advising the Turkish Government that they are doing so, and that the sum so advanced will be charged as a loan to the Turkish Government bearing interest at the current rate?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him on the 31st May.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government refusal to make an advance in respect of the claims of British subjects in Turkey is already seriously prejudicing British trade?

I am not aware of that. I have already explained that there are no funds for this purpose.

Why is it that the Treasury makes advances to people in more or less similar conditions to every other nationality except our own?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Government officials whose claims against the Turkish Government are based on identical legal grounds as those of non-officials have received from the British Government advances up to 50 per cent. of the amounts of their claims; and whether he can assign any reason for such preferential treatment of officials?

Payments have been made by the Foreign Office to officers of the diplomatic and consular services withdrawn from enemy territories, including Turkey, on the outbreak of war, as compensation for hardship due to their being deprived of the use of, and in some cases losing finally, articles of necessity left in those territories at the time of withdrawal of the officers. The grants are regarded as payments on account of compensation ultimately recoverable by the officers from enemy Governments, and are confined strictly to articles necessary in the maintenance of a household, within a maximum total value of £1,000. This procedure is not regarded as preferential treatment of officials, but is undertaken by the State solely in its relation of employer to those employed abroad in its service.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why special consideration should be given to officials and not to these people?

There can be no wholesale arrangements of this kind. In the case of officials, it is because the Government is their employer.

Is it not a fact that the French Government have already voted a considerable sum of money to make advances to traders of French nationality?

I have not heard of that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if His Majesty's Government has advanced to the Turkish Government the sum of £48,000 to defray the cost of repatriating Turkish soldiers, prisoners of war, from Vladivostok by Japanese steamer; and why such sum, if available out of the funds of His Majesty's Treasury, was not rather devoted to helping British merchants whose claims have not yet been satisfied by the Turkish Government?

His Majesty's Government undertook to transmit, as an act of courtesy and humanity, £48,000 supplied by the Turkish Government to the Japanese Government, to enable the latter to repatriate Turkish prisoners of war from Siberia. No British funds were involved. The second part of the question, therefore, does not arise.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the whole of the German ships handed over to this country have now been sold; if so, what tonnage of the whole has been sold to British firms, or to any firms belonging to any of our Allies; whether any ships have been sold to firms belonging to our late enemies and, if so, what tonnage; and what tonnage still remains to be sold, and what conditions are now put upon the sale of these ships?

About 85 per cent. of the tonnage allotted to this country has been sold—1,350,000 tons to British or Allied firms, and 70,000 tons to ex-enemy firms. 250,000 tons remain to be sold. There is, moreover, a further amount of about 200,000 tons, which has not yet been allotted by the Reparation Commission, but is likely ultimately to come to this country. The principle now followed is that after British shipowners have had an adequate opportunity of bidding for the ships, the market is thrown open to all comers.

Are the Board of Trade able to state whether it is proved that British ships cost three times as much to build as German ships under present conditions, as represented on former occasions in this House?

I must ask for notice of that question.

Will the Government consider the advisability of drawing up a statement giving the whole facts of the case—the number of British ships sold, the amount realised, and the people to whom they were sold—because there are many questions on the subject?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question, and I will consider it.

Have any of these ex-German ships been sold to German firms?

Is any preference given to our Allies and neutrals as against our former enemies in selling these ships?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken by the British authorities to protect British subjects arriving at New York as first and second class, as well as steerage, passengers, in view of the confusing interpretations of the new immigration law and the hardships arising therefrom?

His Majesty's Consul-General at New York is affording, and will continue to afford, British subjects every assistance. Negotiations are proceeding for the settlement of difficulties incidental to the first application of the new immigration law.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the nature of these difficulties?

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend a detailed answer if he will put down another question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the increase in the price of coal to the householder since the conclusion of the coal stoppage and the contradictory reasons assigned; and has he sufficient information at his disposal to enable him to inform the householder that a present policy of, as far as possible, doing without will be successful in bringing the producing and selling interests to a more reasonable attitude?

asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the prices charged in London to small buyers since the coal settlement; whether he is aware that prices are now from 3s. 5d. to 3s. 9d. per cwt., and that buyers of smaller quantities are even charged more; whether he is aware that contracts for quantities have been placed during last week at 46s. to 50s. a ton; and whether his Department have any powers which can compel suppliers of small quantities to the working classes to charge a reasonable price?

I would refer the hon. Members to the statement on this subject made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 1st July. The Government have no power to control the price of coal, which depends entirely on market conditions.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why the price of coal has been advanced to the householder, and why the price for business purposes remains unchanged?

The price depends upon market conditions over which the Government have no control, and I cannot give any other answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the report recently issued by Herr Linovieff, the president of the Executive of the Third Internationale, in which reference is made to the reports sent to Moscow by Herr Krassin as to the industrial situation in Great Britain and the instructions given to Krassin regarding the steps to be taken by him to foment industrial unrest, in order to stimulate the Communist movement in this country; and whether it was as the outcome of these activities that Krassin has been recalled to Russia?

I have no information as to the report referred to in the first part of the question. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Am I to understand that the hon. Member has not seen this report? Is not the Government aware that instructions have been sent from Moscow urging that all possible unrest should be caused in this country?

So far as the Board of Trade is concerned we have no information.

If this be a matter which comes under the Board of Trade, will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries and I will put down another question in a week?

Is it not a fact that the Russian Government has been too busy at home to pay much attention to this country?

asked the Minister of Transport how many officials are employed in the Finance and Statistics Department of the Ministry of Transport; and what is the total amount of salaries paid to them, inclusive of bonus?

The answer to the first part of the question is 134, and to the second £63,655. This excludes typists and messengers, but includes the part of the general staff of the Ministry which n employed in connection with this branch.

Can my hon. Friend say why, if there be such an enormously large Finance Department to look after the Ministry, it should also require another very highly paid official from, the Treasury, at £5,000 a year, to do the same thing?

The question as to the Treasury official is raised in my hon. Friend's next question.

asked the Minister of Transport what are the duties of the Treasury representative in the Ministry of Transport who receives a salary of £5,000 per annum?

I have been asked to answer this question. A statement of the duties performed by the Treasury representative at the Ministry of Transport was given on the 7th July, 1920, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Anglesey. I am sending the hon Member a copy of the answer then given.

Is it not part of the duties of this official to inquire into the large staff in the Finance and Statistics Department of the Ministry, and has he from time to time rendered any reports to the Treasury as to the enormous number of officials in the Ministry of Transport?

No, Sir; it is not one of the special duties of this official to exercise any control over the staff of the Ministry of Transport. That control is exercised through the ordinary channels.

Does this official receive a war bonus, in addition to the £5,000, and, if so, what is the amount of the bonus?

I think that there is no bonus attached to the salary, but I should like to have notice.

Who is he?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if he will give the name of the newly appointed Historical Adviser to the Foreign Office and state what are his qualifications for this post at a salary of £1,200 per annum;

(2) whether, in view of the fact that the present Secretary of State is an accomplished historical scholar, and that all entrants for the diplomatic service and the-Foreign Office are required to pass a searching examination in history, he will give examples of the historical questions which have been submitted to, or are likely to be submitted to, the Historical Adviser which are beyond the competence of officials who have passed such an examination and of the Secretary of State?

The Historical Adviser is Mr. J. W. Headlam-Morley. This gentleman, hitherto on the staff of the Education Department, and a scholar of distinguished record, has for many years past made a special study of historical questions and is the author of a considerable number of works of importance. The work of the Historical Adviser is necessarily confidential, and it would be neither in the public interest nor in accordance with precedent to discuss publicly the individual services of members of the permanent Civil Service establishment.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the salary paid to this gentleman is 50 per cent. more than is paid to the Regius Professor of History in one of the Universities, and is this gentleman 50 per cent. a better man than such men as Freeman, Froude, and Stubbs?

Is it part of the duties of this gentleman to point out the disastrous effects in the past of the revolutionary doctrines that are being preached in the present?

I do not think that that falls within the scope of his duties. I am afraid that these questions are an illustration of the extreme inconvenience of discussions on the Floor of the House as to the merits and duties of individual members of the Civil Service.

Are we to understand that this gentleman has no academic qualifications, and is a permanent civil servant employed in another Department?

No. He is not.

What was the salary previously paid to this gentleman in the Education Department?

I must have notice of that.

Where else would the hon. Gentleman suggest the appointment of a new official should be discussed if not in the House?

In discussing the merits of a gentleman who is a member of the Civil Service, I suggest that it is not the gentleman, but the Government who should be attacked.

Is the failure of the hon. Gentleman to give examples of similar appointments due to the fact that there are none such to be put forward?

rose —

We cannot now debate the matter.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Report into the staffing of the Department of Overseas Trade will be published?

It is intended to publish the Report referred to at an early date, together with the Report of the Advisory Committee of the Department on the same matter.

asked the Minister of Labour how many single women are temporarily employed in his Department in a clerical or super-clerical capacity, other than those employed in employment exchanges?

Excluding the Irish figures which are not available in time for this answer, the number of single women referred to employed in the Ministry of Labour is 1,009. This total includes 254 engaged on a casual (week to week) basis whose engagements will be determinated when the volume of the work permits, and a considerable number of young girls engaged on card indexing and manipulative processes. The total also includes 123 women who have qualified at the recent Civil Service examinations for permanent posts, and are not, therefore, liable to substitution. My right hon. Friend has repeatedly reviewed the cases of these women for substitution, and where he has agreed to retention he has satisfied himself by personal examination that the circumstances were such that discharge would inflict considerable hardship—hardship which the ex-service man would himself be the first to deprecate.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that these 123 women who have recently qualified will not be appointed permanently in the Civil Service in preference to ex-service men who are also qualified?

Will the hon. Gentleman also explain what exactly is a single woman of "super-clerical capacity"?

The answer was a rather long one to start with, and I think further explanation should be made in the Lobby.

asked the Minister of Transport if the Ministry is approaching local authorities offering to pay half the salary of local surveyors and their staffs, subject to an agreement with the Ministry as to the appointment, retention, and dismissal of the officials in question?

A circular letter, dated the 9th May, 1921, was issued to local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, explaining that under Section 17 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and Section 3, Sub-section 4 ( d ) of the Roads Act, 1920, the Minister may, by agreement with the local authorities, defray half the salary and establishment charges of their engineer or surveyor. The authorities wishing to participate in such grants were invited to submit estimates of the expenditure proposed to be incurred under these heads.

Under what Vote is this money to come before this House, so that we may have an opportunity of discussing it?

I would prefer to have notice of that question, but I think that this money comes upon the Road Fund Vote. I am not sure that that is a direct Vote, but there is a Report on it.

Does this mean that the local authorities are to surrender their right of appointing and dismissing, in order to secure this money out of the taxpayers' pocket?

Is it not a fact that these proposals are made only in the case where moneys are advanced in order to absorb unemployment?

No; that is not so The position is quite simple. In order to secure an efficient class of road surveyor, which is necessary to get the roads made up to the standard that is required, the local authorities are permitted, if they so desire, and not otherwise, to obtain a grant of half the salaries, on the appointment and the conditions being approved by the Minister.

Are the local authorities not to be trusted to appoint efficient men?

The large authorities, certainly; but it is common knowledge that many of the road surveyors in the past have been quite unfit to bring the roads up to the standard that is now required.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what were the terms agreed upon during the War by Bulgaria and Turkey for the grant of an outlet for Bulgaria to the Ægean Sea at Dedeagatch; and what is the difference between the outlet granted under this agreement and the outlet guaranteed by the Powers to Bulgaria by the Treaty signed at Sèvres on 10th August, 1920?

I do not fully comprehend the meaning of the hon. and gallant Member's question. As he is doubtless aware, the port of Dedeagatch only ceased to be in the possession of Bulgaria after the conclusion of the European War, and it was for the purpose of securing Bulgaria's economic, as distinct from her territorial access to the port, that the Treaty of 10th August, 1920, was framed. The arrangement come to between Turkey and Bulgaria during the War, although it contained certain transit stipulations, was essentially of a different nature, and was concerned mainly with the cession to Bulgaria of a strip of territory in Eastern Thrace in the vicinity of Adrianople.

Is there any reason why that strip of territory should not be continued to Bulgaria, so that she may have free access to the sea?

My hon. and gallant Friend knows that the whole question is now under consideration.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present strength of the English, French, and Italian troops, respectively, at present in Upper Silesia?

I have been asked to reply. The approximate ration strength of the British troops is 4,400. The French have a larger number and the Italians a smaller number. I cannot give the exact figures.

May I ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any of the Allies has power to reinforce its troops in the district without the consent of the other Allies?

I should require notice of that question.

The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Captain BENN :

30. To ask the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the present position in Upper Silesia?

If this question and other questions regarding Silesia can be postponed until Thursday, I shall be glad. If there is anything about which to inform the House before that day, I shall make a statement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that all sides protest against the action of the French in Silesia? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!" "Speak for yourself!"]

We shall debate that question later.

asked the Prime Minister whether the British Ambassador at Berlin has received instructions to take all steps in his power to prevent the escape from Germany of the remaining alleged war criminals upon the British list, pending their trial?

No special instructions have been sent to His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin on the subject, and His Majesty's Government do not think any are required.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of the first seven criminals for trial at Leipzig four had escaped when the trials were ultimately fixed, and does he not also know that I was told on a former occasion that the British Ambassador was fully seized of the importance of keeping his eyes on the criminals? What are we to do? Are we to go to France?

Is it not a fact that these German War criminals have only to go to Holland to obtain sanctuary, as did the ex-Kaiser?

I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

Are we to infer that the Foreign Office is quite indifferent as to whether the criminals are brought to justice or not?

No, decidedly not.

If any more criminals escape to Danzig, will they be free from arrest?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the Government will not give any pledge outside this House entailing financial advantages to Ireland before this House has had an opportunity of discussing the question?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet make any statement as to the Irish negotiations?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the grave anxiety that is felt throughout the country as to the nature of the terms offered by the Government to Mr. de Valera, he will make at the earliest possible moment a public statement as to the terms?

I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the Irish situation shortly.

In view of the remarkable statements which have appeared in the public Press as to the nature of the terms which have been offered to Mr. de Valera and to the grave anxiety which those statements have caused, will my right hon Friend make his announcement as soon as possible?

Yes. I shall make an announcement as soon as it is possible to make it without endangering the chance of a successful issue of the negotiations, but I would warn my hon. and learned Friend and others that they must not accept the accounts which have appeared in the public Press of the terms of the Cabinet offer, because all those which I have seen are inaccurate.

Is the promised statement likely to be made this week?

shook his head.

asked the Prime Minister whether the truce still obtains in Ireland pending the resumption of negotiations between Mr. de Valera and the Government?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, on the dissolution of the Central Profiteering Committee an undertaking was given that legislation should be introduced to restrain oppressive prices by trade rings, combinations, and trusts; whether an Anti-Trusts Bill will be introduced this Session; and, if not, whether he will introduce a short Measure enabling the public, in the event of excessive prices, to complain to the local health authority, and to empower that authority to act in a manner similar to the powers provided under the Profiteering Acts?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to frequent answers which have been given on this subject during the present Session. I am sending him copies.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of a short Autumn Session mainly to be devoted to the work of reviewing every form of Government outlay and drastically reducing national expenditure?

As has been repeatedly stated, the Government think it important to avoid an Autumn Session this year, especially from the point of view of enabling the Departments thoroughly to review their expenditure.

If there is no Autumn Session, will there be an opportunity for the House to discuss the result of the 20 per cent. circular of the Treasury?

I do not think those results will be achieved unless Ministers have the necessary leisure thoroughly to go through the whole expenditure of their Departments. It is really quite impossible for them to do so when there is a continuous Session from January to December.

asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take the outstanding Votes of the Navy Estimates?

I hope it will be possible to take these Estimates on Wednesday in next week.

Will that include Vote 12 as well as Vote 8?

Yes; it will, I believe.

asked the Prime Minister whether there is any precedent for voting £103,000,000 for the Army Estimates for the current year under the operation of the Guillotine without any previous discussion of this Vote by the House of Commons; and whether he will take steps to avoid this result by arranging for a day for the discussion of these Estimates?

I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the very full reply which the Leader of the House gave to him on Thursday last, to which I have nothing to add.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what I was not told on the previous occasion—whether there is any precedent for passing a Vote of £103,000,000 for Army Estimates under the Guillotine without discussion?

There is a precedent, I think, for passing Army Estimates under the Guillotine. That is the operation of the Guillotine. The Guillotine has been in operation for a good many years. I do not see any other alternative. After all, it is in the hands of the Opposition to demand the subjects to be discussed, and in one form or another, I would remind my hon. and learned Friend and others, Army expenditure has been constantly discussed, in relation to Mesopotamia and in other ways. On the Second and Third Readings of the Consolidated Fund Bill it will be possible to discuss this question.

If the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) joins me in asking for this discussion, or if the right hon. Member asks for this discussion, will there be a Debate on the Army Estimates on one of the unallocated days?

Arrangements can be made through the usual channels. If there be a general desire that this subject should be discussed on one of the remaining days, that is a question for the House, and not for the Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the names of the British representatives at the forthcoming conference in Washington?

I regret I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this subject.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will consider the desirability of the House meeting daily at an earlier hour than 2.45 p.m. in order to meet the wishes and convenience of Members who are desirous of making the business of the House their first consideration?

I do not think that the hon. Member's proposal would meet the general desire of the House or be in the public interest.

What sound business reason affecting the proceedings of the House can he advanced to justify the present sittings and risings of the House and to prevent the House sitting and rising at more reasonable hours?

There are many reasons, and perhaps more reasons than could properly be given in answer to a question. We have to make provision for sittings of Committees of the House and for the work of the Government of the country. I, at any rate, think it would be a great misfortune if our hours were such that we prevented anyone who had other business to do from attending the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Members are fooling about the House from 2 p.m. to 2.45 p.m.?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether an opportunity will be given before the closing of Supply to discuss the Supplementary Estimate for £62,00,000 recently presented?

As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the Government intend to give two additional days for Supply if the Report and Third Reading of the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Bill is obtained to-night. I regret that it is not possible under the present circumstances to give any further extra days for Supply, but if it were so desired the Supplementary Estimates could be discussed on the allotted days when the outstanding Votes are passed in Committee or Report. I have been informed, however, that it is hoped on these days to discuss the Admiralty and Labour Votes.

I must at the same time point out that the majority of the Votes on the Supplementary Estimate have already been fully discussed in the House. The Railway and Canal Agreements, Corn Production and Ministry of Labour Emergency Services, Agricultural Development Grant Votes, which make a total of £59,295,000 out of the total of £62,000,000, have been under full discussion during this Session, either in connection with Bills or Motions which have been or are before the House.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make his promised statement on the financial situation? These Supplementary Estimates naturally make serious inroads on the possible surplus.

My right hon. Friend is going to speak on the Treasury Vote to-morrow, but I rather think it is on a different topic. I do not know about any general statement on the financial situation, but if my right hon. Friend thinks it desirable to make such a statement, I suppose it will be on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he proposed to make a general statement? When will that be made?

I was not aware of it, but I am not disputing it. Therefore I am answering, without knowledge of my right hon. Friend's intentions, a question of which no notice has been given to me.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is absolutely necessary that this House should have a statement from the Treasury, in view of the greatly changed financial position since the Budget was introduced?

Apparently my right hon. Friend has already arranged to do that.

These questions are quite irrelevant to the question on the Paper.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether any practical steps are to be undertaken by the Council of the League of Nations in pressing forward throughout the countries of the League the simplification of frontier formalities?

As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Council of the League of Nations appointed a Conference on Passports, Customs Formalities, and Through Tickets in October, 1920. The resolutions and recommendations of the Conference were subsequently communicated to the Governments of the countries who are members of the League. These resolutions and recommendations have been considered by His Majesty's Government, and a reply has been sent to the League expressing general agreement with the terms both of the recommendations and the resolutions. Beyond an acknowledgment of His Majesty's Government's reply, no further communication has been received from the League, who are no doubt considering the replies from the various Government, and will be reporting further progress made shortly.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to announce that the visa on passports is definitely abolished between England and France; and whether he can state on what date this freedom of travel will come into operation between the two countries?

The visa on passports of British subjects proceeding to France and French citizens coming to this country is abolished as from to-day's date.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his very ready help in doing so much towards securing this con- cession, may I ask him if it is not the turn of Great Britain to set an example, and will the Government not make an offer to, at least, the other allied nations to abolish, with them, these visas?

That will be considered.

Is there any visa on passports to America?

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his proposals regarding agricultural wages include a proviso binding employers to pay no less than the agreed district rate of wages, or whether they admit of any elasticity?

I must ask the hon. Member to refer to Clause 4 of the Bill, and to the Amendments on the Paper in my name which deal with this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department are insisting upon the Norfolk County Council charging a minimum rent to smallholders, at Middleton, Norfolk, of £312 for a farm hired by the council for £230; that a charge of 17½ per cent. on the total rent of £312 is being required by the Ministry for management, repairs, insurances, and contingencies, instead of the 10 per cent. usually charged on such properties, which would, in this case, reduce the rent required to £285 10s. 6d.; that the property in question is in excellent condition, and the cost of any repairs will be insignificant; and whether, in order that the prospective holders may be able to work their holdings at a reasonable rental, he will reconsider the Department's attitude on this question?

The rent of £312 referred to is made up of the following items: £230 rent paid by county council, £27 0s. 3d., loan charges on £150 cost of alteration to existing buildings, new gate posts, etc., and £54 12s., or 17½ per cent., for management, repairs, contingencies, the usual allowance for such similar cases being 20 per cent., and not 10 per cent., as stated by the hon. Member. The buildings comprise a farmhouse, cottage, a fine set of premises, and a smaller set of farm buildings, and although the farmhouse is in a very good state, the condition of the other buildings is less satisfactory. In the circumstances, I do not consider that the allowance of £54 12s. is excessive, and as I am advised that the required rent of 42s. an acre is perfectly reasonable, which is proved by the fact that the applicants express their willingness to pay 45s. an acre, I regret that I am not prepared to reconsider the matter.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as head of the Department responsible for this, does he consider that management expenses and repairs justify this charge of 17½ per. cent.?

A charge of 10 per cent. may have been ample before the War for repairs and maintenance, but it is not ample now. There is usually a charge of 20 per cent. under that head, and in this case it is only 17½.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has recommended the discharges which have taken place on the Ministry's farm at Methwold, in South West Norfolk; whether these discharges include a local secretary of a trade union; and, if so, will he state the reasons for same?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but I understand that the Director of the Ministry's experimental farm at Methwold has found it possible to effect a slight reduction of staff. It is true that a man who happened to be the local secretary of the General Workers' Union was discharged, because he was considered by the Director to be one of the least efficient workers on the farm, but the decision was in no way influenced by the fact that this man was a trade union official.

Will the Minister secure information and give it to the House, as to what the particular inefficiency was for which this man was discharged? Everybody is inefficient, of course, if he happens to be — [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—

We are making reductions in staff wherever possible, for reasons of economy, and, naturally, the least efficient men are those selected for discharge.

Is it not a fact that the people living in the district consider this man to be one of your most efficient workmen?

I can only say that that is not the opinion of the responsible official on the spot.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is taking any steps to investigate the causes of diseases which have been so fatal to lambs this year; and if the mortality this year is greatly in excess of previous years?

The Ministry is carrying out a careful investigation into the causes of the diseases in question, and for purposes of observation, a member of the Ministry's veterinary staff has been stationed in the past two years during the lambing season in a specially affected district. Although in certain districts there appears to have been a heavy mortality this year, there is no reason to believe that the mortality among lambs has been generally greater during the past season than in previous years.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the allotment holders on Newton Road, Heaton, Newcastle-on-Tyne, have received notices of increases of rent from 3s. 4d. to 8s. 4d. per holder; that the town clerk of Newcastle-on-Tyne, in making this demand, states that it is done under the instructions of the Ministry of Agriculture; why such instructions are issued; if they are in accordance with the desires of the trust; and whether they can now be cancelled in view of the stringency of the times?

While it is true that the Ministry intimated to the town council that the rents of holders of D.O.R.A. allotments should be sufficient to cover the council's outgoings, I have no information as regards any increase of rents of particular groups of allotments in Newcastle. Inquiries will, however, be made, and the result communicated to my hon. Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced, as the result of inquiries, that an increase of over 100 per cent., as set out in the question, is being imposed, and will he take immediate steps in regard to it?

I have said I am having inquiries made. Until I have the result of those inquiries, I cannot possibly lay down what course I am going to take.

asked the Secretary of State for India what decision has been arrived at on the subject of the additional pension of £100 and £200 a year which it was stated in the India Office memorandum of the 3rd June, 1920, would be granted to officers of the Indian Army on the supernumerary list who had held high civil appointments?

Yes, Sir; my hon. Friend has sanctioned the grant of these pensions. He has published a statement as to the conditions on which they are to be granted, and will circulate a copy in the OFFICAL REPORT.

The following is the statement mentioned:

In the India Office

"additional pensions of £200 and £100 a year will be granted to military officers on the supernumerary list who have held certain high civil appointments."

The Secretary of State has now decided that the additional pension of £200 a year shall be granted to officers who have rendered approved service for at least three years (including continuous officiat- ing service) in civil posts which now carry a pay of Rs. 4,000 a month or more; and the additional pension of £100 a year, subject to the same conditions, where the post held now carries a pay of Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 4,000 a month. The total pensions admissible will be subject to maxima of £1,000 and £900 a year, respectively. The decision will apply, with effect from 1st April, 1919, to all officers who are eligible, with reference to the preceding paragraph, and who retired from civil employ after 4th August, 1914. It will also apply, with effect from 1st April, 1919, to officers, otherwise eligible, who retired from civil employ before 4th August, 1914, provided that during the Great War they either rendered "paid military service" or were recalled for further civil employment in India.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of his promise of inquiries into the question of adulterated jam manufactured from Dutch imported strawberries into which preservative has been introduced, he is now in a position to state what steps can be taken to ensure that such jam shall be offered for sale only under such restrictions as will disclose to intending purchasers their true character as compared with jam made from English strawberries into which no preservative has been introduced?

I have no power to require the distinctive labelling of jam made from either English or foreign fruit which contains preservatives. But imported fruit, which is found to be unwholesome or unfit for human consumption, is liable to be seized at the port of entry. The result of the inquiries so far, indicates that some of the consignments of Dutch strawberry pulp contain sulphur dioxide, a preservative frequently employed in the preservation of fruit, but in amounts which, in the circumstances, could not be regarded as injurious to health.

asked the Minister of Health what price the Department pay for bricks in the Bridgwater district, as compared with other districts; and, if the price is less, is it because the wages in this district are much lower than the rate of wages in other brickmaking districts?

The average price paid by the Department for bricks in the Bridgwater district is 81s. 2d. per thousand. This price is higher than that paid in some districts and lower than the price in others. It is difficult to make a useful comparison inasmuch as the costs of manufacture and the quality of the bricks differ widely from one district to another.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the brickmakers in this district of Bridgwater refused to pay the last increase of wages of 8s. a week, under the award of last year, but are insisting upon making the reduction of 3s. 6d. per week which comes into operation this year, and has the question of wages any effect upon the contract price paid by the Department for the manufacture of bricks?

I am not aware of those facts, but if my hon. Friend will put them down in a question I will look into the matter.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Charles Watson, of Heywood, an insured person, has been refused unemployment benefit, although genuinely out of work, on the grounds that he is a branch secretary of a trade union, a position he has held for years and which is only a spare time job?

The questions at issue in this case are whether Mr. Watson's employment as branch secretary has ordinarily been followed by him outside his ordinary working hours and whether the remuneration he receives for that work exceeds on the average 3s. 4d. a day. Benefit has been disallowed by the insurance officer and the disallowance has been upheld by the court of referees, who, however, have given Mr. Watson leave to appeal further to the Umpire should he desire to do so. We have no authority to intervene.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, as it would appear that, in respect of the reassessment of pre-War disability pensions of officers who served again in the late War, such officers are debarred from any increase of either the service or disability elements of their retired pay unless the total of such retired pay is less than the service element alone would now be under the new Regulations, thereby depriving them of all compensation for the injuries received in their former service, he will take steps to remove this injustice at once; and whether, as the pre-War Warrant, 1913, Article 564, laid down that these pensions were never to be less than the half pay of the rank, he will apply the new scale of half pay to such cases, pending the settlement of the new standard of disability retired pay, which it has been stated is still under consideration?

As the reply involves a somewhat length explanation, I propose, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

It is necessary in this matter to distinguish (1) officers disabled before the present War and again disabled by service in it, (2) officers disabled in former wars and not further disabled, and (3) officers disabled by peace service before the present War, and not further disabled.

The position of officers in the first class is not as appears to be suggested in the question. It was fully considered by the Select Committee on Pensions and is provided for in the Royal Warrants of the 1st August, 1917, and 2nd July, 1920; such officers generally gain considerable advantage so long as their disablement by Great War service continues.

Officers in the second class can be dealt with under the Warrant of the 19th December, 1919, the general effect of which is to give the disablement addition allowed by the Warrant of 1917 to officers disabled in former wars and still suffering from the effects of such disablement.

With regard to officers in the third class, I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the last part of the reply given to him on the 28th June by the Financial Secretary of the War Office.

Article 564 of the Pay Warrant, 1913 or 1914, only entitles the officers to whom it applies to the half pay rates laid down in that Warrant, and not to any higher rates introduced subsequent to the officer's retirement; and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to recommend either as an interim measure or otherwise, that the much increased rates of 1919 should be conferred as a permanent pension on officers who retired before the present War.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of pensioners in the North-West Division of Lancashire and in Scotland, respectively; and the relative population in each case?

The approximate number of non-commissioned officers and men in receipt of pension or allowance in the North-Western Region (which includes Lancashire) is 165,000, and in Scotland, 100,000. The population of these regions, as shown in the census figures for 1911, is

asked the Minister of Pensions where his decentralisation scheme with regard to the issue of pensions is first to be tried; and the reasons which have actuated him in choosing the particular locality?

My right hon. Friend has decided to try the decentralisation of the issue of pensions in Scotland, because that part of the United Kingdom is administratively and geographically most suitable for the purposes of the experiment.

Taking into consideration the comparative figures and the fact that where decentralisation takes place it means the employment of 500 or 600 extra staff in the district, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration the claims of the North-Western Division for decentralisation?

I am not prepared to recommend that this change should be tried in Lancashire. If my hon. Friend will read the Report of the Departmental Committee, he will see that this is a highly technical subject—and I was chairman of the sub-committee that dealt with it—but Lancashire is already suffering in its pensions administration from the recent great shortage of offices in Manchester, and to throw an additional burden on offices already overburdened would be a great mistake from the point of view of the pensioners.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in introducing the War Pensions Bill, he has taken into consideration the fact that some 40,000 new pensions were granted this year to men who applied; and whether, if this is so, the new measure will penalise those ex-service men who are developing maladies due to war service long after the Armistice but who have carefully abstained from making any claim for State assistance until their need is absolutely urgent?

Full consideration was given to the fact stated. My right hon. Friend is, however, satisfied, for reasons which have been explained in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill and subsequently in Committee, that the period of seven years is sufficiently long to prevent the disqualification of claims genuinely based on disability due to military service.

Surely there must be cases where men underwent operations and yet are able for the time being, and may be for four or five years, to follow their employment and yet later on may develop, as a result of the weakness from the operation, a condition in which it is impossible for them to earn their own living and when they really want to receive the bounty of the State?

My hon. and gallant Friend's case of four or five years would be covered because our limit is seven years. If the pensioner is in receipt of some regular pension, even a small one, he is entitled to full treatment allowance and hospital treatment at any time, indefinitely, for the rest of his life, and I would point out that we are giving seven years, whereas in the case of France they are giving only four years, and in the case of the United States of America two years.

Will the hon. and gallant Member, in thinking this matter over, take no notice of the agitation outside about economy where the interests of these fellows who have defended the State are concerned?

I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we are paying no attention whatever to the demands for economy so far as the rights of pensioners are concerned, and we are granting better terms than those given by our neighbours and Allies.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the annual cost of the Admiralty yacht, and whether, in the interests of economy, it could now be dispensed with?

The actual cost of the Admiralty yacht is mainly for fuel and other stores consumed on cruises of inspection. This amount is very variable, but the average of the two financial years completed since the Armistice is £9,820. This is apart from expenditure on dockyard repairs. Owing to the fact that the yacht was laid up throughout the War a considerable expenditure had to be incurred in refitting her for service. This, averaged over the two years since the Armistice, amounted to £15,960 per annum. No additional officers or naval ratings, with the exception of six men for care and maintenance, are borne on the strength of the Navy for service in the yacht, as they form part of the complement of fighting ships to be mobilised on the outbreak of War, and would equally be required if the yacht were not in existence. Great importance is attached by the Admiralty to the facilities which the yacht affords for the Board to keep in personal touch with the fleet and naval establishments generally, and it is not considered that it would be either desirable or economical to dispense with her.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the great dissatisfaction that exists among ex-service men in the Civil Service with regard to the order of their dismissal, he will arrange that in all Departments dismissals shall take place in the order that is being observed in Woolwich Arsenal, that is to say, non-service personnel first and disabled men last?

I have no reason to believe that the procedure recommended by the Lytton Committee is not being carried out when reductions of staff in Government Departments have to be effected. Subject to departmental requirements, preferential treatment is accorded to ex-service men and among ex-service men to disabled men.

Is the hon. Member aware of the extraordinary dissatisfaction amongst ex-service men arising from the fact that the recommendations of the Report are not being carried out by the heads of the Department?

I am not aware of any such widespread dissatisfaction as that to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and, as I have already stated in my answer, the recommendations of the Report are, as far as the Treasury is aware, being conscientiously carried out.

Is the hon Member aware that—

The hon. and gallant Member is repeating his original question. If he has any information to contribute, he should send it to the Treasury.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government agree definitely to the principle of equal status for European and Indian British subjects in all Crown Colonies?

The question of the status of Indian British subjects in the Colonies is, in my opinion, one of too great importance and difficulty to be discussed within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question. I would refer the hon. Member to what the Secretary of State said in his speech on the Colonial Office Vote as to the principles by which we must be guided in trying to solve this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information regarding hostilities between the tribesmen of Ibn Rashid, Emir of Hail, and the tribesmen of Northern Hejaz; whether these hostilities have any connection with the Wahibi movement or with Ibn Saud; and whether there is any alliance or understanding between the respective Emirs of Hail and Nejd?