asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Muza Kasim Pasha El Husseini, ex-mayor of Jerusalem, who is proceeding on behalf of a Moslem committee from Palestine to various capitals of Europe to protest against British and Allied policy in Palestine, has been received in audience by the Pope; whether the British diplomatic representative at the Vatican was present at the interview; and whether this visit to the Pope was authorised by the British Government?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second and third parts in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Indian soldiers are being placed on duty to prevent Mohammedans from the free and unrestrained exercise of their religious rites in Jerusalem?

I have no information that Indian soldiers are being so employed, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with further details, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Is it not a fact that, ever since the day of General Allenby's entry into Jerusalem, Christian guards have been placed over the Christian holy places, and Indian Moslem soldiers over the Moslem holy places, to replace the Turkish troops who formerly watched over those holy places?

I am afraid I cannot speak with personal knowledge, but if my hon. Friend wishes to ask a question with the object of getting an answer, perhaps he will put down a question.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Consortium views with sympathy their promotion of loans purely for productive purposes in China; and whether, in view of the importance of stimulating trade, it has since its establishment taken any practical steps and, if so, what in that direction?

I am uncertain as to the precise scope of the question. The Consortium is not immediately concerned with private enterprise in China, which does not involve a foreign public issue and a Chinese Government or Provincial guarantee, but it views with entire sympathy the promotion of approved productive undertakings, and if its assistance is required, would, I am informed, be prepared to consider the grant of loans for such purposes. The Consortium, which a Chinese National Group has been invited to join, was founded primarily for the purpose of procuring for the Chinese Government, by international co-operative action, the capital necessary for a programme of economic reconstruction and improved communication. An offer of financial assistance has already been made to the Chinese Government, but they have not as yet intimated their desire to take advantage of this offer, and it is not the policy of the Consortium to force a loan upon China.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the desirability of Great Britain taking the lead, in the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations, in proposing the closing of all foreign post offices on Chinese soil as a friendly means of showing encouragement to China and approving officially the admitted excellence of the Chinese postal service?

His Majesty's. Government fully recognise the efficiency of the present administration of the Chinese postal service, and they are prepared, on certain conditions of a reasonable nature, to afford their sympathetic support to the Chinese Government, should the latter bring forward a proposal for the abolition of foreign postal agencies in China.

Is it not the case that the United States and ourselves favour the closing of all foreign post offices on Chinese soil, providing the Powers are unanimous, and does anyone except Japan disagree?

I should not like to answer for others besides ourselves. His Majesty's Government is favourable to the change.

Does that apply only to post offices in the interior of China, or to the Treaty ports as well?

I think it applies to the whole of them. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of the question?

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Mackay Treaty of 1902 with China is still binding on the contracting parties; whether, in view of the fact that China executed, in 1903, identical treaties with the United States of America and Japan, it is competent for her, once she has notified all treaty Powers to that effect, to impose forthwith a 12 per cent. import tariff and 7½ per cent. export tariff, and abolish all likin or internal trade taxation; and whether, if the answer is in the affirmative, the Government will consider the question of friendly co-operation and assistance to China, so as to expedite the consolidation of all trade taxation in China and to stimulate commercial and industrial expansion generally.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second, Article VIII of the Treaty does not come into force until all the Powers entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment in China have entered into the engagements contained in that Article. His Majesty's Government are fully prepared to co-operate in the most friendly manner with the Chinese Government, and were indeed ready to take the initiative in the matter, but the present disturbed political situation in the country clearly renders any such move premature for the time being.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the visa is now abolished with France and Belgium, he has been able to make any reduction at all in the staff which attended to this particular operation?

Instructions have been issued for the closing of all Passport Control Offices in France and Belgium, except at Paris, Brussels, and Antwerp. The expenses of these three offices will be reduced by one-half.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the Governments of the United States, Switzerland, and Holland, respectively, with a view to the mutual abolition of the visa; and, if not, whether he is able to assure the House that such negotiations will be put into operation at the very earliest opportunity?

Representations have not been made by His Majesty's Government to the Governments in question. It is important that the results following the abolition of the visa in the case of France and Belgium should be carefully considered.

Are we waiting for other countries to make application to us, and is it not about time that we ourselves took the initiative?

I think that we ought first to ascertain the result of the change which has been made in the case of Belgium and France.

As far as Belgium is concerned, has not the change already been found to be highly satisfactory?

As far as my information goes that is so.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Bavarian Government has been putting great difficulties in the way of British travellers owing to the fact that a separate visa is required in addition to that necessary for Germany; and whether he can give a promise to take this matter up direct with the authorities in question and endeavour at the earliest moment to put an end to the delays and annoyances which these regulations have caused?

This matter has been brought to my notice, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin has been instructed to take it up with the German Government.

Is there any result so far?

I think that we have not received any reply.

Is it a fact that British subjects have been arrested because of non-compliance with the passport regulations?

I have not heard of that.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, by instructions of His Majesty's Government, the Eastern Telegraph Company have, within the last month or two, paid over to the Turkish Government the sum of —350,000 sterling, being the accumulated amount of the part of the receipts accruing to the Turkish Government and due by the Eastern Telegraph Company since the Armistice; and whether this money should have been re tained in part payment of reparations due by the Turkish Government to British subjects?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Gateshead on the 3rd instant.

asked the Under secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether 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 Vladivostock by Japanese steamer, and why was not such sum, if available out of the funds of His Majesty's Treasury, devoted to helping British merchants whose claims have not yet been satisfied by the Turkish Government?

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to identical questions put by the hon. Member for East Islington and the hon. and gallant Member for Gateshead on 25th July and 2nd August.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider carefully and sympathetically the claims of these British subjects to treatment somewhat different from that which they have been getting?

The whole matter is under consideration.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether an opportunity will be taken before Parliament rises of making a statement, which may be subject to Debate, on the decisions of the Supreme Council now sitting in Paris?

Pending the return of my right hon. Friend, I am not in a position to make any statement.

Are we to understand that this House will have no opportunity before the Recess of discussing the decisions of the Supreme Council?

If the hon. Gentleman would understand what I believe is plainly conveyed in my answer—and I do not know that I could put it more expressly—he would understand that until the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs return from the Council, and until the Council's deliberations are over, I can make no statement.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have any information in connection with a recent resolution placed before the United States Congress to convert two battle cruisers into aeroplane-carrying ships, and demanding suspension of work on capital ships now under construction?

I have been asked to reply to this question. From the official report of proceedings in the United States Congress it appears that a Bill to authorise the suspension of construction on six battleships and three battle cruisers, and the conversion of two of the latter into aircraft carriers, is now before Congress. No further details are available.

Is it not a fact that even if this Bill be passed, the United States will still be ahead of us in new construction?

That is a fact.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government can see its way favourably to consider the appeal of British Subjects in Japan that British nationality may be assured to their descendants if they are registered at birth with the British embassy and so continue to register themselves throughout their residence in Japan; and whether registration at a British consulate will assure the same status should the British child be born at a distance from the embassy?

This question is already receiving the favourable consideration of His Majesty's Government.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state what steps have been taken to improve the accommodation for the sick-berth staff at the Royal Naval Hospital, Plymouth?

It has been decided to construct new quarters for the Sick Berth staff at the Royal Naval Hospital, Plymouth, as soon as financial conditions permit.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to give the decision of the Admiralty with regard to lieutenant-wardmasters being appointed as secretaries to the three home hospitals; to commissioned wardmasters being borne in the small hospitals in the three general depots; and to one additional warrant wardmaster being appointed to each of the three home port hospitals?

I am not yet in a position to state the decision arrived at, but I hope it will be possible to announce it in the Fleet Orders next week.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether cabin accommodation, where spare cabins are always available in small ships, can be placed at the disposal of the engineer officer of the ship whatever his status?

The allocation of cabins is covered by the Rules embodied in Article 850 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, which it is not proposed to amend.

Is it not a fact that the engineer-in-charge has always a large amount of writing to do in connection with the ship's register, the making of various returns, and so forth, and is it not reasonable that such an officer should have a separate berth for the performance of such duties?

I presume that that was taken into account.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether £6,000 is to be expended in fitting out H.M.S. "Victorious" as a harbour depot ship for engine-room artificers; and whether this amount could be saved by full utilisation of the very satisfactory mess already in existence in His Majesty's Naval Barracks at Devonport?

£6,000 is the amount which will be spent by the Dockyard during the present financial year for the purpose stated in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part of the question, the object of adding the "Victorious" to the "Indus" establishment is not to improve the messing accommodation for the supernumerary engine-room artificers, but to secure the most efficient and economical use of the Port resources for repair work. This will be done by reverting to the arrangements which existed before the War and by concentrating in the Mechanical Training Establishment the whole of the repair work of the Port which is not don* in the Dockyard.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this new arrangement has created a considerable amount of dissatisfaction amongst engine-room artificers?

I am not aware of it.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many officers are now employed in the Reserve Fleet; on how many occasions, respectively, they have flown their flags at sea since their appointments; and whether their staffs are at full strength in each case?

I assume my Noble and gallant Friend refers to Flag Officers, in which case the answer given to his question on the 1st December, 1920, still holds good.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to state the names to be given to the new battle cruisers?

No, Sir.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that coastguard pensioners in Ireland are not given leave, although 21 days' leave per annum was promised when they signed on in the new force, and that the sleeping accommodation at many stations is very inferior; and whether he will take steps to remove these grievances?

The conditions in Ireland have for some time past rendered it impossible to grant the coastguard their usual 21 days' leave per annum, and it has not yet become practicable to resume the normal routine. It has been found necessary in many cases temporarily to concentrate the crews of the Irish coastguard stations, with consequent discomfort to the men and separation from their families, for which, however, they receive compensating money allowances. If, as it is hoped, the conditions in Ireland remain settled, then the usual leave will be granted and accommodation carefully scrutinised and improved.

Will the leave which was not given in 1921 be given in 1922–23?

I cannot answer that question. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that leave is always subject to the exigencies of the service.

When a coastguard is given compensation, is the compensation actually paid, or is the amount levied on the rates, and has the coastguard to wait until the levy is paid by the town council?

I require notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether it will be possible to dispense with one of the two joint permanent secretaries to the Ministry at an early date;

(2) why the salary of one of the joint permanent secretaries to the Ministry has lately been doubled from £1,500 to £3,000 a year?

When the Ministry of Labour was first formed at the end of 1916, the staff of the Department included a permanent secretary and also the Chief Industrial Commissioner. In 1919 the attempt was made to combine the duties attaching to the two in one and the same office. Experience proved that with the great increase in the volume of business the work could not be effectively done by one officer; and in April, 1920, arrangements were made to free Sir David Shackleton from the duties attaching to the permanent head of the Office, and to enable him to devote himself exclusively to the work required of Chief Labour Adviser. These arrangements involved the appointment of a separate secretary of the Ministry. It was further decided by the Government to assign both officers appointed the salary of £3,000 a year, in common with the permanent heads of other offices included in the category of first class Departments. The salary and rank attaching to the Chief Labour Adviser are personal to the present holder, and will be reviewed when the post becomes vacant.

Is it not true-that when the Government desired to dispense with the services of the Chief Industrial Commissioner it was on the ground that his work was redundant?

I cannot say, but I should not think so. Sir David Shackleton was both Permanent Secretary and Chief Commissioner, and that proved too much; even for him.

Is it not true that Sir George Askwith's services were dispensed with, on the ground that his work was redundant?

That was before-my time and I cannot answer.

If these two offices are so necessary why review the position, as suggested?

The Chief Labour Adviser's salary is personal to the present holder of the office and will be reviewed when he ceases to hold the post.

Why review the position when they are both necessary?

Is it not an enormous increase to double the salaries since last year?

Has my right hon. Friend any record of the salary earned by this particular official before he was. appointed to his present office?

There are two persons concerned, one the Permanent Secretary and the other the Chief Labour Adviser.

I was referring to Sir David Shackleton?

I think he for a time, in 1919, combined both offices, but that proved impossible. What his salary was then I cannot say.

Did he not receive £250 a year as a trade union official?

I do not know what his salary was, but I desire to say that it is impossible for me to place too great a value on his services.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the opinion is held by county councils that the appointment of regional medical officers at £1,000 a year was waste of money, their duties being simply to receive reports of tuberculous cases to pass on to the councils' officers; whether his attention has been called to this matter by the County Councils' Association; and whether he will now review and reconsider, in view to their early abolition, all these appointments?

No, Sir; only a very small part indeed of the time of a regional medical officer of the Ministry is required for the duty presumably referred to in the question of securing the due preparation and transmission to tuberculosis officers of the reports which insurance practitioners are required to furnish. As to their main duties, I would refer my hon. Friend to previous answers and to the statement made by me on presenting the Estimates of my Department on the 12th May.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, notwithstanding the statement he made, the Chairman of the Nottinghamshire County Council the other day declared that these officers had no duties whatever to perform, and that their salaries were therefore wasted?

I do not think that the Chairman of the Nottinghamshire County Council knows what duties these gentlemen have to perform.

asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commis- sioner of Works, if he will state how many of the temporary buildings erected during the War in the parks and open spaces of London have so far been demolished, apart from the temporary buildings on the Horse Guards Parade; whether, in addition to the temporary buildings erected in the parks, a large number of temporary buildings have also been erected on the roofs and quadrangles of many Government offices; whether any of these temporary buildings have been demolished; and what is the approximate floor space area of the temporary buildings still in use by the Civil Service in the London district?

Apart from the huts on the Horse Guards Parade, the only temporary building which has been removed is that which was erected in the grounds of Lancaster House. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the third part in the negative. The approximate floor space of all the temporary buildings in the London area so far as my Department is concerned is 1,000,000 superficial feet, of which it is anticipated that more than half will be vacated during the next six months.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to see that the country generally knows the efforts at economy indicated by him?

Yes, Sir.

asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it would be possible without further delay to remove from St. James's Park the large buildings now used as refreshment rooms and to arrange that the officials should obtain necessary refreshment from the many restaurants and eating-houses in the neighbourhood?

The question of the demolition of the canteen building in St. James's Park is receiving close consideration, though I fear it will not be possible to secure its vacation before the end of the year, by which date the two other buildings in the bed of the lake will be vacated. The three buildings will then be removed and the ground reinstated in due course.

Why cannot these officials take their refreshments at the ordinary places of refreshment? Why should the vacating be delayed till the end of the year?

From motives of economy and good management, I do not think that it would be satisfactory to take away one building till we can take away the three.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman really take into serious consideration during the Vacation the removal of these buildings in the parks, seeing, as he has said, that there are immense temporary buildings on the roofs of Government buildings which can be temporarily retained?

Yes; my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner is fully alive to the matter, and is doing everything he possibly can.

asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can give an early date as to when the huts in Regents Park, at present utilised by the Royal Air Force, will be vacated and removed, thereby returning to the public a considerable amount of open space to which previous to the War they had access?

The buildings to which the hon. Member refers are now occupied by the Imperial and Foreign Corporation, Limited, for the disposal of aircraft equipment and stores under a contract made with the Ministry of Munitions. The question of their continued occupation is at present under consideration with the Treasury.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, as a result of his interviews with those representing mistresses of households and with the Central Advisory Committee on Juvenile Employment, he will say if he has decided that this and similar advisory committees should cease to use Government employment exchanges for their meetings and notepaper of his Ministry for their correspondence; and if he has discountenanced the issue from labour exchanges of conditions under which the young person should accept domestic service?

This matter is receiving my careful consideration. But in the meantime, I may tell my hon. and gallant Friend that on 3rd August I issued an instruction calling the special attention of all concerned to the fact that Juvenile Advisory Committees deal only with boys and girls under the age of 18. Further, I issued on 8th August an Order on the question of domestic service and claimants for unemployment insurance benefit. That is rather a long document, and I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as part of this answer. I have also laid it down that no document shall be issued by an advisory committee with the headline "Ministry of Labour" without previously having been seen by my responsible officials or myself.

The following is the Order:

asked the Minister of Labour how many women are now registered at Employment Exchanges as domestic servants?

The total number of women registered at Employment Exchanges for all classes of domestic service at 8th July—the latest date for which figures are available—was 54,790.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these Employment Exchanges discourage domestic servants from accepting domestic service?

No, certainly not. That is an allegation I have met frequently, and to which I desire to give an emphatic contradiction. On the contrary, the success which has been secured since the beginning of the year, in placing large numbers of domestic servants and in filling places—I gave the number in the recent Debate—shows that their efforts are in an entirely contrary direction.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is no reason whatever for these exchanges providing places for domestic servants?

It is absolutely a waste of money.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that, when the Unemployment Insurance Act was passing through Parliament, it was never contemplated that when a dispute had endeda man who desired to resume work, but who could not for reasons connected with the industry, should continue to be disqualified for benefit; whether, in the absence of power to alter the umpire's decision on this point, he will submit a short Bill to amend the Act; whether he is aware that very many miners are being disqualified for benefit on this decision of the umpire, although the colliery in which they were formerly employed is not in disrepair and is actually working and non-employment is due to other causes; and whether he will give instructions that where a miner is unable to resume work he shall be paid benefit if the colliery is not in disrepair?

The provision referred to has been, since the original Act of 1911, that an insured person who is unemployed by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute is disqualified for receiving benefit so long as the stoppage of work continues. The determining factor is not the termination of the dispute, but whether there is a continuance of the stoppage caused by the dispute. There is no power to give instructions that claims to benefit shall be admitted where decisions have already been given in the contrary sense by the umpire. If in any particular case there are fresh facts which were not before the umpire when his decision was given, it is always open to the parties to apply for a re-hearing.

Who supplies the evidence on which the umpire decides whether a pit is, or is not, in disrepair, as a result of the stoppage? May I further ask, does he take evidence in the case of each colliery and each seam in the colliery?

In regard to the first part of the question, I must have notice. As regards the second, I imagine the decision of the umpire will be made applicable to all similar cases. If there are any new facts they shall be taken into consideration.

As this is a very important decision, may I ask another question? If, as the result of a stoppage, a contract is lost, and if after the stoppage has ended the cause disappears, is it to be taken then that, following on the loss of the contract, the men concerned would not get unemployment benefit in the light of this interpretation?

That question should be put on the Paper.

Has the right hon. Gentleman arranged a conference between employers and representatives of the workpeople respecting the principle involved in this question?

That is another question. I am endeavouring to see if I cannot in due course amend the Act to meet cases where men have lost their employment because of trade disputes in which they are. not directly concerned. I have not made reference to that here, because this deals with the umpire's decision.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in consequence of the present large volume of unemployment, the emoluments of branch secretaries of unions administering the Unemployment Insurance Act under arrangements with his Department have been increased to a point which, in the event of their being thrown out of their ordinary employment, disqualifies them from benefit; whether, in normal circumstances, the emoluments of these branch secretaries never reach a figure which would disqualify them from benefit; and whether, in view of the fact that they are simply doing extra duties outside their ordinary employment which would otherwise have to be performed by Departmental officials, he will consider the possibility of amending the Act to enable these men to secure, during this abnormal period, the benefit for which they pay in contributions?

I am unaware on what basis trade union branch secretaries are paid for the duties they perform on behalf of their associations in connection with the administration of State unemployment benefit or otherwise. I understand, however, that cases have occurred in which claims to State unemployment benefit made by certain branch secretaries have been disallowed on the ground that the remuneration they have received for their secretarial duties has exceeded on the average 3s. 4d. a day the maximum allowed by the Act. This maximum is of general application, irrespective of the nature of the work upon which the person claiming benefit is engaged.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has recently received a deputation from the Guild of Insurance Officials asking that a joint industrial council should be set up for the regulation of certain matters affecting their calling; and what answer was he able to make?

I have not received a deputation from the guild on this subject since January last, but after that deputation I took steps to ascertain the attitude of the insurance companies on this matter. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, these councils can only be set up with the consent of both the interested parties, but I am afraid that my inquiries did not lead me to suppose that it was possible to set up a joint industrial council of the normal industrial type. The Guild of Insurance officials was duly informed of the position.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a position to record any improvement in the. prospects of ex-service men and Government trainees in the building trade; and how long will be required, at the present rate, to absorb all the ex-service men of all classes whose names are now down for employment in the building trade?

I have already brought to the notice of my Noble Friend the resolution passed recently at Sheffield by the Employers' Federation, but sufficient time has not elapsed since the employers then reaffirmed their intention of proceeding with the scheme to enable me to judge the improvement which I hope will follow. I hope to have an opportunity of seeing the employers' federations next week.

Can I have a reply to the last part of the question?

As to the time required? No, I cannot say.

Is it a fact that these men are still being prevented from obtaining employment by reason of the attitude of the building trade unions?

It is perfectly fair to say that the operatives have undoubtedly cold-shouldered these men.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman consult the Prime Minister as to the introduction of legislation to prevent this restraint of trade?

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many ex-service men have now been settled on small holdings and at what cost; how many applicants are receiving preliminary training; how many others have been approved; and whether all those approved will be settled in small holdings if they still so desire?

11,827 ex-service men and 1,302 civilians have already been settled on small holdings by county councils under the Government's Land Settlement scheme, and it is estimated that 4,300 additional applicants will be settled on land which has been acquired but is not yet let. The total estimated cost of settling these 17,429 men is £14,660,000. In addition, 1,015 ex-service men and 253 civilians have been settled since the Armistice on land acquired by county councils before the War; and 638 ex-service men and 133 civilians have been settled on the Ministry's Farm Settlements at a total net capital cost to date of £645,000. The numbers of ex-service men placed in training by the Ministry is 4,973. I would point out, however, that the training scheme was not primarily intended for prospective small-holders and the Ministry has no information as to the number who may have applied for small holdings to county councils. Of those who have completed their training 1,777 have already been absorbed into agriculture. The total number of ex-service men provisionally approved as suitable who applied for holdings before 1st December, 1920, and who have not yet been provided with holdings, is stated to be 14,858, and it is hoped that those who still desire holdings will be provided for in due course.

I would suggest that an answer of such length should be circulated in the OFFICIAL EEPORT. It takes up too much time of the House.

asked the Minister of Health (1) whether the Royal Commission which is to be set up to inquire into the government of Greater London will be empowered to consider the constitution of an authority with jurisdiction over an area larger than that covered by the Metropolitan and City police districts, and having powers of dealing with town planning, transport, and the adjustment of financial relations between existing authorities, as recommended by the Departmental Committee on unhealthy areas;

(2) whether, in connection with the proposed Royal Commission on the government of Greater London, he will consider "the advisability of authorising the preparation of a general plan providing for the future development of London and the surrounding districts, including the lines of main roads and the general allocation of different areas for the purposes for which they are best adapted?

asked the Minister of Health what will be the terms of reference to the Royal Commission which it is proposed to appoint on the question of local government in the Greater London area; how many members the Commission will consist of; and if it is proposed that local authorities in the area concerned will be represented on the Commission?

asked the Prime Minister whether, before any further steps are taken with regard to the appointment of a Royal Commission on the question of the government of Greater London, he will, in compliance with his reply to the deputation of the London County Council on the 9th December, 1920, and in deference to the expressed wishes of all the county councils for the home counties, give these county councils the same right of audience which was afforded to the London County Council in order to explain their views on the question of the appointment of a Royal Commission?

asked the Minister of Health whether he can now state the names of the members of the Royal Commission to be appointed to consider the question of the government of Greater London; when it is proposed the sittings of the Commission shall commence; and whether, in view of the fact that many large cities are seeking to extend their boundaries, involving thereby considerable waste and extravagance of local rates, and many smaller towns are desiring to become county boroughs, he will include in the terms of reference to such Royal Commission that they shall inquire into the question of local government, at least as it affects areas and boundaries throughout the whole country?

asked the Minister of Health if he can state the terms of reference to the Committee of Inquiry into the government of Greater London; whether it will include reference to the equalisation of rates for services that are common to wealthy and poor districts alike; and, if so, whether, having regard to the present serious financial position of some of the poorer Metropolitan districts, in which the poor are required to maintain the poor, he will expedite the work of this Committee so that their Report may be issued at the earliest possible date?

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received communications from a large number of local authorities in Greater London protesting against the appointment of a Royal Commission on the question of the government of Greater London, and suggesting that the matter can be dealt with by a conference convened by him; and whether he is prepared, before any further steps are taken in connection with the appointment of a Royal Commission, to consider the advisability of adopting the suggestion?

asked the Minister of Health whether, before consenting to appoint a Royal Commission to consider the question of the government of Greater London, he considered the burden of the rates which, together with Imperial taxation, has made the position of the ratepayers and taxpayers one of great difficulty and reduced the local authorities to practical insolvency; and whether, in the face of this critical condition of local government finance, he is still prepared to allow the county councils and the numerous local authorities concerned to spend large sums in a protracted inquiry as to the boundaries of London?

I hope to announce the terms of reference to the Royal Commission and the membership shortly. I may say at once, however, that it is intended to include in the terms of reference the subject of the distribution as between different areas of local burdens, and that the Commission will be an impartial, body, and will not contain members, representative of the various authorities, or interests concerned. The suggestion that the matter should be dealt with by a conference was considered, but in view of the number of the authorities concerned, and the complexity of the issues, the Government came to the conclusion, that inquiry by a Royal Commission would be the most satisfactory procedure. It is not proposed to extend the scope of the inquiry so as to cover other parts of the country.

What will be the expenses of this Commission to the local taxpayers?

I cannot calculate that. at the moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer Question 39?

I think it is covered in the answer I have just given.

asked the Minister of Health if, having regard to the disappointment of the citizens of Walthamstow, who subscribed a large sum of money for the purpose of raising their local council to the status of a borough by incorporation, he can see his way to remove the embargo-of his Department upon their desires if an undertaking is given that no extra powers will be sought beyond those already possessed, or which he may agree to give, until the report of the inquiry into the government of Greater London has been completed?

I am sorry that I cannot meet the wishes of my hon. Friend. In view of the decision of the Government with regard to the Greater London inquiry, it is clearly undesirable to proceed at the present time with the scheme for the incorporation of Walthamstow

asked the Minister of Health what were the amounts paid in the years 1914 to 1919 respectively, as grants in aid to the London voluntary hospitals in consideration of their treating sick and wounded soldiers and sailors?

The amount paid during the period in question to the London voluntary hospitals for the maintenance and treatment of soldier patients was about £880,000. I regret that I cannot give the sum paid in respect of each year, but I hope this will be sufficient for my hon. Friend's purpose.

asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to publish the evidence given before Lord Cave's Committee on hospitals and if so, when this will be done?

In view of the cost of printing it is not proposed to publish the voluminous evidence taken by Lord Cave's Committee.

asked the Minister of Health (1) what contracts are at present running with or for the Government for the supply of building materials; what is the estimated loss at current prices upon such contracts on completion; what contracts, if any, have been cancelled; what is the total compensation paid or to be paid in respect thereof;

(2) what, if any, stocks of material for house-building purposes have been purchased by or on behalf of the Government and which have been found unsuitable for the purposes for which they were bought; what is the total cost of the same; what part has been sold and with what result in profit or loss; and what is the estimated loss in respect of the whole of the stocks?

On the question of building material held on Government account, I cannot, within the limits of a Parliamentary answer, go beyond the information as to approximate total commitments which I recently gave in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Tottenham, nor do I think it would be in the public interest to make detailed statements on the subject of quantities, prices, and the other matters referred to in the questions while negotiations for disposal are in progress. No fresh contracts have been entered into for a considerable time past.

May I take it no further contracts will be made for building materials, and that the local authorities will be allowed to make their own arrangements?

The local authorities will not be allowed to make their own arrangements. No fresh contracts are being entered into.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has recently sanctioned the erection of a further 456 houses, more or less, in Newcastle-on-Tyne; and whether he can now see his way to grant the application of the Middlesbrough county borough council for the erection of 300 more houses, seeing that the housing shortage and resulting overcrowding is as severe in Middlesbrough as in Newcastle-on-Tyne?

I have agreed to tenders being obtained for the erection of a further 300 to 400 houses at Newcastle-on-Tyne. In view of the large number of houses contracted for at Middlesbrough which is still to be completed, I have advised the local authority that their proper course is to concentrate at present on the houses already sanctioned, and to leave open the question of additional houses till these are nearer completion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, owing to his refusal to sanction these houses, a number of bricklayers and others in the building trade are out of work, and receiving unemployment pay?

They might go to work at Newcastle, then.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give some statement as to the general allocation of the rationing of houses throughout the country, so that everybody will know what it is?

I am looking into that question very carefully. It is quite impossible to make a general statement upon the subject here. Every case must be dealt with as it arises.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information as to the alleged sweating among women in the catering trade in Newcastle-upon-Tyne; whether the labour conditions and rates of pay are better or worse on the average in Newcastle-on-Tyne as compared with other towns and cities in the United Kingdom; if he is aware that it is customary in some hotels and restaurants to pay nominal wages in consideration of the tips received; that in certain instances no wages at all are received, and in others attendants actually pay a weekly amount to be allowed to serve and receive no wages whatever; and, if so, will he take steps to prevent the defamation of this city?

Representations have been made to me as to the wages of women in the catering trades in Newcastle-on-Tyne and other districts. As was recently stated by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I have had certain inquiries made, and am making further inquiry with particular reference to conditions in Newcastle.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer parts 2 and 3 of the questions, and at the same time will he see whether he can devise or suggest any means to prevent the dissemination of mischievous half-truths in industrial areas, causing labour unrest?

Has anything been done with reference to setting up a Trade Board?

That has been considered, but we have not yet gone to any length with regard to it. The matters referred to in the second and third parts of the other question will be taken into consideration, but we have not yet reached a definite stage. In regard to the last part of the supplementary question as to the dissemination of half-truths, I fear I should find myself very busy if I undertook to consider that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the two definite queries put in parts two and three of the question?

If my hon. Friend says that these are the facts, I accept his statement.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the final Report of the Joint Labour Committee on the cost of living; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps to meet the criticisms contained in the Report of the retail prices index number published by his Department?

The Report referred to by my hon. Friend is being examined, and the figures contained in it are being compared in detail with the figures prepared in the Ministry of Labour. When the statistical examination of the Report has been completed, I shall be able to consider what steps should be taken to meet the criticisms contained in the Report.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have authorised the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to offer for sale at an early date the historic property of Runnymede, where Magna Charta was signed on 15th June, 1215, together with 7,000 acres of land adjoining the same; whether he is aware that this historic property, one of the beauty spots of England and part of the ancient domain of the Crown, is looked upon with feelings of the utmost veneration, not only by the inhabitants of Great Britain, but by all the English-speaking democracies throughout the world; whether it is proposed to devote any cash received as a result of the proposed sale of the property to meet current Government expenditure; and whether he will see that no further action is taken with regard to the sale of Runnymede and the adjoining property until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the matter?

The Commissioners of Woods, with the approval of the Treasury, decided last year to offer for sale by auction 622 acres, not 7,000 as stated in the question, of the outlying portion of the Crown's Windsor Estate in the parish of Egham, including 99 acres of meadow land forming a portion of the land on which according to the Ordnance Survey map of the district, the Armies of King John and the confederated Barons encamped on the signing of Magna Charta. These meadows are situated some half a mile to the south west of "Runemed" or Magna Charta Island where the great Charter is said to have been signed, and which is private property. The auction took place on the 6th July last, but the 99 acres referred to were not sold, and I am communicating with my co-Commissioner, in whose jurisdiction the matter lies, with a view to withdrawing them from sale and so retaining them as Crown property. The procedure with regard to cash received as the result of a sale of Crown lands is that it has to be reinvested either in real property or in the redemption of charges on land, or in any one or more of the modes authorised by Section (1) of the Trustee Act, 1893. The interest on such investments becomes part of the annual income of the Land Revenues of the Crown, the net return from which is paid into the Treasury and is carried to and made part of the Consolidated Fund of, the United Kingdom.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the assurance which he has given, which will be received with great satisfaction by the country, whether or not the Magna Charta was actually signed in these meadows or on the island, is he not aware that the Barons, with their men-at-arms, were without doubt encamped on these meadows when the Charter was signed, and therefore that they are a historic spot, which should be protected, and will he communicate this fact to his no-Commissioner, as I know he himself feels as I and the country do?

I am not prepared to go into the historical question as to precisely where Magna Charta was signed, or whether it was ever signed at all. I am told by some historical authorities that "signing" is not the technical word to use. But, on the general question, I have already signified that, in my opinion, this particular property should not have been included in the proposed sale, and that I hope it will be withdrawn from the sale and retained as Crown property.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state the nature of the representations received by His Majesty's Government from the French Government regarding the Safeguarding of Industries Bill; whether the communication or communications will be published; and what answer has been given?

Some weeks since the French Government represented that the Bill would have an adverse effect on French export trade. In reply, it was pointed out that it was not possible to make any statement in advance of the discussion of the Bill in Parliament. At the same time the attention of the French Government was called to the recent increases in the French tariff introduced with the avowed object of safeguarding French industries against competition from countries with depreciated exchange.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, when he told the French Government that no reply could be given without discussion in this House, he also told them that that discussion was being curtailed and put under a time table?

May we have the whole correspondence published?

That will receive consideration.

But that is what I have asked in my question.

I shall have to confer with my Noble Friend the Secretary of State on the matter first.

Will the hon. Gentleman see that by to-morrow, which is the last day for discussion on the Bill here, the papers will be circulated?

Certainly not.

If we are to have a tariff war with France, would it not be well to have the correspondence laid?

There is no prospect of a tariff war.

asked the Prime Minister whether brewers in Ireland are permitted to brew beer and stout at a higher average strength than British brewers; if so, what is the reason for this preference; and whether, in importing their products into Great Britain, there are any Regulations to ensure that no advantage is thereby accorded to Irish brewers over British brewers when selling their beer in competition with the homemade article?

I have been asked to reply. Throughout the period of control a higher average gravity was permitted in Ireland than in Great Britain, the proportions being based on the relative pre-War average gravities. The preference which this arrangement gave to Irish brewers was mitigated by permitting British brewers to pool average gravity; with the revocation of the Regulations governing gravity it will disappear altogether.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is fair that a preference of this sort should be granted to any selected area in the United Kingdom, in view of the enormous advantages which those receiving it would enjoy over their competitors?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the reasons for the release of two prisoners condemned to death by a Military Court in the martial-law area in Ireland.

This action was based solely upon the existing situation in Ireland, and the importance at the present time of avoiding a conflict between the civil and military authorities. The releases were not due to any decision given by a Civil Court in Ireland. Civil Courts have no power to over-rule the decisions of the Military Courts in the martial-law area in Ireland. The decisions of the military officers administering martial law in Ireland will be upheld.

Have not the Civil Courts in Ireland declared that the Military Courts are illegal?

No.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the same amnesty is granted to police and military that has been granted to the other side?

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister if he will inform the House whether it is the case that the Government, in consenting to the release from prison of Members of Dail Eireann, specially exempted Mr. John McKeown on the ground that he had been convicted of murder; and, if so, will he state the reasons which have induced them to reverse that decision?

When considering the question of a release of the members of Dail Eireann who were in custody, in order that they might be able to be present at the meeting of that body fixed for the 16th instant, the Government felt that there were grounds for differentiating between the case of J. J. McKeown and that of the other convicted men. But as it seemed possible that this distinction might endanger the prospects of a successful issue of the present negotiations, the Government subsequently decided to order his release. In taking this decision, we were not uninfluenced by the fact that McKeown had successfully intervened to save the lives of certain wounded policemen in a previous affray, as was testified by the police at his trial.

Are we to understand that the Government, in coming to their decision at first, did not go fully into the facts, and that it was only after the threat from Ireland that the truce would not continue if Mr. McKeown were not released that the Government altered their decision and Mr. McKeown was released?

The Government occasionally take the liberty, which other people enjoy, of revising a decision which they have come to, in the light of fuller information and after further consideration. In this case no threat was received by the Government from any quarter whatever.

Is it not consistent with the Government's policy frequently to revise their decisions?

It is consistent with the course of wisdom in a changing world to revise your decisions.

Are we to understand that the Government were in full possession of the facts as to why Mr. McKeown was convicted of murder when they first of all came to their decision that they would not liberate him with the other members?

Yes, all the facts of the case were in the possession of the Government with regard to Mr. McKeown's past, including that part in which he saved the lives of the policemen, and including the later one in which he killed the inspector, and for which he was convicted.

Are we to understand that it is the considered policy of the Government that when persons are tried, convicted and sentenced to death, the organisation that has incited them to the commitment of murder has only to threaten the Government, and an amnesty will be granted?

Nothing that I have said or that the Government have done would justify any such suggestion.