asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state how many coloured troops the French have in their army of occupation in Germany; whether such coloured troops have been sent into Germany with the consent of the Supreme Council; whether any complaints or protests have been received from the German Government by His Majesty's Government against the use of such coloured troops; and, if so, what action has been taken by the British Government on the matter?

I understand that the strength of the French Colonial troops in the occupied territory of Germany is about 18,000. The composition of the French occupying force is a matter for the French Government. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative. The fourth part, therefore, does not arise.

asked the Prime Minister whether M. Clemenceau presented memoranda in favour of permanent occupation of the left bank of the Rhine at the Peace Conference at Paris on 26th February, 1919; and whether he pressed the same claim at a meeting with President Wilson and the Prime Minister on 14th March, 1919?

In view of the publication abroad of proceedings of the Peace Conference, the Government are considering the desirability of issuing a Blue Book on the subject.

Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to tell us that M. Clemenceau did present the memorandum?

It means exactly what I have said. Pending a decision, I prefer to make no statement whatever.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister has denied that that was done in this House, and can the right hon. Gentleman say why, when we ask if it was done, we are put off with such an answer?

I do not think the hon. Member correctly quotes the Prime Minister. I am certain that if he does correctly quote the Prime Minister he will find that what he said is accurate.

asked the Prime Minister whether the British representatives to the Commission on Reparations, appointed at a plenary meeting of the Peace Conference on 25th January, included any members of the Committee which reported that Germany could pay £24,000,000,000; whether the case put by these representatives was founded on the Committee's Report; and, if so, whether he will now publish the Report?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. The third part of the question does not therefore arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Mohammed Said Pasha, a former Prime Minister of Egypt, recently had an interview with the Sultan and gave the interview afterwards to the Press, and that he said on that occasion that he believed in capturing Egyptians through negotiation with Zaghloul; and whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to act upon this suggestion?

I have no information as to the interview to which the hon. Member refers. The latter part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the amount of Egypt's national debt at the commencement of the British occupation in 1882; and what is the amount of that debt to-day?

The capital of the Consolidated Egyptian debt in 1882 was approximately 97,000,000 Egyptian pounds. The amount outstanding in the hands of the public at the end of 1920 was approximately 86,000,000.

How is it that there is no appreciable reduction of that debt, seeing that the debt to the Credit Bank, which was 27,000,000 in 1914, had fallen in 1921 to 17,000,000?

I should like to see that question on the Paper.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that on the third day on which the military court in Alexandria sat last month to try those accused of taking part in the demonstrations in December last the court refused to hear all the witnesses for the defence; and whether this procedure was also adopted by the military court which fried those accused of rioting in May?

I have no information as to the procedure followed by the military courts to which the hon. Member refers.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, since Egypt is now administered by the British authorities, there being no Egyptian ministry responsible, the "Times" Cairo correspondent is allowed to hold a post in the Ministry of Agriculture in Egypt while he still corresponds with the "Times," this being contrary to the Order issued a short time ago forbidding newspaper correspondents, Egyptians or foreigners, to be at the same time Government officials?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made to the hon. Member for Rothwell on 9th November fast. Egypt is not administered by the British authorities at the present moment, but by the Under-Secretaries of State, who are permanent officials of the Egyptian Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the publication of the correspondence which passed in 1918–19 between Sir Reginald Wingate and His Majesty's Government as to the settlement of the status of Egypt?

The correspondence to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was considered by the members of Lord Milner's mission, and no useful purpose would now be served by its publication.

Is it not a fact that Sir Reginald Wingate recommended much the same policy as that now adopted at the instance of Lord Allenby, and in view of the fact that Lord Allenby's proposals are to be published next week, would it not be a matter of common justice that Sir Reginald Wingate's proposals should be published next week?

That is argument rather than a question.

Did not Sir Reginald Wingate ask that his correspondence should be published and did the Government refuse his request?

Did not Sir Reginald Wingate give in his resignation largely owing to the failure of the Government to adopt his policy?

Owing to the great importance of this question, is not, the nation entitled to full information?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" was last used by their Lordships, and for what purpose and for what length of time; when it is anticipated that she will again be used by their Lordships; and what is the annual cost of the upkeep of this vessel, including allowance for depreciation?

H.M.S. "Enchantress" was last used by, the Admiralty on 3rd October, 1921—the final date of a cruise beginning on 14th September for a visit of inspection to the northern bases, and to the Atlantic Fleet at sea for the purpose of witnessing the fleet firing practice, and other exercises. For reasons of economy the Admiralty do not propose to commission the ship during the coming financial year, and intend to lay her up at Portsmouth, so that no expenditure on unkeep will be incurred in connection with her during 1922–23. The estimated depreciation was computed in 1913 at £6,500 a year, but with a ship of this type, the depreciated value on the original cost depends upon the condition in which she is kept up.

While thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his very satisfactory answer, may I ask if the ship has yet been laid up, whether she has a crew on board, and when this economy will be actually carried out?

The matter was left over for decision until the return of the First Lord. I understand the vessel will be laid up as soon as possible.

Would it not be more economical to scrap the ship altogether, or is she required for naval purposes?

She is of considerable intrinsic value, and might be disposed of otherwise. The most economical thing would be to keep her for the time being, and lay her up, and to consider the whole business at a later date.

In view of the recommendation of the Geddes Committee, should not this luxury yacht be sold?

The present intention is to lay her up, which will cost practically nothing, and see at a later date what it is advisable to do with her.

Is it not the definite policy of the Admiralty to dispose of this ship at the earliest possible moment?

I cannot add anything to my answer.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that in the minutes of the meeting of the canteen representatives, held on 22nd July last, in connection with the closing down of the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes' laundry in His Majesty's Ship "Assistance," a statement occurs to the effect that efforts had been made to economise by reducing the civilian staff and employing some service labour in lieu, but it still had not paid; whether such employment was authorised by the naval authorities; under what Vote are ratings so employed paid; and whether the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes are making use of service labour in any other direction?

The answers to the first two parts of this question are in the affirmative. As the detailed circumstances with regard to the temporary employment of certain naval ratings in the laundry in His Majesty's Ship "Assistance" necessitate a somewhat lengthy statement, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I might say at once, however, that the Navy, Army, and Air Force institutes are not making use of service labour in any other direction.

Following is the statement:

The facts are as follow: Laundries are fitted by the Admiralty on board a few of His Majesty's ships as part of their working organisation. The laundry in His Majesty's Ship "Assistance" was installed for the use of the Atlantic Fleet generally when cruising, and, as a matter of convenience, the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes were employed to run it. Owing to the conditions of the employment of His Majesty's Ship "Assistance," the laundry could not be conducted except at a loss; and in order to prevent the laundry closing down prior to the Atlantic Fleet proceeding on her spring cruise of 1921, the experiment was authorised by the local naval authorities of using a certain amount of service labour in the laundry, augmented by expert civilian laundry staff, the latter being provided by the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes. The naval ratings employed received remuneration over and above their naval nay from the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes at the rate of from 10s. to £1 a week for the work done by them in the laundry. The laundry still did not pay its way, and the arrangement with the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes was terminated in May, 1921. As regards the third part of the question, naval ratings are paid out of Vote 1 of the Navy Estimates. As regards the fourth part, it has been ascertained that the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes are not making use of naval service labour in any other direction.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what grounds it has been decided that no provision for marriage allowance for officers of the Royal Navy shall be made in the forthcoming Naval Estimates?

I regret that I am unable to add anything to my reply of the 9th February to the hon. and gallant Member for the Shettleston Division.

Would not a statement that this is a just claim which will be dealt with when money matters allow, allay a considerable amount of discontent in the service?

I think I made it clear to my hon. and gallant Friend that there are certain economies which may be regrettable, but which under present circumstances are necessary.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware, that before we separated last autumn, we had a Debate on this question in this House with the result that he himself said he proposed to give a temporary concession with regard to the marriage allowance for officers? Why has he abandoned that policy?

We cannot discuss that now.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make any statement with reference to the promotion of lieut.-commanders to commanders, and with reference to the special scheme of retirement for officers of the Royal Navy surplus to requirement?

I am afraid I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Can the hon. Gentleman give me any idea when he will be able to make the statement, in view of the fact that the failure to get promotion at the proper time is very disheartening to Naval officers?

I am only too anxious to give the information.

But when?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the canteen at the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, deals with others than the cadets and employés at the college; and what steps does he propose to take to put a stop to this practice on the part of a Government establishment carried on under exceptionally advantageous conditions as compared with the traders of the town?

The Admiralty instructions, which are strictly carried out by the canteen, are that active service ratings, naval pensioners and reservists serving at the Royal Naval College may deal at this canteen for themselves and their wives and families, but that civilians pure and simple employed in connection with the establishment shall not be permitted to deal at the canteen. This is in accordance with the authorised practice in naval canteens in His Majesty's ships and fleet establishments and no action is considered necessary.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that civilians do, as a matter of fact, deal at this canteen and that it is impossible for private shopkeepers to compete with a Government establishment which gets its stores under exceptional advantages?

I shall be very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend if he will give me any specific instances, as the inquiries I have made have elicited the answer that no civilians are allowed to deal at these canteens.

Is it the policy of the Government to take upon itself work ordinarily done by private traders?

The answer to that question was "No."

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a new branch, to be called the Supply Branch, is about to be created in the Royal Navy; if so, whether, in view of the rapidity of promotion consequent on the formation of a new branch, any ratings with a knowledge of account keeping and store keeping from other classes will be permitted to transfer to the number required; and whether, in the event of it being necessary to create a number of warrant officers to officer the new branch, the Admiralty will select them from chief petty officers with a knowledge of account keeping and store keeping from all branches, provided they have passed both educationally and professionally for warrant rank?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The whole question is being investigated by a Committee, and until the Committee reports I am not in a position to furnish information as to details.

Will the hon. Gentleman inform me when the Committee have reported?

Yes, I shall be happy to do so.

Will the hon. Gentleman see that if any men be required for this branch, preference shall be given to those who have been discharged before the Committee has reported?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will assure the House that reductions in the personnel (officers) of the Royal Navy, which it may, on account of the Washington Conference or other reasons, be necessary to introduce, will not be allowed to restrict or hinder the development of the channels of promotion now open to men of the lower deck, and that the proportion of commissioned officers so recruited will be maintained?

There is no intention of closing any of the present channels of promotion from the lower deck, which have been much extended during the last few years, but the number of such promotions will necessarily be affected by the reduced requirements of the Fleet. The Admiralty will continue to consider sympathetically any developments of the present arrangements which are shown to be for the good of the naval service as a whole and are practicable in existing circumstances.

Will the hon. Gentleman give the assurance asked for in the last part of the question, that the proportion will be maintained?

I do not think I can give a definite assurance beyond the assurance of sympathy that I have just given.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the date at which one or more of the capital ships provided for in the Naval Estimates of the current financial year will be laid down; and whether, in the interests of the safety of the Empire, he will not allow further delay in giving effect to the programme of naval construction approved by Parliament last Session?

None of the four super-Hoods contemplated in the current Estimates will be laid down unless one or more of the Powers who signed the Naval Treaty at Washington fail to ratify it, in which case the whole matter would require reconsideration. The date for the laying down of the two 35,000-ton vessels agreed upon at Washington will inevitably be delayed by the necessity of getting out new designs, and I am not yet in a position to give an exact date.

Will the hon. Gentleman take care that no panic on the ground of economy will interfere with the efficiency of the Fleet?

Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that one of the ships that are to be laid down will be built at Davenport?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to abolish the officers' servants class in accordance with the recommendation of the Geddes Committee?

No, Sir. I might add that the recommendation in question was based on the erroneous impression that officers' servants do not form part of the necessary fighting complement of the ship.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to save the present high cost of water police by employing active service ratings in accordance with the recommendation of the Geddes Committee?

Neither the Admiralty nor the Assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, who advises them, consider that the water police can be abolished without grave loss of public property which would far exceed the cost of this Force, but the Commissioner has now concurred in certain reductions which will effect substantial economies.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is still proposed to spend £340,000 on new works in the coming financial year?

No, Sir.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the increased charge to the State for retired pay which results from the practice of allowing a senior naval officer to take the rank of admiral and fly his flag for one day on retiring?

I assume that the practice referred to is that introduced by Order-in-Council of 9th March, 1914, under which a captain who is not to be employed as a flag officer, but is qualified for promotion, is promoted when his turn comes, and after one day on the flag list is retired with the retired pay of a rear-admiral. Under the arrangements previously in force, an officer in such circumstances, in accordance with the long established custom of the Naval Service, would have been promoted when his turn came and retained on the flag list until retired for non-service. As the retired pay of a rear-admiral is dependent upon length of service, towards which half-pay time counts as one-third, the present arrangement, as compared with that previously in force, results, in the great majority of cases, in the officer receiving a slightly decreased rate of retired pay. The total cost of the arrangement to the State, however, involves a number of other considerations, such as the number of promotions to flag rank, the size of the flag list, etc., and it would not be possible, without complicated actuarial calculations, to work out the eventual financial effects of the two systems. There is no doubt, however, that the present system is more conducive to efficiency, and the Admiralty consider it is justified on that ground.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the distress prevailing at the different naval ports, he can make any further statement with regard to the distribution of the naval prize money?

It will not be practicable to fix the value of a share in the final distribution of prize money until some date in March. In these circumstances, I regret that it will not be possible to begin the distribution until early in April.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many stations for commanders-in-chief on shore at home were in existence prior to the War; are ships, and, if so, how many, located in the area of the commanders-in-chief of the Coast of Scotland and Western Approaches; what is the work for which 140 members of staff and retinue are employed; is separate housing accommodation provided for each of the officers of the two stations mentioned; and why is it necessary to pay at the average rate of £68 per head for lodging

As the reply to this question is very long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is it not possible to let us know at once whether these stations are going to be demobilised or not?

Yes, Sir. In consequence of the situation resulting from the Washington Conference, it has been decided that both the Commander-in-Chief, Coast of Scotland, and the Commander-in-Chief, Western Approaches, can be dispensed with.

May I ask what the Washington Conference has to do with disbanding a post on the East Coast of Scotland?

That does not arise here.

The following is the prepared reply:

As regards part 1 of the question, there were five stations on shore at home prior to the War—at Portsmouth, Devonport, Chatham, Rosyth, and Queenstown. The first three were commanded by flag officers with the title of Commander-in-Chief. Rosyth was commanded by an admiral, with the title of Admiral Commanding on the Coast of Scotland; Queenstown by a vice-admiral, with the title of Vice-Admiral Commanding on the Coast of Ireland.

As regards part 2, the following ships are located in the areas mentioned: Coast of Scotland.—Three battle cruisers, two aircraft carriers, one battleship, three flotilla leaders, 29 torpedo boat destroyers, one sloop, seven drifters. In addition, there are the following ships for disposal: Five battleships, one cruiser, 13 minesweepers, one sloop, one submarine.

Western Approaches.—One light cruiser, four torpedo boat destroyers, two sloops, seven trawlers, two drifters, four harbour launches. In addition, there are the following ships for disposal: Five cruisers, six sloops, one gunboat.

As regards Part III, each Commander-in-Chief is assisted by a Chief of Staff and a War Staff Officer. These officers deal principally with movements of ships, arrangements for refits, port organisation, training, preparation for war, liaison with military and air force, business with local authorities. The Chief of Staff is the Commander-in-Chief's deputy for all questions coming under his jurisdiction.

The Maintenance, Officer and engineer officers deal with the upkeep of the ships, vessels, and small craft in the command. The intelligence officers on the Commander-in-Chief's staff are part of the Naval Intelligence system of the British Isles. They collect and distribute information throughout the command and to the Admiralty. They are also the distributing authorities for confidential hooks and documents.

The Flag Lieutenant, who is also the Commander-in-Chief's aide-de-camp, and the signal personnel, carry out all the signalling of the port. The Secretary, Secretary's clerks, writers, printers, and orderlies carry out the clerical work.

The medical officers care for the health of the personnel in the port, including the officers and ratings of ships and small craft refitting when the ships have no medical officers available.

The above constitute the headquarters staff, totalling 91 officers and ratings for the two Commands. In addition to these, there are 49 ratings, comprising 23 boats' crews and 26 bandsmen, which constitute the personal retinues of the two Commanders-in-Chief.

A detailed list of staff and retinue is given in Appendix (F.1) (page 45) of the First. Interim Report of the Committee on National Expenditure.

As regards Part IV, the Commander-in-Chief, Coast of Scotland, is provided with an official residence for himself and domestic staff. A residence is also provided for his secretary. There is no other accommodation provided for Commander-in-Chief's officers, but some unmarried ratings are accommodated in temporary quarters attached to the Commander-in-Chief's offices.

The Commander-in-Chief, Western Approaches, is likewise provided with an official residence for himself and domestic staff, and his secretary also occupies an official residence.

As regards Part V, I would point out that all officers of the Fleet are entitled to service accommodation or allowances in lieu if in the absence of such accommodation they have to find their own.

The allowances payable to officers under the Regulations are as follows:—

	Annual Rate.
Flag Officers and Captains R.N.	£
and Lieut.-Colonel and above R.M.	100
Commanders and Lieut.-Commanders and Lieutenants and Officers of corresponding rank	80
All other Officers	60

I may, however, point out that, in view of the change in the general situation brought about by the Washington Conference, orders have already been given for the abolition of the appointment of the Commander-in-Chief, Coast of Scotland, and for the amalgamation of the Western Approaches Command with that of Commander-in-Chief, Devonport.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to the Marlborough Gate, Portsmouth Dockyard?

The Admiralty are at present investigating means of reducing the heavy cost of the police in the Royal yards, and the closing of this gate would give one opportunity for saving considerable expense. No final decision has yet been taken in the matter.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can make any statement as to H.M.S. "Victory"?

The future of H.M.S. "Victory" is still under consideration. I greatly regret to say that it appears unlikely that she can again be maintained afloat.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of chief and first writers who have passed both professionally and educationally for warrant rank and are recommended for promotion, and the average age it is estimated these chief and petty officers will be on promotion to warrant rank?

According to the latest information available at the Admiralty 54 chief writers have passed both professionally and educationally for warrant rank and have been continuously recommended for promotion. In view of this large number, the Admiralty do not consider that for the present any useful purpose would be served in their compiling and keeping up a roster of first writers qualified and recommended for warrant rank, as the claims of the chief writers already on the list must in equity first be satisfied. In the unlikely event of insufficient suitable chief writers being forthcoming, steps will be taken to obtain particulars of first writers who are duly qualified and recommended for promotion. Until the post-War establishment of this branch is definitely fixed, it is not possible to give any estimate of the average age at which these chief petty officers and petty officers will be promoted to warrant rank.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he has any explanation to offer with regard to the disputed version of a translation which attributed to French naval officers sympathy with German submarine atrocities during the late War?

This matter has formed the subject of considerable controversy in the Press, and the statements of my Noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to it have no doubt been seen by the right hon. Member. To these I do not think I can usefully add anything, beyond saying that, in the opinion of the Admiralty, the article by Captain Castex, to which my Noble Friend drew attention at the Washington Conference, does clearly express approval of German unlimited submarine warfare, as practised in the late War.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the relative position of this country and France respecting the building of submarines; and what steps have been taken by the respective heads of the navies to meet in friendly conference with the object of adjusting the views of the two countries?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply of the 9th February to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge). As regards the second part, no such steps have been taken by the Admiralty.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the recently translated book by Captain Castex showing that the said Castex approved of the German submarine tactics; and whether he will draw the attention of the French Government to the frank expression of these views so expensive to this country?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that my Noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty drew the attention of his French colleagues on the Committee on the Limitation of Naval Armament at Washington to the articles referred to, and elicited the most emphatic and vigorous repudiation of them both by Admiral de Bon and by M. Sarraut, the Head of the French Delegation, speaking on behalf of the French Government. In these circumstances, it is not considered necessary to take any further steps to bring these articles to the formal notice of the French Government.

Is it possible that the Admiralty have not seen the subsequent book by Captain Castex, which was reviewed in the "Manchester Guardian" the day before yesterday, and is the Admiralty still under the impression that there are only these articles which were quoted by the First Lord, and no other evidence?

I have seen the book, and understand that it consists of the articles in a cover.

Is it in order for an hon. Member to mention the name of a newspaper when he is asking a question?

The hon. Member was referring to a statement made in a newspaper.

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of those engaged in the various branches of the building trade who are registered as unemployed at the Employment Exchanges at the present time, and the weekly amount of unemployed benefit which they are drawing?

The number of persons in the building trades of the United Kingdom registered at Employment Exchanges as unemployed at 31st January was 176,119, of whom 100,752 were labourers. The estimated amount of unemployment benefit drawn in respect of the week ended 31st January was about £105,000.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would be more economical that these men should be building houses than that they should be drawing unemployment pay; and if so, will he make representations to his colleague the Minister of Health accordingly?

I do not think that arises.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the latest figures for persons drawing unemployment benefit, showing, respectively, the numbers of unemployed persons drawing benefit for dependent wives (or husbands) and children, the total number of children involved, and the total number of persons drawing benefit of any kind?

At 31st January, the number of persons in the United Kingdom drawing unemployment benefit was approximately 2,087,000, of whom 1,800,000 were wholly unemployed, and 287,000 were on short-time. Of this total of 2,087,000, about 689,900 were also drawing grants in respect of dependants, covering about 619,000 wives and housekeepers (or invalided husbands), and about 1,023,000 children.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has prepared, or can prepare, an estimate as to the number of unemployed men, women, and boys there are in the United Kingdom, and who are not registered as unemployed; and, if so, what number they amount to?

There is no means of making a reliable estimate of the numbers unemployed who are not registered at the Employment Exchanges. In view of the fact, however, that the great majority of workpeople are in insured trades and are therefore registered for unemployment benefit, I have no reason to suppose that this number is at all large relatively to the number so registered.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the serious position caused to unemployed persons who, owing to unemployment, are unable to meet their insurance premiums and who are now receiving lapse notices from the leading assurance companies; and whether he will consider the intro- duction of measures to obtain for unemployed persons a moratorium to cover insurance?

I have been asked to reply. Recommendations for dealing with hardship resulting from lapsed policies were made by Lord Parmoor's Committee on Industrial Assurance, and, as stated in reply to a question on Monday, I hope to introduce legislation on this subject at an early date.

asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the hardship inflicted on the women cleaners who have been recently discharged from Government offices by reason of the decision of a court of law that they are not eligible for the unemployment grant; and if, in view of the fact that they and the Government believed that they were covered by the Unemployment Act, he will introduce a Bill so as to bring them within the benefits of the Act?

I am aware that as a result of the recent decision of the High Court women cleaners in Government and other offices are not insured against unemployment, and consequently are no longer entitled to unemployment benefit when discharged. As I informed my hon. Friend on Wednesday last, any such person who has paid more in contributions than she has received in benefit may apply for refund of balance. I am not prepared to introduce legislation in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government are proposing to place further funds at the disposal of the Unemployed Grants Committee in order that local authorities may obtain financial assistance to put into operation schemes of work that they have waiting to be done?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the last part of the question on this subject put by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his Department has made any fresh arrangements as regards the helping of juveniles at Employment Exchanges; whether an officer is now attached to schools in London; and whether girls or boys leaving school can only obtain the help of Employment Exchanges for employment through the officers attached to the schools, or if they can apply to any Employment Exchange dealing with juveniles?

Since August last officers of the Juvenile Departments of the Exchanges have attended at day continuation schools in order to advise and place in employment the juveniles concerned. To obviate the necessity for the attendance of juveniles requiring employment both at the day continuation schools and at the Juvenile Departments, juveniles register at the Exchanges and not at the schools.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at these day continuation schools they sometimes play football?

That question should be put to the Minister of Education.

asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the case of A. W. Punshon, of 165, Duke Street, St. Helens, who, as caretaker of an elementary school, was informed that he would be included as a workman in the Unemployed Insurance Act, 1920, and would be required to contribute in accordance with its provisions and who, on making application lately for unemployed benefit for which he was compelled to contribute, is informed that, owing to a recent legal decision in the Law Courts, he is not a workman within the meaning of the Act; and, in view of the fact that the man has contributed to the Act and his right to benefit has been admitted by his having received benefit for one or two periods of unemployment previously, and that he is now entirely dependent on relief, will he take the necessary steps to compensate the man?

Caretakers of elementary schools were originally regarded as insurable, but under a recent decision of the High Court, which is final and conclusive, they are held not to be insurable. Consequently no benefit is payable in respect of employment in that capacity. As Mr. Punshon has apparently received benefit to which, strictly speaking, he was not entitled I cannot agree that he has any claim to compensation, but if he has paid more in contributions than he has received in benefit he may apply for a refund of the balance.

Was it not on the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman's Department that these proceedings were taken in the High Court, and, if so, why?

I should like to have notice of that question.

I suppose we are to assume that it is the voice of Jacob and the hand of Esau in this case?

I do not know what that means.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the West Ham Board of Guardians are relieving about 10,000 cases each week at a cost of about £15,000; that, this time last year they were only paying out about £8,000 per week; that they have already paid out £590,00 in unemployment relief; and that they are £330,000 overdrawn at the bank; and whether the Government is prepared to give any financial relief to the West Ham Board of Guardians and other guardians in other parts of the country in consequence of the heavy burden that the ratepayers are called upon to meet?

I am aware of the circumstances of the West Ham Union. I have sanctioned the payment of interest by the guardians on an overdraft of £250,000 up to the 31st March, and I am considering a further request which they have made for a loan from the Government of £300,000.

Is it the intention of the Government to relieve places like West Ham and the districts of other local authorities in many parts of the country who are bearing this terrible burden? This state of things cannot go on for ever.

We all hope that it will not go on for ever. The Govern- ment is assisting these localities by enabling them to raise loans spread over a considerable period.

Does not relieving the guardians in that direction simply mean that they will have to pay in the long run?

We cannot enter into debate on that subject.

asked the Minister of Health if he can now make any statement as to the position with respect to health insurance this year of insured persons who through unemployment have been able to maintain their payments in connection with the national health insurance?

Under the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1921, insured persons who have had prolonged periods of unemployment are kept in insurance until the 31st December, 1922, and by a special provision of the Arrears Regulations are entitled, until that date, to medical benefit, maternity benefit, and the minimum rates of sickness and disablement benefits. As regards their title to benefits during the year 1923 I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 15th instant to the hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division, a copy of which I am sending to him.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration in making these concessions that a number of these societies which are now solvent will be insolvent in the course of a few years?

I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that any concessions made will be made after the most careful investigation and the solvency of none of these societies will be affected.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in many districts where relief work schemes are in operation the workmen have to travel a considerable distance to and from their work, the cost amounting to several shillings per week; and whether it would be an infringement of the Regulations governing wages for the local authority to provide the necessary conveyance?

No case of the kind referred to has previously been brought to my notice. A local authority would not be entitled to provide conveyance without the approval of the Unemployment Grants Committee, which is not likely to be given unless the circumstances are quite exceptional.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hundreds of unemployed men travel daily from London to the Dartford Division, which is already crowded with thousands of unemployed, and that every day they have to pay this fare, which is a great drain upon the meagre wage that they receive under the scheme?

That is simply the question on the Paper put in other words.

Except that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

asked the Minister of Labour the terms of reference of the Committee appointed under the chairmanship of Lord Cave to consider the operation of the Trade Boards Acts; and whether it is the policy of his Department to regard the inquiry on these terms of reference as a reason for refusing to confirm minimum rates of wages fixed by any particular Trade Board?

The terms of reference of the Committee now sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Cave are "to inquire into the working and effects of the Trade Boards Acts and to report what changes, if any, are required." Since the appointment of the Committee 35 sets of rates have been presented for confirmation. In the case of two of these, dealing with distributive trades, I felt bound to withhold confirmation on the ground that it appeared possible that the recommendations of the Committee might have an important bearing upon the work of the Trade Boards concerned. Of the remaining 33 sets of rates, I have referred back one for reasons not connected with the Committee, and I have confirmed 27. The other five, having been recently fixed, are still under my consideration.

asked the Minister of Labour the date on which the grocery Trade Board was constituted; the date on which it first fixed minimum rates and forwarded these to the Minister of Labour for confirmation; the date of the decision of the Minister to refuse to confirm these rates; the dates on which the Board subsequently forwarded reduced rates to the Minister for confirmation; and the date, in each case, of his decision in reference thereto?

The Trade Board was constituted on 23rd June, 1920, and presented certain rates for confirmation on 4th February and others on 12th March, 1921. These rates were referred back to the Board for further consideration on 22nd April and again after resubmission by the Board on 1st July. Reduced rates were presented for confirmation upon 18th November and were referred back to the Board on 9th February last. I would also refer my hon. Friend to the reply, of which I am sending him a copy, given yesterday on this matter.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that his Department issued, in September, 1920, an official document M5/XIV (2nd Revision), entitled, "Reports upon Openings in Industries suitable for Disabled Ex-Service Men, Building Trade"; that on page 28 of this document it is stated that disabled ex-petty officers and leading seamen will receive rank allowance during periods of training under the scheme outlined in the pamphlet M5/XIV; if he will explain why this rank allowance has now been withdrawn from the ex-royal naval men and retained for ex-military men under training; and why payments already made on the authority of M5/XIV are being recovered from these disabled ex-naval petty officers and leading seamen?

I should, perhaps, at once assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, so far as I know, the position of the ex-naval ratings in training with us is not less favourable than that of the ex-soldier. For some time naval ratings were receiving rank allowances from the Ministry of Labour and badge and petty time allowances from the Ministry of Pensions. The payment of both of these allowances could not be justified, and we discontinued our rank allowances. There had been some over-payments before the date of the change, and it was resolved not to recover these. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any case of recovery of payments made prior to 29th June last year, I will look into it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where moneys were paid under the clearly set out terms of this official document these unfortunate men are being mulct of the payments, and does not he think that is a great injustice?

If it is stated as the hon. and gallant Gentleman states it, yes; but what I have tried to show is that they were getting double pay up to a certain point. We stopped that, of course, but we did not recover. We issued an order that double pay was not legal. Notice was given of that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the Gracious Speech from the Throne and the resolution passed at the Imperial Conference, the Government intend shortly to introduce legislation to enable the large numbers of ex-service men who made their applications too late to receive assistance under the scheme which terminated on 31st December last to obtain assistance to help them to emigrate to the Dominions; and, if so, when will such legislation be brought before the House?

Yes, Sir. I hope the necessary legislation will be introduced shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why girls are retained in his Department in the photographic section of the Directorate of Research; and why ex-service men should not be employed on this work?

The replacement by ex-service men of the women employed in the photographic section of the Directorate of Research was decided on some time ago, and is being carried out as speedily as possible.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that His Majesty's Government have decided to make a loan of £2,000,000 to Austria on the security of Gobelin tapestries, His Majesty's Government can also see their way to make a similar loan to the British subjects who have approved claims against the Turkish Government arising out of the War, in view of the fact that these claims are recoverable from our late enemies, of the great suffering to many of the British claimants, and of the severe loss to British trade in the Near East which is in the meantime being occasioned.

No, Sir; the Government do not see their way to ask Parliament for authority to adopt this suggestion.

Is it now to be the permanent policy of the Government to give money to assist ex-enemy subjects and to refuse to assist British subjects?

I really think that implication is quite unfair.

Pending further consideration I have been asked to defer this question till next Thursday. May I ask the Prime Minister if he will get someone to attend a meeting to-morrow to be addressed by Sir Benjamin Robertson, so that he may have full information on the matter?

asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to restore the expelled Catholic workers to their employment in Belfast; and what effective effort has been made to mitigate the lot of those who are still out of work?

The Government cannot undertake, nor would it be proper that they should undertake, to answer in this House questions regarding matters of administration for which another Government is solely responsible; but I have complete confidence that that Government is taking all possible steps to carry out in the letter and in the spirit the agreement arrived at between the Prime Minister for Northern Ireland and Mr. Collins on this subject.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman in his speech in introducing the Treaty Bill distinctly promise that he would enter into negotiations with Sir James Craig and that he had hopes that effective steps would be taken to have these expelled workers restored to their employment, and is it a fact that on the strength of that promise I am now putting the question in order to find out whether it is going to be performed?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men are quite capable of looking after their own affairs, also that the speech delivered the other night by the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin) has gone a long way to prevent a settlement?

The facts undoubtedly are that the boycott, which was in itself an improper thing, of Ulster goods was removed by the Southern Government and it was the counterpart to that that every effort should he made by the Northern Government to secure the reinstatement and employment of these Catholic workers, who, in the troubles through which Ireland has been passing, had been forcibly expelled from the yards. Owing to the great un-employment which prevails there and in other parts of the United Kingdom, no means have yet been arrived at of securing this side of the agreement, and it was understood that where work did not exist of course it could not be provided. They could only take off the invidious barrier. I know that Sir James Craig is trying his best. He has made various suggestions to this Government to help in various ways, but they all cost money and money to-day is hard to come by.

Are we to understand that since the Southern Government have most effectively carried out their part of the bargain and that Sir James Craig states, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that he is willing to carry out the bargain but it costs money on the part of the Government, the Government are going to stand in the way of having the other side of the bargain carried out owing to financial causes, and that these 5,000 people are to remain out of employment, and no effort is to be made to restore them?

All the Southern Government had to do was to withdraw an edict—a wrong thing—namely, to take off the boycott. A positive act is required on the other side, not merely to take off the boycott of Catholic workmen, but to provide them with work, which is quite another matter—a far more difficult thing to do, and the problem that is being faced.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any expense was incurred by the Department of Agriculture in Ireland in briefing counsel and leading evidence before the Commission on the Importation of Canadian Cattle in opposition to the removal of the embargo; and, if so, what was the amount of the expense so incurred?

Counsel were employed by the Department to assist them in watching the interests of Irish agriculture before the Commission. The expenditure incurred in this connection amounts to £1,823 3s. 10d.; which will not form a charge on voted monies, but will be defrayed from the Endowment Fund of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland.

Before incurring that expense, did they find out whether counsel would appear on the other side?

Is it proposed to import Canadian cattle into Ireland?

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

The hon. Member had better put it down.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, while Great Britain is called upon to pay 10 per cent. of the total expenditure of the League of Nations, this country has no representative on the Commission of Control responsible for the finances of the League; will he take the necessary steps to remedy this deficiency; whether his attention has been called to the suggestion made in the Second Interim Report of the Committee on National Expenditure that some method should be devised whereby a closer check may be kept on the activities of the League, which appear to involve considerable expenditure; and will he say what steps, if any, it is proposed to take to secure this end?

The contribution of Great Britain will be something between 9 and 10 per cent. The League finances go through three stages. Only the first of these stages is dealt with by the Commission of Control, the majority of which is, by the decision of the Assembly, selected from nations not represented on the Council. The duty of this Commission has nothing whatever to do with policy, or with the objects to which the financial resources of the League are devoted. It simply has to see that money devoted for a specific purpose is devoted to that purpose.

In the second place, the budget estimates are scrutinised by the Council of the League. In the third place, they are scrutinised and passed by the General Assembly of the League, after they have been examined by a special Commission appointed to look into them.

It is difficult to see what further checks on the expenditure of the League can be devised, nor do the Committee on National Expenditure make any suggestions to that effect. The policy, whether involving expenditure or not, can only be determined by the unanimous vote of the Assembly of 51 nations, or by the Council, on which this country is represented.

As far as I am able to form an opinion on the matter, the results of League activities have been achieved at a relatively small pecuniary cost.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety, in the interests of the taxpayer, of publishing a list of the 40 odd nations who belong to the League, marking with a star those whose revenues are above an unappreciable amount, and with an asterisk those who have paid their subscriptions?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the effect of his answer is that on behalf of his Government he is—

The hon. Member must follow the answer.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can yet give the House the names of the British delegates to the proposed Conference at Genoa; whether there has been any alteration in the date for the proposed Genoa Conference; and, if so, what is the reason for such alteration?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it will be possible to state the names of the British delegates?

I am afraid I cannot.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that the Trustees of the National Gallery of British Art are about to hold a loan exhibition of the works of John Sell Cotman and some related painters of the Norwich School at Millbank; whether he is aware that some of the finest of Cotman's pictures, the property of the nation, are in the British Museum, but that, owing to the present law, the British Museum is prevented from lending its Cotmans to the Trustees of the National Gallery for exhibition; whether, seeing that exhibitions are from time to time organised for the education and enjoyment of the nation itself, he will contrive means, either by special legislation or otherwise, to enable the British Museum to lend its treasures for short periods to exhibitions held in London under the control of the National Gallery; and, if not, will he request the Law Officers of the Crown to assist him to discover a method by which the British Museum may be empowered to exhibit its pictures and drawings on occasions such as those now outlined, in order that the British Museum may not be merely a storage place for such works of art as cannot be exhibited continuously on the walls of that institution?

I am informed by the trustees of the British Museum, that they are not in favour of reversing the policy, carefully considered and established by law, which retains in the Museum all the collections belonging to it. It is to the advantage of students to be able to study prints and drawings collectively, instead of having them scattered over the kingdom, and the risks attendant on transport and exhibition are avoided. The Museum is not merely a storage place, but a place of study, and the present policy is believed to be the best in the interests of art and of art students. So far as the Cotman drawings are concerned, an exhibition of them is being held at the British Museum concurrently with that at the National Gallery of British Art. It is part of the settled policy of the trustees to vary the exhibitions of prints and drawings at frequent intervals, and to take advantage of special occasions to call attention to the work of special artists or schools.

Is it not a fact that the object of the trustees of the National Gallery in holding this special exhibition is for the purpose of allowing the public to compare the various phases of the work, and, if so, what good purpose is served by having two exhibitions some miles apart, one at Millbank and the other at the British Museum?

That is only a repetition of the question which I have already answered.

asked the Minister of Health whether the Government will take the necessary steps to provide that the parliamentary registers prepared under The Representation of the People Act, 1918, shall be published only once annually, which would effect a considerable economy, and answer all reasonable purposes?

I have been asked to reply. The question of publication of the registers of electors annually instead of half-yearly has been under consideration, but no decision has yet been taken.

Is not that practically the same reply that I had last year to the same question?

I am sorry that I am not in a position to say.

Is it not a fact that for some years only supplementary lists have been issued, and that as a complete register is not being kept a very small amount is involved?

That is so.

asked the Minister of Health whether he has received representations from a large number of local authorities protesting against the withholding from use of many empty houses, and requesting power to compel their occupation in view of the serious shortage of housing accommodation; and, if be cannot reconsider his refusal to promote a Bill to give them these powers, will he consider the introduction of a temporary Measure providing for the rating of such houses so long as there is a shortage of house accommodation in their district, in order to protect the local authorities from the loss in revenue caused by these houses being withheld from occupation?

I have received some representations from local authorities on this subject. As regards the last part of the question, I am afraid I can only refer to the replies which I recently gave to similar questions by the hon. Members for Heywood and Radcliffe Division and the Dartford Division.

Are there not some local authorities who have this power already, and is it not possible to extend that?

I have been looking into that matter. The Corporation of London have certain powers under an Act for levying a rate on empty houses. What my hon. Friend asks me to do is to give power for the levying of rates on persons who do not wish to let their houses, which is a very different question. It would be psychologically impossible to find out the psychology of the owner in every district.

Will the right hon. Gentleman apply to the provinces that which already applies to the City of London?

I am considering that at the present time.

asked the Minister of Health how long it is intended that the Rent Restriction Act shall remain in operation?

It is provided in the Act that it shall continue in force until 24th June, 1923.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the action of his Ministry in delaying assent to the carrying out of schemes already approved by them, it will be impossible for local authorities to complete all the houses for which provisional sanction has been obtained before July, 1922; and, under these circumstances, will the Government grant to English authorities the same extension of time for completion that has been pro- mised to Scotch housing authorities and to the London County Council?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Exeter on Monday last.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to reply to the last part of my question?

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer to which I am referring I think he will find that is dealt with.

asked the Minister of Health whether the cost per house given by him for the periods prior to the 30th June, between 30th June and 31st December, 1921, and during the current years were for building only; and, if so, can he give the total cost per house for the periods, including land and the preparation of site?

The figures given in my reply to the hon. Member for Bedwellty on the 15th February were approved tender prices including house drains, baths and fences, and subject to adjustments for variations in cost of labour and materials. The average all-in cost of houses in contracts made before June, 1921, is approximately £1,100. For periods subsequent to June, 1921, £120 should be added to the figures in my previous answer to cover the cost of land, development and other expenses.

asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the appointment of some body similar in constitution and functions to the Geddes Committee to overhaul the expenditure of local bodies all over the country and indicate for the benefit of the ratepayers where economies can be made?

The expenditure of local bodies is primarily a question for the local ratepayers and it is for their representatives to take the necessary steps to overhaul their expenditure. All I can do is to draw their attention to the necessity for economy in local administration, and last February my Department issued a circular, a copy of which I am sending my noble and gallant Friend, urging them to review their commitments. From my knowledge that local authorities generally have made considerable efforts to reduce their expenditure, I have no doubt that in many instances this review will be reflected in a reduction of rates.