asked the Minister of Pensions the number of persons who, having been granted pensions owing to injuries or disease caused by the late War, have died since the pension was granted them?

The approximate numbers are, I regret to say, officers, 1,150, and other ranks, 45,000.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to a case in Glasgow in which the father of a soldier killed in the War has been refused a pension although, in accordance with the terms of the Royal Warrant, he is incapable of self-support and is in necessitous circumstances; whether he can state, according to the latest information in his possession, what is the total means of support of the father; how long the son and daughter, whose contributions to his maintenance relieved the Ministry of the necessity of paying a pension, have been unemployed; and how long this unemployment must continue before the Ministry will pay pension in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Warrant?

In the case which I understand my hon. Friend has in mind the income of the household of four persons amounts to 55s. a week, which is understood to be only a temporary reduction on the normal earnings of the family, due solely to periods of unemployment during the past three months. I have considered this case fully, and I am not prepared to make any exception to the general rule that temporary changes of circumstances cannot practicably be taken into account in dealing with applications for pension under Article 21 (1) (b) of the Royal Warrant. I may point out for my hon. Friend's information that the father in this case was not dependent on the deceased son, who was married in 1914, and in respect of whom pension is being paid to his widow and child. Further, there are two married sons and a single son surviving none of whom have in fact been contributing to the support of their parents.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the father of this soldier has been destitute for many months? If I supply further evidence in the case, will he look into it?

I shall be most happy to do so.

asked the Minister of Pensions (1) how many of the soldiers who enlisted in the Army between 4th August, 1914, and 24th May. 1916, are drawing pensions;

(2) how many of the soldiers who were enrolled under The Military Service Act, 1916, are drawing pensions?

No distinction is drawn for pension purposes between the two classes of soldiers indicated, and the records of the Ministry are, therefore, not kept in such form as to render the information available.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Williamson Committee of Inquiry on Artificial Limbs has yet reported; whether the Report will be published; whether it is in favour of the light metal limb; and what other, if any, decisions have been arrived at?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether the Committee on Artificial Limbs has now completed its inquiry; who were the members of the Committee; whether the Report can be published; and, if not, whether he can give the substance of the Report?

While I am unable to say at the moment what conclusions have been arrived at by the Committee, I understand that their Report will shortly be submitted to me. I hope to have it published as soon thereafter as possible.

The members of the Committee were:

My right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (the Right Hon. Sir Archibald Williamson, Bart., M.P. (Chairman)).

Professor A. F. C. Pollard, Technical Expert.

Major Maurice Sinclair, C.M.G., R.A.M.S., Orthopaedic and Limb Fitting Surgeon at Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley.

Major M. P. Leahy, Disabled (Limbless) Officer, late R.A.M.C., Member of the Disabled Society.

Major A. A. Atkinson, Disabled (Limbless) Officer, Limb Fitting Surgeon at Roehampton.

Frank Cecil Meech, Esq., Disabled (Limbless), ex-Corporal of Horse, Royal Horse Guards.

Sir Lisle Webb, K.B.E., C.B., C.M.G., Director-General of Medical Services to the Ministry of Pensions.

asked the Minister of Pensions why a disability pension has not been granted to Sergeant William Smith, No. 33842, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, discharged at Shrewsbury, in category B3, on the 9th April, 1919, after completing over 20 years' service, including service in the Boer War, Mohmund expedition, the Tirah campaign, and foreign service during the Great War; and, in view of the fact that this soldier had his right leg fractured twice while in the execution of his duty, and is consequently unable to regularly follow his employment, will he grant his claim to a pension?

Sergeant Smith first applied to my Department in November, 1919, for pension in respect of his fractured leg. This disability was of pre-war origin, and as it could not be found to have been aggravated by service in the Great War, no award of pension could be made under the present warrants. There is the usual right of appeal against this decision to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. Further inquiry is being made into the case with reference to the former service mentioned by my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will, while pensions Committees are being organised, issue instructions that no conscientious objector will receive an appointment until the claims of local ex-service men have been satisfied?

It has always been the policy of the Ministry to give preference to ex-service men, and, as I assured the House in connection with the War Pensions Bill recently before the House, that policy will be continued in making appointments to the staffs of the new pensions committees.

asked the Minister of Pensions what steps he has taken to carry out the recommendation of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry set up by the Ministry to nominate representatives of ex-service men as members of local war pensions committees?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Burslem on the 5th August, of which I am sending him a copy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling of intense disappointment among ex-service men in consequence of the Government not accepting the recommendations of the Departmental Committee? Is it too late now to mend matters?

I do not think there is any disappointment at all. The ex-service men are having a larger proportion of representation on the committees than ever before.

I am receiving letters every day.

So are we all.

asked the Minister of Pensions when a decision will become to in the case of James Arthur Briggs, 4, Seaview Terrace, Southwick, Sussex, late No. 115127, private, Royal Army Service Corps, which has been under the consideration of the Ministry since October of last year?

Detailed and careful inquiries have been necessary in this case to determine the man's claim in respect of the disability, which is one of minor character. It has now been decided that the disability is neither due to nor aggravated by service. There is a right of appeal against this decision to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of H. Hilton, No. 3/M.H./4910, Lancashire Fusiliers, tribunal case No. 10/1110, he is prepared to recommend that this case be reopened by the Appeal Tribunal, particularly in view of the fact that the medical opinion was conflicting and that this man joined the Army in September, 1914, prior to which since 1905 he had not had a day's illness, and that he served in Egypt, the Dardanelles, and other theatres of war until his discharge in April, 1919, being now totally unfit for work and in very straitened circumstances, due to phlebitis and defective vision, which he claims is due to war service?

Decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal are, by Statute, final, and I have no power to intervene.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in May, 1921, in divisional Orders for the Auxiliary Division, it was announced that members would be permitted to reengage for another year; whether, in accordance with Orders, forms were filled in, and a list of cadets accepted was published in the routine Orders; whether he is aware that the chief of police has now directed that he cannot confirm these re-engagements for members with less than nine months' service; whether, seeing that this is a definite break of an engagement and the men affected have refrained from endeavouring to find employment on the strength of the official notice, he will say how it is proposed to compensate them; and how many members are affected?

The suggestion that there has been any breach of faith is entirely unfounded. A divisional Order of the 16th May, 1921, stated that the service of temporary cadets who were nearing the termination of their first year in the Auxiliary Division might be extended for a further period of six months and a supplementary Order dated the 23rd of the same month modified this to the extent of allowing the extension to be for 12 months instead of six months. On the 10th July all recruiting for the Auxiliary Division was suspended, but a number of members then serving presented themselves for re-engagement. These men, many of whom had only a few months' service in the division, were through a mistake of a subordinate officer re-engaged. On these facts being brought to his notice, the Chief of Police issued an Order stating that he was unable to confirm the re-engagement of any men who had not at the time of offering themselves for re-engagement completed nine months' service with the Division. The numbers given whose engagements have been cancelled in compliance with this Order is 565, of whom 163 have had less than six, and 91 less than three months' service. Inasmuch as none of the men whose re-engagements have not been confirmed was approaching the end of his existing period of service, it cannot be suggested that his plans in regard to the finding of future employment have been interfered with, and certainly no question of compensation arises from the rectification of this error in misreading the terms of the Orders in which the conditions governing re-engagements were clearly laid down.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated that these re-engagements were confirmed in mistake, by a subordinate officer, is it not a fact that nevertheless they were confirmed and these men accepted, and that being the case is it not a distinct breach of faith on the part of the Government to go behind the back of their subordinate officer and say that these men are of no use to them now?

No. The mistake is clearly explained in the answer I have given.

The answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman admits that these re-engagements were accepted by a subordinate officer. Surely the Government must back up their subordinate officer and carry out their engagements.

asked the Chief Secretary whether any cases are known to have occurred of bodies of rebels drilling in Ireland during the truce, and of individuals photographing members of the Auxiliary Division and officers of the Crown forces in Ireland?

When cases of drilling are reported, steps are at once taken with a view to the discontinuance of such drilling. I have no knowledge of the taking of photographs of Crown forces referred to by the Noble Lord, and I am having inquiry made into the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary if the terms of the truce prevent the police arresting men who are known to have been implicated in the murder of unarmed men and women, as in the case of Sir Arthur Vicars, where 32 armed men attacked and murdered, on 14th April, one unarmed man; and whether the police are free from interference by Mr. de Valera and his associates in arresting men who commit, or attempt to commit, murders during the truce, as in the case of ex-soldier Geoghegan, murdered during the truce, and Constable Kane, who was attacked in Belfast lately, or whether the victims, if they survive, will have to be content with an apology, as in the case of Constable Kane?

In offences of a political character committed before the truce arrests have been suspended for the present. Any case arising during the truce is inquired into and action taken.

Is the same treatment being meted out to members of the forces of the Crown who are accused of crimes. Are they also not being proceeded against?

Are we to understand that anybody who commits a crime, such as the murder of Geoghegan, or the attack on Constable Kane, is to go free under the terms of the truce on the ground that these crimes are of a political character, or will such persons be arrested in the ordinary course of the law?

I have just stated the direct opposite. Any case arising during the truce is inquired into and action taken. As a matter of fact, the men who attacked Constable Kane have been arrested, and are in confinement.

The question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be put upon the Paper.

asked the Chief Secretary whether, as President of the Irish Local Government Board, his attention has been drawn to the rate of as much as 12s. in the £ on land now being sought to be collected in the South of Ireland; whether he is aware that this rate does not include any levy for malicious injuries; will he say what has happened to the Irish share of the Agricultural Grant; and will he inquire the reasons that have led to the rate on agricultural land being more than doubled in one year?

It is a fact that in several cases the rates on agricultural land is as high as 12s. in the £, and that no provision has been made for malicious injuries decrees. The Irish share of the agricultural grant has been paid as usual into the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account. Payment to recalcitrant local authorities has been withheld under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. It is being applied to meeting criminal injury compensation awards where the local authorities concerned have refused to pay. The increase in the rates referred to is due mainly to the efforts of the recalcitrant councils to carry on their administration in the absence of the benefit 'of the State grants-in-aid.

Is it a fact that the Chief Secretary has no power at all to deal with these recalcitrant councils and no power to do anything in this respect?

I do not understand the hon. and gallant Member's question.

Can the Chief Secretary take no action against these councils for not carrying out their duties?

He has already taken very considerable action by refusing to pay them their grants-in-aid.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that in parts of County Cork the public highways, for whose maintenance a demand is now being made on the ratepayers, are still made impassable by felled trees and other devices; whether such a state of things is the result of an understanding between those responsible for the government of the country and those who command the belligerents of the Irish republic and what action does he propose to take in the matter?

I have asked for a report upon the matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, and I would ask him to repeat his question early next week.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether granting full fiscal autonomy to Ireland would result in an increase or diminution of national revenue; and if the approximate amount can be given?

This is a hypothetical question, the answer to which must depend on the nature of any such arrangement which might be made, and which could therefore only be answered after the terms and conditions of the arrangement had been defined.

asked the Home Secretary what is the condition of health of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. J. J. Walsh); why is, or was, he under medical observation; and whether the hon. Member has now been released?

The hon. Member for Cork City was in a poor condition of health by reason, in the opinion of the doctor, of his persistent refusal to take exercise. He was under special observation on this account. He was released last Monday.

( by Private Notice ) asked the Leader of the House whether any reply has yet been received from Mr. de Valera to the proposals handed to him by the Prime Minister?

Yes, Sir. Mr. de Valera's reply was handed to me, in the absence of the Prime Minister, at noon, by Mr. Barton, who was accompanied by Mr. Art O'Brien and Mr. McGrath, M.P. I have at once forwarded it to the Prime Minister in Paris.

May I ask my right hon. Friend when he expects the Prime Minister's return from Paris, and is it at all likely that he will be in a position to make a statement to the House on the Irish Question before the House rises?

I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to return on Sunday. It is very difficult to deal with so many large and important questions at once, and the character of the Conferences in Paris and the nature of the business which is being pursued there require a certain amount of time for a successful issue. I hope that the Prime Minister will be back on Sunday, and I anticipate that he will make a statement with regard to Ireland either on Tuesday or Wednesday, but I speak subject to correction by the course of events.

Is it not the case that on account of the absence of the Prime Minister my right hon. Friend leads the House, and, when we have our own leader appointed by the Prime Minister to carry on the business of the House, why cannot we know what is in the reply from Mr. de Valera? Why have we to wait until it is sent to Paris to the Prime Minister?

I doubt whether any other hon. Member in the House would have put that question. It seems to me so obvious that a reply to proposals handed by the Prime Minister to Mr. de Valera, addressed by Mr. de Valera to the Prime Minister, should be seen first by the Prime Minister and considered by him in Cabinet before any statement should be made.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether a Committee has been sitting to inquire into charges against Major H. N. Wylie and Captain A. P. Thurston by Mr. Mooney, of the Steel Wing Company, who alleged that these officers, who by reason of their office received technical information from the company, had made improper use of that information in connection with patents subsequently taken out or applied for by them, and that they used their position to hinder the development of the company's work for other than reasons of public policy; whether the Committee's Report has been received; and will he state what the result is?

The answer to the first and second part of the question is in the affirmative. The general effect of the Report of the Committee is that the charges were unfounded.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state how many airmen are still in hospital suffering from disabilities due to the War?

The numbers of officers and men of the Royal Air Force in hospital at the date of the last return available were 78 and 636 respectively, but it would require considerable labour to distinguish among all these cases those attributable to a period before the llth November, 1918. These would certainly amount to only a small proportion of the numbers quoted. For a return of the ex-officers and men in hospital I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the terms of reference of the Committee to be presided over by the Minister of Transport; whether this Committee will take evidence; and whether the evidence taken by the Committee, as well as the Report, will be available for the Estimates Committee of this House?

I cannot at present add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on Monday last.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to answer this? If I put down a question for Tuesday will he then give a reply?

What I hope is that a statement on the subject may be made by the Prime Minister on either the Second or Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Yes, but does not my right hon. Friend see the advantage of letting us know the facts before speeches are made on the Consolidated Fund Bill? Could not we have an answer to this question before the Debate? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Gentleman will put a question down on Tuesday, I will see whether that can be done.

Is it true, as stated by a news agency to-day, that further proceedings in connection with this Committee have been suspended for the time being?

The Committee has not yet been appointed, so it could hardly be suspended.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to published statements giving particulars as to the Departments of State which have replied to the Treasury Circular and other information on this subject; whether this information was supplied from official sources; and, if so, why this information has not been given to the House?

I am not aware to what statements the hon. and gallant Member refers. If he will afford more detailed information inquiry will be made.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that last week a newspaper gave the names of the Departments which had replied and those which had not replied, stating that this information was from high sources of authority, and why should such information be given to newspapers and not to the House, of Commons?

I am afraid I cannot exclude these statements from the Press. I was unaware of the circumstance mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, but, in any case, no such information was given officially.

Will the hon. Gentleman state whether any information has been given out to the Press from official sources with reference to the replies to this circular?

I do not think I can add anything to what I have said. No official information has been given on the subject at all.

asked, the Chancellor of the Exchequer which are the Government Departments that have not replied to the Treasury letter respecting economies in their expenditure?

Replies have been received to the Treasury Circular from all Departments. In certain cases communications are still proceeding with the Treasury on certain preliminaries essential to the completion of the detailed provisional Estimates.

asked the Prime Minister whether the committee engaged in winding up the affairs of the Exhibition of 1851, and which, until some months ago, occupied a suite of offices at 54, Victoria Street, is still in existence; and, if so, is the work on which they are engaged of a public or a private nature and by whom are their salaries paid?

The Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851, to which I presume the hon. and gallant Member refers, was incorporated as a permanent body by a Supplementary Charter granted in December, 1851, to administer the fund derived from the surplus of the Great Exhibition. In pursuance of the Charter the income of the fund is devoted to promoting advanced education in science and art by means of scholarships and bursaries which are open to students all over the British Empire. The income covers the cost of administration.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the inefficiency of British industry in view of the charges made by the Labour Commission on the cost of living?

Any such investigation as is suggested would be a very lengthy and expensive proceeding, and, in view of the wide range of industries in the United Kingdom and the diversity of the conditions under which they are carried on, I should doubt whether a Commission could produce results of any value.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the resolution passed by the Imperial Conference in favour of an annual meeting of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and the Dominions and the representatives of India, any arrangements have been, or will be, made before the departure of those oversea members of the Conference now in England for a meeting of the Conference next year; and, if so, at what time?

No, Sir. It has not been found practicable to do this.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any further statement as to the decision of the Government on the question of marriage allowance to naval officers?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that a table recently published of comparative pay of married officers of the Army and Navy shows that many naval officers receive considerably less than married Army officers of corresponding rank, he will state what are the objections, other than increased cost, against the officers of both Services being given equal treatment?

It is true that a comparison of the pay and allowances of officers of certain equivalent ranks in the Navy and Army shows an advantage in favour of the latter. This, however, is not a new situation, as the same was true before the new rates of pay for the Services were fixed. It has been the accepted view in the past that regard must be had to the earlier age at which naval officers normally attain the various ranks, the effect of which is to give a marked advantage to the naval officer over the whole of an average professional career, even when the married allowance in the case of the Army officer is taken into account. The fixing of the new rates of pay on different bases℄the Navy giving the same rate of pay to the unmarried as to the married officer and the Army making a considerable difference between the two℄has, however, introduced disturbing factors, which are receiving careful consideration, but on which it is not yet possible for me to give a definite decision.

In view of the very unsatisfactory answer given to my question, I give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Has the hon. Gentleman, in giving that answer, taken into consideration additional advantages enjoyed by an army officer over a naval officer, and whether he has also borne in mind the effect of the recommendation of Admiral Halsey in reference to the service rate of Income Tax?

The Board of Admiralty have taken all those things into account.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why it is that army and air officers get £180 marriage allowance, whereas naval officers are kept waiting to know whether they are to get anything at all?

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the men are waiting for an answer, and that he keeps putting them off, and will he tell them one way or the other whether they are going to get the same in the Navy as in the Army? Just give us a straight answer℄"Yes" or "No"

Taking into account all the items in the situation, the naval officer is getting substantially more than the Army officer. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is not true!"] At the same time, there is a case for the married officer which has to be carefully considered, but not as between the Army and the Navy.

But when?

asked the Prime Minister if he will fulfil his pledge, made to fishermen and the mercantile marine service, that compensation must be paid to the men of these services who were interned in Germany during the War: and, if compensation to these men is not recoverable from Germany, will he see that the National Exchequer supplies the necessary funds to meet these pressing claims?

As regards the first part of the question, a Special Commission on ex gratia grants (which was referred to in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 4th May, 1920) is being appointed forthwith for the purpose of considering these claims and others of a like nature. The Commission will consist of the hon Member for Guildford, Mr. J. H. Sabin, the President of the Surveyors' Institution, and Lord Summer, who has consented to act as chairman of the Commission. With regard to the second part of the question, it is impossible to make any statement pending the result of the proceedings of the Commission referred to.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the moneys received under the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, have been paid into an account opened in She books of the Paymaster-General, entitled, the German Reparation (Recovery) Act Account, in accordance with the Treasury Minute, dated 24th March, 1921; whether this sum amounted to £198,000 on 18th July, 1921; whether steps have been taken with a view to setting up the special commission in order that a beginning may be made with the examination of claims; and, if not, whether immediate action will be taken in justice to those of the mercantile marine whose health suffered as a result of enemy action?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by me to-day to a question by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dr. McDonald). In view of these replies, the last part of the question does not arise.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many officers and men of the Mercantile Marine carried on their ordinary work after the Armistice, but failed, through lack of vigour brought about by the War, and their wives and children are suffering very considerable hardship?

I am very well aware of, and I have constantly in mind, the great hardship of some of these cases.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when the payments out of this fund will commence?

I cannot say with any approximation to accuracy. It will depend upon when the money is received.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to extend the period during which local authorities in England and Wales can receive financial assistance under the Housing Act of 1919 until 30th June, 1924, seeing that they have already granted this extension to local authorities in Scotland?

As I stated recently in announcing the decision of the Government with regard to housing, where work undertaken by local authorities with the approval of the Ministry cannot, for reasons outside the control of the authorities, be completed by July, 1922, the time for completion will be extended by the Ministry as may be necessary.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question that is put down, as to why English and Welsh local authorities should not be put on exactly the same terms as the Scottish local authorities, which have till 1924?

They are put on the same terms. The time has to be extended to such time as may be necessary. If it is necessary to extend it till 1924, it will be extended, but if the schemes can be completed before then there is nothing to extend.

Seeing that it is extended to Scotland without qualification, cannot the same extension be granted to England and Wales without qualification and without reservation?

I do not know what the circumstances of Scotland are, but the extension in England and Wales will he continued as long as necessary, which I do not think will be to so distant a date.

asked the Minister of Health whether Government subsidies to house builders are to remain available in Scotland until July, 1924; and, if so, whether, in view of the shortage of houses in industrial and rural districts, he will assist house building in Wales in a similar manner?

There is no extension of the subsidy to private builders to 1924. The only extension is to local authorities.

asked the Minister of Health whether it is proposed to pay £22,000 in order to abandon completion of the Putney housing scheme; who is to receive this sum of money as a solatium for abandoning the remainder of the scheme, and how many firms are to participate; whether the contract with the builders had a clause inserted enabling his Ministry to abandon any part of the scheme; if not, who was responsible for the preparation of the forms of contract; and whether this is a case which should be referred to an official referee to decide what, if any, compensation should be paid to the persons concerned in the cancellation of their contract, or if the money has already been paid?

The London County Council are arranging, with my concurrence, to modify, in agreement with the two contractors concerned, the terms of the contracts referred to by the hon. Member, and a payment of approximately the sum mentioned will be made by the council in consideration of the reduction in the number of houses to be erected under the contract. The contracts, which were prepared by the council with the approval of the Ministry, did not provide for the abandonment of any part of the work contracted for, and I do not understand on what ground an official referee could or should be employed.

asked the Prime Minister whether the question of the denationalisation of the children of British subjects under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Acts, whereby such children whose fathers have been born abroad cannot be registered as British subjects, was dealt with at the Imperial Conference; if so, what decision was arrived at; and, if not, what action the Government proposes to take in view of the promise given by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in August, 1918, to the British community in Japan through His Majesty's Ambassador there?

The Prime Minister has asked me to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies which I gave to the hon. Members for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Sir J. Randles) and South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 21st July and 3rd August respectively.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Postmaster-General has twice refused to appoint a representative of the co-operative movement on the Post Office Business Advisory Council; whether, in appointing that Council, 18 of the 19 persons selected were connected with, if not representing, great banking, shipping, manufacturing, engineering, railway, financial, and distributive interests; that out of its large experience the cooperative movement is able to furnish special information and advice on many matters to be dealt with by the Council; and whether, in these circumstances and in view of the acknowledged services rendered by the co-operative movement during the War, the Government is now prepared to consider nomination from that movement for appointment on the Council?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The members of the Post Office Advisory Council were selected on account of their individual qualifications and not as representatives of particular interests or par- ticular localities. I regret that I cannot depart from this principle nor add to the personnel of the Council.

Am I to understand that these persons were selected by the Postmaster-General himself, or am I to assume that the nominations of these persons were sent to him at the instigation of a certain association in London?

There is hot a word of truth in that suggestion. They were selected by me on my own authority.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to the disastrous fire which occurred at Carpenters Road, Stratford, London, on Monday last; whether he is aware that the riotous scenes which preceded the outbreak of fire were consequent upon the presence of several thousands of unemployed men who had assembled during, the night and in the early hours of the morning in answer to an advertisement of a few vacancies at the timber yard at which the fire took place, and that many of the unemployed men had come from distant parts of the country in the hope of finding work; and whether, in view of the desperate straits to which thousands of workers are being reduced, the Government proposes to take any steps with a view to preventing similar occurrences?

I am informed that the circumstances were substantially as stated by the hon. Member. The crowd, which is estimated at about 3,000, appears to have assembled as the result of an advertisement for timber porters inserted in the Press by the owners of the timber yard, and I understand that the disturbance was due to their disappointment that only a few of the applicants were engaged. The Government cannot control the insertion of such advertisements by private firms, but I think that employers would be well advised, in advertising for hands, to state clearly the number of vacancies that they wish to fill.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see from that incident that the small cost of an advertisement is more beneficial than the whole cost of the Employment Exchanges?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates; and what action is contemplated in connection with the recommendations of the Report?

Yes, Sir. My attention has been called to the Report in question, and the recommendations will receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government. I desire, however, to take this opportunity of referring to a matter in connection with this Report. Its principal conclusion is prefaced by a number of paragraphs which appear to be presented as a summary of the evidence of a witness from the Treasury. I invite hon. Members to read the whole of the evidence of this witness (which will be presented in due course). If they do so, I am confident they will agree that the summary in question does not accurately represent the tenour of his evidence. Witnesses from the Civil Service give evidence under conditions of considerable difficulty and delicacy, and I am sure that it is the desire of the House that they should be protected from misunderstanding. I cannot but regret that in this case the evidence of the witness was not allowed to speak for itself, but that by an arbitrary process of omission and selection, it has been given, in the summary, a colour which it does not bear in the original.

Is it not a fact, inter alia, that there is a statement in the Committee's Report that the cost of the Finance Department of the War Office was £962,000, when really it should be £562,000, as is quite clear from the Estimates?

I do not carry the figure in my mind, but I will accept it from so careful an observer as my right hon. Friend.

In regard to another point, to which I hope my right hon. Friend's attention has been directed, as to a particular salary complained of, namely, the salary of one of the Joint Secretaries of the Army Council, is it a fact that it is stated in the Report that an increase of £1,500 had been given, when actually an increase of only £950 had been given, of which £500 was war bonus, which is going to disappear in a month or two?

That is also a fact and, I think, a very material fact.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has made a very serious charge, and will he, in view of that very serious charge, expedite the publication of the evidence in full and give the House an opportunity of discussing both the evidence and the Report?

It is not without very grave consideration, and not without deep regret, that I find myself differing from a Committee of this House. I will do everything in my power to expedite the publication of this evidence and to put it in the hands of Members at the earliest possible moment, but may I give the House one illustration of what I mean? The Report, in paragraph 11, says:

"He also stated that a civil servant was required to work a 7-hour day."

The answer of the witness is:

"A higher division man is eligible for eight weeks' holiday if he has 10 years' seniority. He is also required to work a 7-hour day. The real facts are that he neither gets his full holiday nor does he work a 7-hour day. He works, in fact, a greatly longer day."

I submit, respectfully, to the House, and even to Members of the Committee, that the answer as summarised in the Report is not a fair representation.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will be good enough to answer the last part of my question, whether, after the publication of the evidence, he will give the House an opportunity of discussing it?

That depends upon whether the House is sitting. All that I can say at this moment is, that I will do my utmost, and take immediate steps as soon as I leave the House, to expedite the printing of the evidence. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that it is my desire that the House should have this evidence at the earliest possible moment, and my earnest prayer to the House that they will be good enough to read it.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the opportunities which may arise before the House adjourns or prorogues, he will bear in mind that next week, as far as business usually runs on occasions like that, there will be some spare time, and I do not think the House could be more usefully occupied than in discussing this matter and clearing up the points at issue?

I should entirely agree, if we have spare time and if the evidence be available, and I will do my best to make it available.

With reference to a question put by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland), I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that, in answer to a question which I put on the Paper a month ago to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, he gave me a reply stating what was the cost of the Financial Department of the War Office, and the figures given in that reply were exactly the figures given in the report of the Committee?

I really cannot answer in respect of particular figures, without having notice given to me of the question, but I believe the question of the financial control over the Army is causing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War considerable anxiety. But the scheme which involves that expenditure was adopted on experienced advice and, I think, with the approval of the Public Accounts Committee.

Is it not the fact that the cost as at present shown is the cost of establishing a very valuable new system of accounts, and not the cost of carrying it on?

The hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, does not put a question of that kind without having good ground for it, but I cannot answer questions of this sort on my personal responsibility without the opportunity of reference.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to support the statements which have recently reached Constantinople that the Russian Soviet Government have again started a reign of terror in their subject State of Georgia; that the Moscow authorities have arrested the president of the revolutionary socialist committee of Georgia and replaced him by a, young Turk named Dudu Nidivani, one of their own nominees from Angora,; that the Bolshevik Comissar Stalin, in Tiflis, has arrested nearly all the leading public men in Georgia, including M. Lantatidze, the vice-president of the Georgian Constituent Assembly; and that this action by Moscow threatens the extinction of the freedom and liberties of the Georgian people?

His Majesty's Government have at present no information regarding the internal situation, in Georgia, other than the reports referred to by the hon. Member which have appeared in the Press, but inquiries are being made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there never has been, or can be, either Young or Old Turks of the name of Dudu Nidivani?

May I ask what is the concern of the Foreign Office in the affairs of Georgia, and how they are relevant to the business of this House?

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government is aware of any other case, besides the case of Mrs. Stan Harding,' in which a British subject has been invited into Russia on a Soviet Government safe conduct, and then subjected to barbarous maltreatment in the attempt to induce such British subject to become a Soviet agent?

I am not aware of any other case answering to the description given by the hon. and learned Member.

Will His Majesty's, Government impress upon the Soviet authorities that they cannot usefully employ such methods as coercion of British subjects?

Is it not the case that the British Government admits these facts, and this is one of the very worst cases on record?

I have already announced that His Majesty's Government will press for reparation.

Is the hon. Gentleman not prepared to take any action except to allow this lady to prefer her claim to the Russian Claims Office, which may or may not be a useful operation?

I do not know if my Noble Friend would suggest any other method, but, if so, I should be glad to consider it.

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of treating this exceptional case in an exceptional manner, and making a special request for compensation from, the Soviet Government?

I will consider that.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs the average number of passports issued per day at the British passport office in Paris; what is the number of the staff employed; and what is the annual cost thereof to the country?

There is no separate British passport office at Paris. The issue of passports forms part of the normal work of His Majesty's Consulate-General. Details of the numbers of passports issued at Paris are not immediately available at the Foreign Office. It is hardly practicable to calculate separately the charges falling upon the Consul-General's office allowance in connection with this part of its work.

Does the hon. Gentleman think that is a satisfactory reply?

Yes.

Now that the passports have been abolished, presumably the staff will be reduced?

I have already made an announcement

asked the President of the Board of Education whether at the next meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations he will vote in favour of the admission of Germany as a member of the Assembly?

I trust that the hon. and gallant Member will not think me unreasonable if I say that, having regard to the great issues at stake, the British Delegation do not propose to take a decision before proceeding to Geneva, but will be guided by the balance of argument in the course of the discussion, in the event of the question being raised.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he. will explain why the pledge given to ex-service teachers that they should not suffer in their careers by reason of serving in the War has not yet been fulfilled in respect of the dates of their training certificates; and when will such pledge be fulfilled?

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the anxiety felt by ex-service teachers at the long delay in arriving at a decision as to whether their training certificates are to date from the day they would have qualified had there been no War or from the date of actual qualification; whether he will expedite his decision; and whether, in doing so, he will remember the pledges held out to these teachers when they joined the Army?

asked the President of the Board of Education what is the reason of the continued delay in deciding upon the claim of ex-service teachers to date their training college certificates from the dates at which they would normally have become qualified but for their service in the War?

I have already stated that I cannot antedate certificates for purposes of the Teachers' Superannua- tion Act, 1918. The question as to the treatment of War service before the date of certification for purposes of salary increments is under consideration, and I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement on the subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a large amount of unemployment is now being caused in the entertainment profession by the imposition of the entertainments duty, as well as a serious reduction in the wages and salaries of entertainment employés, and that these taxes are also causing the public to transfer their patronage from the higher to the lower priced seats, thereby still further diminishing the receipts, increasing unemployment, and decreasing wages and salaries; and whether, in view of this growing unemployment and these reductions in wages of entertainment workers, he can hold out any hope that this duty will be abolished or considerably modified in the near future?

This matter has only recently been the subject of full discussion during the debates on the Finance Bill, and I can add nothing to what was then said.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts have annually been granted by the Treasury to universities and university colleges since the Advisory Committee was set up; whether such grants are for capital or maintenance; what was the reference to the Committee; who are its Members; do they receive any remuneration; and, if so, what amount?

As the answer to this question is of considerable length, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, cause it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the answer:

The amounts granted by the Treasury to universities and university colleges since the University Grants Committee was set up are as follows:

Of these grants the recurrent grants have been for maintenance only and not for capital, the non-recurrent have been principally for capital but, to some extent, for maintenance.

The reference to the Committee was as follows:

"To inquire into the financial needs of university education in the United Kingdom, and to advise the Government as to the application of any grants that may be made by Parliament towards meeting them."

The members of the Committee are as follows:

Sir William McCormick, LL.D., Chairman.

William Bateson, Esq., F.R.S. Sir Dugald Clerk, K.B.E., F.R.S. Sir James Johnston Dobbie, F.R.S. Miss S. M. Fry. Sir Frederick George Kenyon, K.C.B., D. Litt.

Sir Stanley Mordaunt Leathes, K.C.B. Sir Wilmot Parker Herringham, K.C.M.G., C.B., M.D.

Sir Joseph John Thomson, O.M., F.R.S.

None of the members receive any remuneration except the Chairman, who receives in this capacity a salary of £1,300 per annum, with an allowance for expenses (including subsistence) of £500.

asked the Home Secretary whether the lady superintendents recently appointed in Holloway prison possess medical or nursing qualifications; if not, what other qualifications they possess; and what are their duties and powers?

One of these ladies is a highly-qualified nurse, who has had much experience in charge of outside hospitals. She has the supervision of all the hospital work of the prison and of the hospital staff, subject to the control of the medical officers and the Governor, who is a medical man. The other has had great experience as a prison officer, and has the supervision of the disciplinary side of the prison with its staff, subject to the control of the Governor.

asked the Home Secretary how many prison commissioners there now are, including chairman and secretary; and what are the salaries at present paid to each of them?

There is a chairman at a salary of £l,500-£ 1,800, three commissioners, of whom one is a medical commissioner, at salaries of £1,000, and a secretary at a salary of £700-£800.

asked the Home Secretary whether any progress has been made with the preparation of the Bill, promised by the Government, to secure compensation for subsidence in mining areas; and whether it will be introduced this Session?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question on the 14th June, to which at present nothing can be added. No Bill can be introduced this Session.

Is any progress being made with this matter at all? Are we to be put off for two or three years?

No. The matter is still under consideration.

asked the Home Secretary whether additional chief officers have recently been appointed to the Detective Department of the Metropolitan Police force; if so, will he state how many extra officers have been added and the reason for such increase; whether it means a general reorganisation of this detective force; and will he state the total number of officers and men who are now employed in this part of the Metropolitan Police force?

No additional chief officers have recently been appointed to the Detective Branch of the Metropolitan Police force. The strength of this branch is now 758 of all ranks.

asked the Home Secretary whether the Regulations under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1920, have been officially confirmed and are now in operation; and what other Powers have passed legislation in accord with the Opium Convention of 1912, so as to secure cooperation in regard to the import and export of the dangerous drugs named in the Act?

The Regulations have been made and will come into force on the 1st September. I cannot say definitely what other Powers have passed legislation to carry out the Convention of 1912, but the Powers which were signatory to the Treaties of Peace undertook to enact the necessary legislation without delay and at latest within 12 months from the Treaties coming into force. I understand that full information as to the position in each country is being collected by the League of Nations, which is entrusted with the general supervision over the execution of the Opium Convention.

asked the hon. Member for the Pollok Division of Glasgow, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, why the cost of new works at palaces generally (not in His Majesty's occupation) has increased from £985 in 1914 to £4,300 this year?

Pro- vision is included in this year's Estimates of a sum of £1,500 for works of modernisation to Grace and Favour residences on change of occupation for which there was no provision in 1914. The increase is also partly due to the higher cost of wages and material since 1914 and to the fact that work under this sub-head was drastically curtailed during the War and since the Armistice. I can assure the hon. Member that no work will be carried out that is not absolutely essential.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information to the effect that Christians from Bethlehem are emigrating to South America owing to their dissatisfaction with the Zionist Government of Palestine?

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, before this question be answered, whether it is correct to describe the British Mandate for Palestine as "the Zionist Government of Palestine"? Should not hon. Members exercise a certain amount of discretion as to the accuracy of the facts contained in questions?

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right. Hon. Members should be careful not to put into their questions allegations of their own or opinions. Questions should be confined exclusively to a real inquiry to elicit facts.

The answer is in the negative. I would add that the present Government of Palestine should be correctly described as the British Government, and not the Zionist Government.

Is it not the fact that in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself the ardent Zionism of the High Commissioner was expressly accounted unto him for righteousness?

The High Commissioner himself is under strictures from the ardent section of Zionists.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an Ordinance which has the effect of preventing Asiatics in future from acquiring the municipal vote has passed the Natal Provincial Council; if so, whether such Ordinance has received the assent of the Governor-General; and, if not, whether any representation on this subject has been received from the Government of India?

An Ordinance of the nature indicated, dealing with the township franchise, was recently passed by the Natal Provincial Council, but I am not yet in a position to state the decision of the Union Government with regard to it. I do not know whether any representations have been made by the Government of India.

Would it not be an entirely unprecedented action in the case of a self-governing Dominion for the Governor-General to refuse his assent to any Ordinance passed? Would it not raise a question of the gravest constitutional importance to the whole of the self-governing Dominions?

Is not a question of the gravest magnitude involved here which cannot be avoided whatever the Government may say or do?

Would my right hon. Friend answer my question as to the constitutional importance of the point raised? Would it not be quite unprecedented for the Governor-General to take the action suggested?

If the matter be of such consititutional importance, it seems desirable that a question should be put upon the Paper.

May I, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, say that is exactly the question which my hon. Friend has put down? He has suggested it is within the competence of the Imperial Government to instruct their local Governor-General to refuse to give his assent, and as a constitutional point has been raised, I very respectfully suggest that it is in the interests of the whole Empire that it should be answered.

I rather adhere to the answer which you have so very kindly suggested to me, Mr. Speaker.

These questions are of a very delicate nature, and they require considered answers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Bruce, the expert on education brought to Malta by Lord Plumer, reported that it was wrong t) compel young children to learn simultaneously both English and Italian when the Maltese language generally spoken is different from either; whether the system condemned by Mr. Bruce has been promised by the Government of Malta, but has been found impracticable; whether, under the new constitution, the electors will be increased from about 6,000 to over 25,000; and whether the rights of priority of choice of the language of instruction granted under the constitution will be free, at all stages of education, from any compulsion to learn Italian, without prejudice to its remaining an equally available language of culture for those who may wish to cultivate it?

Mr. Bruce in his report refrained from discussing the language question in Malta, though he did express the view that it was not advisable to attempt to teach children three languages at once. I am not able to say, without further inquiry, whether the figures given by my hon. and gallant Friend in the third part of the question are correct. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer him to the answers given to the hon. Member for East Nottingham and the hon. Member for South Nottingham on 2nd August last.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the East African papers that through organised efforts the white settlers have been able to reduce practi- cally everywhere the wages of the natives by 33⅓; if he can say whether this reduction will be imposed upon the employés of the railways and in the Government service?

(2) Whether the convention of associations in Kenya Colony has decided to bring' about a reduction in native wages to approximately 5s. per week; and whether he is prepared to issue instructions that native Government employés shall only be reduced in the same proportion as those of the white and Indian Government employés?

I understand that there has been a general reduction of native wages in private employment to pre-War levels. Owing to the depression in trade, there is a present scarcity of employment, and natives are ready to accept the reduced wage, which, for the same reason, is all that employers can afford to offer. As regards unskilled natives employed by the Government, their wages will be determined by the general rates of wages for similar labour in the locality in which the men are engaged. As regards semi-skilled and skilled labour of native Government employés, these have no relation to unskilled labour, but I cannot say that any exact proportion between the wages of these employes and the emoluments of European or Indian officials will be possible or desirable.

If there is now a scarcity of employment in East Africa, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of repealing the Ainsworth circular, and a similar circular, sent out in order to stimulate the demand for employment amongst the natives of the colony?