asked the Home Secretary whether portions of the new Licensing Bill are experimental; and whether, if this be so, he proposes in any way to systematise official observations and study of its results with the object of avoiding, at a later stage, interested, incomplete, and possibly misleading representations from non-official outside sources?

It is not necessary to draw any such distinction as that suggested in the first part of the question between different parts of the Licensing Bill to enable me to say that the results of the working of its various provisions will be most carefully observed and studied so as to afford sound grounds for authoritative conclusions therefrom.

asked the Home Secretary to what parts of the Home Counties the Muzzling Orders for dogs still applies, how long it has been in force in Reading and district; and whether there is any reason why the Order should not now be cancelled?

I have been asked to reply. The Muzzling Order which has been applied to certain of the Home Counties in consequence of outbreaks of rabies, is still in force in the following districts:— Buckinghamshire, south of Aylesbury (except a small area, which includes Eton and Datchet, at the southern extremity of the county); Berkshire, east of a line from Streatley to Aldermaston (except the Windsor Petty Sessional Division); Oxfordshire, south-east of a line from Thame to Warborough. In Reading and district, the Muzzling Order has been in force since the 24th September, 1920. In view of the long period of incubation in the case of rabies, I am advised that a Muzzling Order cannot be safely withdrawn until the expiration of eight months from the date of the last outbreak. The latest outbreaks of rabies in this district occurred on the 28th January and the 1st February last at Stokenchurch near High Wycombe and at Reading respectively, and I should, therefore, be prepared to consider the withdrawal of the Muzzling Order at the end of September, should no further outbreak of rabies occur in the district in the meantime.

asked the Secretary of State for War what was the total amount expended by the War Office and Ministry of Munitions on the Ironhirst Peat Factory; what was the liability agreed upon by Wetcarbonising, Limited, as due to His Majesty's Government in connection with this factory; has the factory been sold or is there a contract for sale by the liquidator; is the liquidator an official of Wetcarbonising, Limited; what is the proposed purchase price for the factory; and what dividend do the Government expect to receive on their debt?

I have been asked to reply. The total expenditure by the War Office and the Ministry of Munitions was approximately £490,000; the liability of Wetcarbonising, Limited, under the agreement to purchase was agreed at £370,000. Owing to the in- ability of the company to provide the purchase money, their rights to purchase were, under the terms of the agreement, cancelled, and the factory remained Government property for disposal in the usual way. Negotiations for the sale of the factory have recently been concluded, but the liquidator, who is an official of the company, had no interest in the sale. Having regard to the very small dividend anticipated, it was deemed expedient to waive all claims against the liquidator in return for a complete release of certain claims by the company against the Government, and no dividend is therefore expected.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why those who may have prepaid Excess Profits Duty are only allowed 4 per cent. interest, whilst the lowered bank rate is still 5½ per cent.?

The rate of interest allowed on prepaid Excess Profits Duty would appear to be comparable with bankers' deposit rate (at present 3½ per cent.) and with the rate for "additional" Treasury Bills (now 4¼ per cent.) rather than with bank rate.

asked the Minister of Labour how many cases there have been in the last year where the employer has delayed stamping the cards of his workmen and then vanished without doing so; what would be the cost to the fund if all such workmen were paid unemployment pay where it was definitely established that the cards were unstamped through no fault of their own; and how many prosecutions have been initiated against such employers who have acted in the way suggested?

There have been very few cases of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend, but to give the precise number would involve considerable labour in the examination of papers. Two such cases occurred recently, but it is not possible to state definitely that there have been no others. The aggregate possible loss to the workers in these two cases, assuming they could satisfy the statutory conditions for the receipt of benefit, is under £10. The employer in one of these cases was prosecuted to conviction and fined £15, but owing to his disappearance it has not been possible to enforce the penalty.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, after the passage of a new Bill, he proposes to submit to local war committees for their friendly criticism his specific proposals for the alteration of the machinery in their respective districts; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of so doing in order to initiate the reforms under smooth and sympathetic working conditions?

May I remind my hon. Friend that the object of his question is already fully secured by Subsection 2 of Clause 1 of the War Pensions Bill. It is my intention to give local bodies the fullest opportunity of expressing an opinion on the orders and schemes to be made under the Bill.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the recent changes and modifications in Government policy have in any way affected or diminished the activity of his Department in promoting the creation of allotments; whether the drought has prejudiced the progress of the movement; and how many allotments exist now as compared with July, 1920, and July, 1919?

No, Sir. My Department is still actively engaged in promoting the creation of allotments, and the setting up of a Committee under the chairmanship of my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry is an indication of the importance which we attach to the movement. The drought has, of course, seriously affected the majority of the crops on allotments, but where deep cultivation and manuring has been practised the crops are satisfactory and I have little doubt that the allotment holders of the country will not be discouraged by a temporary set-back due to the abnormal climatic conditions. Inasmuch as returns of the number of allotments in England and Wales are only obtained annually on 31st December, I am unable to compare the figures at July, 1920, with those of July, 1919, but I may state for my hon. Friend's information that the number of allotments on 31st December, 1920, was estimated at 1,330,000, as compared with 1,250,000 on 31st December, 1919.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what sum per annum is spent on milk recording; how much of this amount is spent on administration expenses; and how much goes to the actual milk-recording societies?

The sum per annum spent on milk recording under the Ministry's scheme for an improvement of live stock varies considerably in different years, as it depends mainly on the number of herds of which records are kept by their owners. This number, I am glad to say, shows a considerable increase each year. During the last milk recording year the amount expended was approximately £30,000, of which, owing to the nature of the scheme, practically the whole was spent on administrative ex- penses—£17,000 by milk recording socieites and £13,000 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Towards the expenses of the societies the State paid approximately £7,500—£6,300 by way of grants and £1,200 by the supply of the necessary books, etc., for keeping records.

asked *he Minister of Agriculture if the Government are still working a farm at Lingfield, and, if so, how long they propose to continue; what has been the loss on working; how much capital has been sunk; and how much of the capital is estimated to be lost?

The Surrey Agricultural Committee, as agents for the Ministry, are still in possession of a farm at Lingfield, which was taken over in 1918 under D.O.R. Regulation 2M. Since February, 1919, the farm has also been used as a training-centre for ex-service men. Arrangements have been made to close the centre, and to withdraw from possession of the farm at Michaelmas, 1921. I am afraid that I cannot acquaint the hon. Member of the financial results of the undertaking until it is finally wound up and the accounts closed.