asked the Minister of Pensions whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to reduce the present naval pensions?

As it is understood that the hon. Member refers to ordinary naval service pensions for men, I have been asked to reply. There is no intention on the part of the Admiralty to reduce the long service pensions of any men now in receipt of a pension, or of men now in the naval service who may hereafter qualify for a service pension. The question of fixing a lower rate of pension for men entering the Navy in future is now under the consideration of the Admiralty.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the large number of cases which, having been classed in the first instance as attributable, were after re-examination at a much later day classed as only aggravated and finally as neither attributable, nor aggravated in spite of the continuance of incapacity; whether he is aware of the feelings aroused by the occurrence of such cases; and whether he can explain the apparent change of policy or the adoption of new standards by the Pensions Ministry or the final appeal tribunal which has resulted in such reversals of the earlier and more reliable diagnosis?

It is clearly my duty to secure that entitlement to pension has been properly conceded, and review with that object is specially necessary in connection with the very large number of claims which, owing to the heavy pressure of work consequent on demobilisation, were admitted on the report of a single medical officer. When subsequent examination by a properly constituted Medical Board, followed by full and expert consideration of all the relevant circumstances, reveals an incorrect decision on entitlement, I should not be justified in neglecting to make the necessary correction. In all such cases the man is informed of the alteration and advised of his right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of these cases has now become very large, and that very great dissatisfaction is being expressed in a great number of cases as to the sudden existence of these medical revisions by medical gentlemen who were unaware of the original facts?

I am not aware of that, but this cuts both ways. Very often a man, at the beginning of his demobilisation, was not considered to be entitled to a pension, but since then he has gone to the Appeal Tribunal and got his pension.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a very long list of cases from the Bristol War Pensions Committee in which complaint is made that a single referee, who was unaware of the original diagnosis, has revised attributable or aggravated cases so that the man's pension has been cut down to a small figure or to nothing?

Yes, but the man always has the right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, which is an entirely independent body instituted at the express wish of this House, and when there is any doubt in any case I always advise the man to appeal.

I presume that on the Appeal Tribunal there are never less than three persons sitting?

No, Sir. In the case of a man there are a doctor, a lawyer and an ex-service man; in the case of an officer there are a doctor, a lawyer and an officer.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether the changes recently announced affecting pensions to parents after 31st March next are dictated by the need for economy or are consequent upon a decision that the relevant provisions of the Royal Warrant of I6th December, 1919, are more favourable than is just to parents; and, if so, whether he can state the grounds for such a decision and the justification for drawing a distinction between claims made before and claims made after 31st March?

The answer to this question is a very long one, giving a full explanation, and, with the permission of the House, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the ease of Mrs. G. G. Wood, widow of the late Private W. F. Wood, No. 27621, Royal Army Medical Corps, of 3, Cotlands Road, Bournemouth, whose husband died of disease contracted on service during the War one day after the seven years' limit under Article 11 of the Royal Warrant; whether Mrs. Wood will only receive]6s. 6d. per week pension instead of the full alternative pension for a widow with allowance for her child, to which she would have been entitled had her husband died one day earlier; and whether, in view of this and similar cases, he can see his way to recommend an alteration in the terms of the Royal Warrant so as to extend the limit of time under Article 11?

I am inquiring into the facts of this case, and will give it personal consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

I must deal with the whole question; I cannot answer it straight off.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the situation, as it presents itself to many of these men, is that it would be better, in the interests of their wives and children, that they should die before the expiration of the seven years' limit rather than attempt to prolong their own lives?

This is a very large and difficult question, and I should hesitate to give an answer on the spur of the moment.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the hardship which the contemplated removal of the Shepherd's Bush Hospital to other quarters would entail on out-patients attending the hospital; what action he proposes to take to assist such cases; and whether the saving which it is anticipated would be the result of the change would be almost entirely wiped out by the cost of removal and allowances to out-patients?

In selecting alternative accommodation for out-patient treatment, full regard is being paid to the convenience of the pensioners, and I do not anticipate my difficulty in making satisfactory arrangements. The estimated cost of the removal from Shepherd's Bush, which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend last Thursday, includes the cost of providing suitable out-patient accommodation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the remarkable efficiency of the electrical appliances, and is it intended to scrap all of them or remove them?

All these appliances will be removed.

Is it the fact that, as stated in the Press, the treatment of out-patients cannot proceed so satisfactorily as at present if the hospital is removed?

My medical advisers tell me that it can.

In view of the strong feeling that exists with reference to this hospital, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to reconsider this matter should he receive a more moderate demand from the Guardians?

Yes, Sir, the desire of the Ministry has always been to maintain this hospital, and even now I am prepared to consider a modified proposal from the Guardians. It must, however, be made at once; I cannot keep the fate of these men hanging in the balance.

Is it the fact that the action taken by the Guardians necessitates the removal of this hospital?

Yes, Sir, without a doubt; it is a question of rent. I pressed them very hard, and have been negotiating with them for a long time, and I know the value of the hospital. In my judgment it is one of the great assets of the Ministry of Pensions, and I am anxious to keep it, but I refuse to be blackmailed. They are asking a rent which I think is wholly unjustifiable.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the decision to reduce the number of lip-reading lessons, given to ex-service men suffering from deafness, to 25, and in view of the fact that it has been stated that such a reduction would almost wholly destroy the value of such training and inflict great hardship on the men afflicted with deafness, and that the saving involved will be almost negligible, he will reconsider this decision?

Careful consideration has recently been given to this matter in the light of the Ministry's experience, and it is the definite opinion of my advisers that proficiency in lip-reading, after a course of, say, 25 lessons under a skilled tutor, depends entirely upon regular practice, and is in no way furthered by additional tuition. It has been ascertained that proper tuition can be given under local authorities by lessons in the pensioner's spare time, and steps have, therefore, been taken to give effect to that system of instruction. While no loss of efficiency or hardship to the pensioner will be occasioned by this change, I have every reason to believe that a saving of public funds will be effected.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local opinion is directly contrary to the opinion that he has just expressed?

I am aware that there are one or two people who take the other view.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling is that great hardship will be inflicted on these people?

I am advised that that is not so.

asked the Secretary of State for Air why the applications of two ex-service clerks, Messrs. Colley and Cooper, under Clauses 37–39 of the Lytton Report, have not been forwarded to the Civil Service Commissioners; whether the chiefs of both these men have stated emphatically that they consider the clerks specially competent; whether both these chiefs have also written to the Committee which investigated these appeals and protested that their evidence was absolutely misrepresented; and what action he proposes to take on the matter?

I have devoted a good deal of personal attention to the cases of these two clerks, and am perfectly satisfied that the Committee referred to in the question conducted the proceedings with complete impartiality and carefulness. It is the fact, however, that the witnesses who gave evidence before the Committee as to competence, have subsequently represented that their views were misunderstood, and, although I could not re-open the question of recommendations as a whole, I have felt justified in having these two names forwarded to the Civil Service Commission for consideration with the others already forwarded.

While thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his promise to have these two cases reconsidered, is it not a fact that his reply shows that there has been a very serious misrepresentation of evidence and is he willing to have the whole matter reconsidered?

No, that is quite impossible.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is considering the reduction in pay of the temporary medical staff, which works out at £972 per head, in accordance with the recommendation of the Geddes Committee?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the proposal of the Committee on National Expenditure that not more than 25 per cent. of the places available in secondary schools annually shall be reserved for free-place pupils from the elementary schools; whether he is aware that it is largely by means of the free-place system that the future entrants to the public teaching profession are educated, and that for the 10 years from 1909 to 1919 there was a grave shortage teachers; and whether he has considered the effects of the Committee's recommendation in diminishing the supply of teachers in the future?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill, in accordance with the recommendations of the Geddes Committee, to transfer the functions of the Transport Ministry to the Board of Trade; and, if so, when will it be presented?

asked the Prime Minister when it is intended to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Geddes Committee?

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the need for neglecting no opportunity of increasing our trade, he will most carefully investigate the business brought to this country by the Department of Overseas Trade before he recommends its virtual extinction as suggested by the Geddes Committee?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Committee on National Expenditure has disregarded existing legislation in order to propose reductions on expenditure; whether he is aware that the Committee regard certain parts of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, as inapplicable or inoperative; and whether he is prepared to make any statement as to the attitude of the Government with regard to the proposals of the Committee on National Expenditure regarding the Mines Department?

asked the Lord Privy Seal if the Government will, at an early date, introduce a Bill for the abolition of the Ministry of Transport and the transfer of its functions to the Board of Trade?

I would ask hon. Members to await the statement I intend to make next week with reference to the intentions of the Government regarding the recommendations made by the Committee on National Expenditure.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the whole of the recommendations made in the Report, or with the specific ones mentioned in the Questions?

I do not say that I shall deal with every specific thing. If I did so my speech would be interminable. There will be opportunity for hon. Members to raise such questions in the Debate.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what Departments have sent in memoranda to the Cabinet in reply to the Geddes Committee?

No, Sir. It would be quite contrary to established practice to give any account of Cabinet Papers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it fair that before the Debate on the Geddes Report takes place we should have the replies made by the Departments, in view of the fact that the Admiralty reply has already been made public?

No. The hon. Member is incorrect in supposing that the Paper published by the Admiralty was a Cabinet Paper. I have already said that it was not a Paper submitted to the Cabinet before publication. It would make Cabinet government impossible if all Papers submitted to the Cabinet for confidential information and guidance were called for by this House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the publication of the Admiralty report was a gross breach of discipline?

No. I have already said that it was not.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who are demobilised are eligible for the unemployment grant?

I have been asked to reply. Regular members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were excluded from the Insurance Act by Section 40. Members of the temporary forces auxiliary to the Royal Irish Constabulary are insurable in respect of their service in that force. I understand that on demobilisation these men received, or are in course of receiving, payment in respect of their service. The question whether benefit is payable whilst they are in receipt of this payment has been referred to the Umpire for decision.

Are men who joined up for 12 months eligible for unemployment pay?

I should like to have notice of that question.

asked the Chief Secretary what is the present position of the Royal Irish Constabulary in the South of Ireland?

There are at present in Southern Ireland 233 officers and 5,764 other ranks belonging to the permanent establishment of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Arrangements are well forward for the disbandment of these men, who constitute the Irish enlisted members of this force. All. British recruits to the force have left or are in course of leaving Ireland.

Is the British Government still responsible for the pay and discipline of these men, or the Provisional Government?

The British Government is responsible.

asked the Prime Minister what are the amounts at present standing to the credit of the Irish Constabulary Force Fund and the Queen's Jubilee Fund, and how and in whose names are the funds invested; and whether, in view of the approaching disbandment of the Irish police force, the Government will take immediate steps for the winding-up of those funds and the distribution amongst the parties entitled?

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates on the 20th instant, when I suggested that he should put down a question to be answered, say, in a fortnight's time. If he will give me the notice for which I asked I hope to be in a position to give him a full and satisfactory reply.

asked the Chief Secretary if he will inquire into the case of Mr. J. C. J. Towner, at present at Dr. Steeven's Hospital, Dublin; whether he is aware that this auxiliary cadet was sent to hospital suffering from the effect of severe chill and lumbago on the 1st October; that from the 11th December his pay was stopped, and, in addition, since the 13th January, a sum of 7s. a day has been charged against him as hospital fees; that his separation allowance has also been stopped; that, although having a wife and family, he is entitled to exemption from Income Tax, the sum of £19 10s. has been deducted from his pay for the same, and that in all, including the deduction for Income Tax and hospital fees, a sum of £64 17s. has been deducted from his arrears; that this man was demobilised whilst ill in hospital; that he alleges that the board of investigation found that his illness was due to service and comes under the Royal Irish Constabulary code, injuries received on duty; and what steps he proposes to take to adjust this matter?

I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for bringing this case to my notice, and am having immediate inquiry made.

asked the Chief Secretary if it is now possible in the case of Constable John Holohan, Dublin Metropolitan Police, to add for pension his war service and previous police service; and, if the order assimilating the practice in reference to Irish police to that regulating war services of English police has not yet been promulgated, will he have it arranged that this shall be done at an early date?

The new pensions Order, which I hope will be promulgated at a very early date, contains provision for counting discontinuous service in the Dublin Metropolitan Police, as in the British police forces. Tinder these provisions Constable Holohan would, therefore, be able to count his previous police service for pension purposes. As regards the counting of war service, the position is as described in reply to the hon. Member's question on 21st April last. In this respect there is no dissimilarity between the treatment of the Irish police and those in this country.

Will he be allowed to count his three years in the Navy for pension, and how soon does the right hon. Baronet expect to promulgate that Order?

The answer to the first supplementary is "No." The second supplementary depends on our coming to an agreement with the representative bodies concerned.

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that G Company of the Auxiliaries, on arriving at Killaloe in November, 1920, opened accounts with the local shopkeepers for the supply of their mess and canteen; that, upon removal to Corofin in July, 1921, the company left a large sum unpaid; that, as a result of various efforts to obtain payment, Colonel Guard, second in command of Auxiliary Divisions, on he evening of 2nd January, 1922, having previously interviewed the debtors, made an offer of part payment, giving the shopkeepers until the following morning to make a decision as to whether they would accept the sums offered in full discharge of the money due to them, informing them that unless they did so they would not be paid any portion of the debts due to them; and that the receipts given were, it is alleged, obtained under duress and in the absence of any legal assistance; and whether it is intended that losses amounting to a large sum are, in the circumstances, to be inflicted upon people who in all good faith parted with their property in the belief that they would be paid in full for the same.

I understand that receipts in full settlement of outstanding accounts of this company were given by the tradesmen concerned but that claims for further payments have now been preferred by them. I am looking into the whole matter.

Is the right hon. Baronet aware that the Divisional Commander who investigated this said that Colonel Guard procured the receipts under duress, and, further, that claims, which were on all fours with this in Limerick, were paid in full, and why should these unfortunate shopkeepers in Killaloe be treated differently?

I cannot accept the ex parte statement of the hon. Member, who of course, speaks on information supplied to him. I have said I am making inquiry into the matter, and no one is more anxious than I am that every policeman who leaves Ireland will leave with a clean record behind him.

Does the right hon. Baronet hope to be able to make that inquiry and come to a conclusion soon?

The inquiry is going on now.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to make any announcement relative to the settlement of decrees for damages arising out of the rebellion in Ireland, and particularly in respect of those decrees which relate to damage committed by the armed forces of the Crown?

I have been asked to answer this question. As regards personal injury, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on this subject made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. As regards damage to property, as was stated in the course of the Debate yesterday, a full statement on this subject will be made, if possible, to-morrow by the Colonial Secretary.

Will the right hon. Baronet, before he makes his statement as to damage by the armed forces of the Crown, publish the Strickland Report?

Is the right hon. Baronet aware that unless some advance is made against the claim in this case it is only a matter of days at most, possibly hours, before this industry closes down, and is he further aware that 5,000 farmers are dependent on this industry for the absorption of their products, and can he do something to facilitate an advance?

Will it not still further prejudice the prospects of a settlement in Ireland if widespread unemployment is caused by failure to pay compensation which everyone admits is only a matter of justice?

I agree, therefore I hope it will be possible for a statement to be made to-morrow dealing with the whole question.

Will the right hon. Baronet make the statement himself?

The statement will be made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that there are civil servants in Ireland who are desirous of being transferred to the Civil Service of Great Britain while there are civil servants in the British service who are desirous of taking service with the Government of the Irish Free State when set up; and will he take steps in such cases to arrange for a transfer of such civil servants from one Government to the other?

Every effort is being made to effect exchanges between officers desirous of transferring to and from Ireland, but, as I explained in my answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherham on the 14th inst., such transfers present considerable difficulties.

asked the Chief Secretary whether he has any information with regard to the number of unemployed in that part of Ireland outside the jurisdiction of the Northern Irish Parliament; are any of these unemployed in receipt of unemployment benefit from funds provided by the British taxpayer; and, if so, can he give an estimate of the weekly cost entailed?

I have been asked to reply. On 14th February the number of persons registered as wholly unemployed in Ireland in the area outside the jurisdiction of the Northern Irish Parliament was 54,025, of whom 44,257 were claiming unemployment benefit; in addition 1,132 persons were claiming benefit in respect of systematic short time. Grants under the Dependants' Grants Act were being claimed in addition to benefit where the necessary conditions were satisfied. The weekly amount of benefit paid is about £30,000 and that of grants £4,000.

Is that still continuing?

Certainly.

Is it possible under the Regulations for a man to draw the unemployment dole while serving in the Irish Republican Army?

I imagine the hon. Member is referring to unemployment benefit. I do not recognise the word dole. If a man is unemployed and is qualified for benefit he should receive it.

What about employment in the Irish Republican Army?

The hon. Member should put that down.

asked the Chief Secretary what arms, ammunition, accoutrements, artillery, and motor vehicles have been handed over to the Northern Government of Ireland; what is the value of the goods handed over; how much money has been paid for them; and what arrangements have been made for collecting moneys awed for goods by the Northern Government?

On their assuming full responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in the six Northern Counties on the 21st November last, the Northern Government took over the whole of the Special Constabulary, with their arms and equipment. The whole of the regular constabulary stationed in the six counties with their arms and equipment were placed at the disposal of the Northern Government from that date, but, for matters of internal administration, remained under the control of the Chief of Police. No arrangement has yet been made for payment for these supplies, the value of which has not been determined. I do not think it is in the public interest to give in detail the information for which the hon. Member asks.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman ready to give information about munitions and arms handed over to the Southern Government, and why is it not in the public interest to indicate the same figures with regard to the Northern Government? As there is a considerable sum of money involved apparently, might I ask for this information? May we have the amount of money, if not the number of weapons?

No, I am not prepared to give it at the present time. I think the reading out of a long list of details on this subject is calculated to be unduly alarming, and to give a disquieting impression. On the other hand, I do not think it is fair for the six Northern Counties, in the position in which they stand, that their exact position should be made known.

Why is the sum of money—

The hon. and gallant Gentleman should put a question down.

I beg to give notice that I will raise it on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the position of the most important industrial undertaking in the South of Ireland, which is about to close its factories for lack of funds, notwithstanding claims against the British Government for upwards of £350,000, the greater part of which claim is already admitted, and the balance is subject only to checking; and whether His Majesty's Government is prepared to take any and, if so, what steps to prevent the collapse of this business in consequence of it being impossible to finance seasonal requirements until moneys due by the Government are paid, owing to existing bank overdraft incurred largely on account of damages in respect of which the greater portion of the above claim is admitted?

The company referred to has been awarded compensation in respect of malicious injuries to buildings and plant amounting to £180,000. I understand that in addition the company has claimed the refund of a considerable sum in respect of Excess Profits Duty, as regards which I must refer him to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In reply to the last part of the question, I can only say that I am in close touch with the company, and I trust that the hon. Member's forebodings will prove to be unjustified. I have done and am doing all in my power to expedite this matter. A full statement on the general question of the payment of claims of this character will, I hope, be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to-morrow, if possible.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the name of this most important industry?

I do not think it would be fair to disclose its name.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, as set out in the Schedule to the Treaty Agreement Bill, that the relations between this country and the Irish Free State and the constitution and powers of the Free State shall be modelled on those of the Dominion Government of Canada as laid down in the Canada Act, 1867; and, if so, will provisions appear in the constitution recognising His Majesty as Commander-in-Chief of the Free State Military, Naval, and Air Forces, and providing for the enactments of the Government being printed in Erse and English, and Debates in the Houses of Legislature being carried on in either language?

In reply to the first part of the question I can only refer the hon. Member to Article 2 of the Treaty, which appears to me to be free from ambiguity. In reply to the second part, the form of the constitution is at present under consideration: the proper time to discuss its terms will be when it has been published and is brought before the House.

Why was Article 2 put in the Treaty; and why was Canada mentioned?

It was mentioned because the Free State Constitution, in all respects in which Article 2 applies, will be governed by the same considerations as those which rule in regard to the Dominion of Canada.

Will the King be Commander-in-Chief of the Irish Army?

I do not propose to add anything to the very clear account which I gave to the House. The House will see all these matters when the Constitution has been prepared.

When the Constitution is prepared, will this House be entitled to modify it? May I have an answer?

That question does not arise from the question which appears on the Paper.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that it is the generally accepted view that this country stands behind the Dominions as in a measure guaranteeing Dominion debts; and if our liability for the future debts or borrowings of the Irish Free State will follow a similar line or will be made clear and authoritative if a different view is held by the Government?

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

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Treasury sanction was given to the expenditure of money by the Irish Department of Agriculture in opposing the removal of the embargo on the importation of Canadian cattle before the Commission which investigated that question?

I have been asked to answer this question. The answer is in the negative. As I explained yesterday in reply to a question on this subject by the hon. and gallant Member, the expenditure involved will not be defrayed from voted monies. No question of Treasury sanction therefore arises.

Is it usual for the Irish Office to spend money without Treasury sanction?

Does not the Department of Agriculture in Ireland exist for the defence of Irish agricultural interests?

That is so, and it defends those interests very actively.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the decision reached by Ard Fheis in Dublin yesterday, it is the intention of the Government to ask this House to proceed with the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill?

asked whether the attention of the Colonial Secretary has been drawn to an agreement concluded between the different parties in the Irish Free State to postpone indefinitely the holding of an election; what effect this decision will have on the policy of His Majesty's Government; and whether he will consider postponing the further considera- tion of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill?

We have not sufficient information regarding what took place in Dublin yesterday to enable us to form a judgment as to the course which should be pursued. We have invited Irish Ministers and signatories of the Treaty to come to London for an early conference on the whole situation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say, for the information of the House, whether he is prepared, now to modify his anticipatory programme of last Thursday as to the course of events during the next few months?

Is it the intention of the Government to ask the House to proceed with the Irish Bill on Monday?

In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), of course, I made it plain that the programme and time table which I gave were subject to variation, at any rate, in their intermediate stages. As far as the question of business, asked by my hon. and gallant Friend opposite. (Colonel Newman), is concerned, that will be dealt with in due course by the Leader of the House.

In view of this hiatus that is likely to be created, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will now continue the policy of withdrawing all protection from Ireland?

I had better take some opportunity of making a statement on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the Clones inquiry?

I am glad to be able to inform the House that, with the concurrence of the Provisional Government and the Government of Northern Ireland, Mr. Justice McCardie has been selected to conduct this inquiry and has agreed to give his services. It is hoped that the necessary arrangements will be made in time to enable the inquiry to begin early next week.

asked the Prime Minister when the Four-Power Treaty, the Nine-Power Treaty, the Chinese Customs Treaty, and the other Treaties and formal resolutions and declarations which embody the results of the Washington Conference are to be submitted to Parliament; whether the Report of the British delegation will also be laid before the House as soon as possible; and whether the House will be given any opportunity of discussing the Treaties and the Report?

As soon as certified copies of the Treaties have been received, steps will be taken to lay them and other relevant agreements on the Table of the House. The publication of any further documents will be considered on their receipt from the Secretariat-General. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think that it will he possible to allocate a special day for such a discussion, which could be taken, if the House desires, on the Estimates.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether it is proposed to publish a verbatim Report or a rescript of the proceedings at the International Congress at Washington; and whether, failing a verbatim Report, it will be possible to give the speeches of the British delegates on the leading questions in full?

The verbatim Reports of the proceedings of the International Congress at. Washington are of such a length as to make the cost of publishing them prohibitive, but as soon as they are received from Washington, I will, with Mr. Speaker's permission, arrange for some copies to be placed in the library of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether all officers appointed to do a stores accountancy course at Ruislip have had previous experience of accountancy; if so, whether preference has been given to former officers of the Royal Air Force who are incapacitated from flying; and whether any officers of the Navy or Army with no previous knowledge of either accountancy or flying have been brought into this branch of the Royal Air Force and given commissions as pilot officers or flying officers?

The answer to the first question is that, with two exceptions, all the officers concerned had had previous accounting experience (the exceptions being two promising Royal Air Force cadets who were incapacitated from flying); to the second, that applications from former Royal Air Force officers received preferential consideration; to the third, that every officer appointed had either accountancy or flying experience.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to surrender the 164 touring cars, surplus to establishment, as recommended by the Geddes Committee?

Thirty-two of these touring cars have already been surrendered, and it is anticipated that a further 84 will be thrown up for disposal before the 1st April next. The question of the remaining 48 cars is under examination.

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has seen the reports of the pourparlers which are taking place between France and the representatives of Soviet Russia; and whether he has information of the effect that they are directed towards or have already resulted in a separate agreement such as that made between France and Turkey at Angora?

I have seen the reports referred to, but I have no information of the character suggested

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to a resolution, unanimously adopted by the Executive Council of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London, urging that, in view of the far-reaching scheme of economic co-operation unanimously agreed upon at the Imperial Conferences of 1917 and 1918, an Imperial Economic Conference should be summoned at an early date, in which the appropriate British and Overseas Ministers would take part, in order to work out this agreement in further detail and take means to execute it for the complementary development of the resources of the two countries and of the whole Empire on lines of mutual helpfulness; and whether His Majesty's Government will take steps to summon such a conference?

I have seen the resolution referred to, but unless there is a general desire on the part of the Overseas Governments to hold a conference on the lines suggested, I do not think that there would be any advantage in His Majesty's Government taking action at the present time. So far as I am aware, there is no indication of any such desire.

Would it not be possible to sound the Dominion Government to see whether there is a desire for such a conference being held?

I will consider that.

asked the Prime Minister whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the agenda of the Genoa Conference; and whether he will state for what reason it was decided not to ask the League of Nations to convene this Conference, in view of the fact that both America and Germany sent representatives to the Brussels Conference which was convened by the League?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether it is usual to ask people to arrange for their own funerals?

In the present state of public business I cannot undertake to provide a special opportunity for such a discussion. As to the second part of the question, I have already given at length the reasons which actuated the Supreme Council in their decision.

Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that there will be an opportunity on the Supplementary Estimates of the Foreign Office for discussing the whole of the Genoa Conference policy?

That is not a matter On which I can give a ruling, nor can the Minister reply. It is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Can the Prime Minister say whether a discussion relative to the merits of the Conference will take place before the Genoa Conference meets?

Does the Prime Minister recollect that before the Washington Conference took place a very useful discussion took place in this House, and cannot time be found for this vital discussion before the Genoa Conference?

Mr. Speaker has very pertinently reminded me that it is not for me to express an opinion as to the opportunity for the Debate. I believe that discussions of this character are best taken on the Vote on Account, but as to that the authorities of the House would have to answer and not the Minister.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the first Vote on Account is ear-marked for a discussion on the Unemployment, Ministry of Health Bill.

Will the Prime Minister seriously and favourably consider the advisability of helping the starving millions of Russia?

I hope the Noble Lord will be good enough to postpone that question. I wish he would not press me at the present time.

asked the Prime Minister when and where the conference of experts, preliminary to Genoa, will meet; and who are the British experts?

There will no doubt be interchange of ideas from time to time between the officials concerned, and it is hoped to have a meeting with French and other experts shortly. An international agenda committee wilt meet shortly before the Conference. At present the material for the Conference is being examined by officials of the De- partments concerned, and representatives of business interests are being, and will be, consulted. I hope to discuss the whole question with the French President of the Council Saturday next.

asked the Prime Minister whether the question of carrying out the promise to Bulgaria contained in the treaties of Sevres and Neuilly of an economic outlet on the Ægean will be among the subjects discussed at the forthcoming Conference to be attended by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Paris?

The question is quite independent of the proposed reconsideration of the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, and therefore does not call for discussion at the forthcoming meeting of Foreign Ministers at Paris.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the delay in dealing with this matter does not mean that it will be lost sight of, or that there will be any change in the policy of His Majesty's Government?

I think my hon. Friend will be safe in assuming that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £29,500,000 paid by Germany in respect of the cost of the British Army of Occupation has been encashed by the Exchequer, and, including the above amount, what is the approximate sterling value of the German payments in cash and in kind as against the estimated cost of the occupation of £53,900,000; and whether such German reparation payments have injured British trade?

The £29,000,000 referred to has been paid into the Exchequer. Owing to variations in the rates of exchange between the dates at which expenditure on the British Army of Occupation has been incurred and those at which repayment has been made by Germany, it is not possible to answer the second part of the question by giving sterling figures. Moreover, all figures are at present subject to revision and dependent on decisions still to be taken by the Reparation Commission and Inter-Allied Agreements still to be finally settled. The gold mark figures are:—

The estimated cost of the British Army of Occupation up to 31st January, 1922, is 1,007,000,000 gold marks. Receipts of all kinds from Germany, whether finally allocated to the British Empire or not, less Spa Coal advances, amount to about 970,000,000 gold marks. It should be added that the gold mark equivalent of £2,639,500 has been paid out by the Treasury to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in settlement of that part of the British Empire's claim for Army of Occupation which was incurred in respect of Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand troops.

No reparation payments have been made by Germany to this country, and the last part of the question therefore does not arise.

Would my right hon. Friend tell me what is the exchange value of a gold mark—is it 20 or 16?

Twenty marks to the £.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has information that officers of the Allied Military Commission of Control recently discovered at Spandau Arsenal two rooms stored with documents which the German Government had declared to be non-existent or lost, constituting a Return of the armament establishment of Germany at the date of the Armistice; whether the officers arranged with the German authorities that a guard should be mounted over these documents pending their inspection by the Control Commission the next day; whether, when the Control officers returned, they found that the whole of the documents had been removed by order of the superior German authorities; and what His Majesty's Government proposes to do in this matter?

I have been asked to reply. I am unable at present to confirm or deny the accuracy of the reports referred to. Enquiries are still being made.

asked the Prime Minister whether the German Government have adopted a system of fictitious leases to so-called commercial companies of remount depots, motor transport services, army clothing factories, and powder magazines, being services which, under the Treaty of Versailles, it is bound to suppress; and whether the effect of these fictitious leases is to reserve to the German Government the right to terminate them at any moment and to re-enter into possession?

The Report of the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control of the 11th February to the Allied Military Committee of Versailles states that the German Government proposes to let a certain number of former administrative establishments, such as clothing factories, supply depots, etc., to limited liability companies for a period of 60 years. The German Government might hold a controlling interest in these factories. The Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control are at present engaged in examining the question as to whether these transfers are genuine or not, and a report will be submitted in due course.

Is the right of reentry preserved in other cases?

I have been asked to reply, and I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley on the 14th instant. The number of complete 10.5 cm. howitzers discovered was 343 besides 242 inner tubes and a number of other parts, and it has now been established that work was done upon these weapons after the Armistice. The allegation that a German official was a party to this very serious case of concealment is being rigorously investigated. The answer to the last inquiry in the question is in the affirmative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government expect that they will have received sufficient money to pay the reparation claims for individual losses sustained in enemy raids upon this country?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Hexham Division on the 14th inst.

asked the Prime Minister what Department is responsible for the Navy, Army and Air Force institutes; at whose instigation were they established; who is responsible for their control and management; when did they last issue a balance sheet; who bears any loss that may be incurred; and are they running at a profit at the present time?

I have been asked to answer this question, in regard to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the Report of the Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield and published in July last as Command Paper 1280. It is stated on page 4 of that Report as follows:

"In December, 1920, as the result of the recommendations of an Inter-Departmental Committee presided over by Sir Archibald Williamson, it was decided that a permanent central canteen organisation for the three Services was desirable, and that as the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Navy and Army Canteen Board were inadequate, a new body, with a new Memorandum and Articles of Association, should be set up, to be, like the Navy and Army Canteen Board, in form a company, trading not for profit, registered under the Companies' Act, and with the title of 'The Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes.' The ultimate control should be in thy hands of a council of twelve, representative of the three Services in equal strength."

With regard to the last part of the question, the organisation is intended to be self-supporting, but it only came into being on 1st January, 1921, and, therefore, as stated in reply to previous questions, no balance sheet has yet been prepared.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have the balance sheet"

I cannot say.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the usual thing in a commercial concern to issue a balance sheet within the first 12 months?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction caused in business circles by the continuance of the operations on their present scale of the Navy and Army and Air Force institutes; that a resolution was recently passed at a meeting representative of 300,000 traders condemning the policy of the Government on this subject; and whether he is prepared to grant facilities for a discussion of this question in this House during the present Session?

I have seen the resolution referred to, but I regret that it will not be possible to allocate time for a discussion of this subject. An opportunity would arise, if desired, on the Estimates or on the Appropriation Bill.

asked the Prime Minister whether the resolutions for constitutional reform which it is intended to introduce into the House of Lords contain any resolution which would curtail the present power of the House of Commons; and, if so, why such a resolution is not to be submitted first for the approval of this House?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to him on Monday last in reply to a question on this subject.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the veto of the House of Lords is gone, and gone for ever?

I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has got on the wrong bench.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the powers of the Estimates Committee it is proposed to set up are to be increased; and, if not, what is the reason for setting up a Committee which has not given full satisfaction and which cannot reach a real solution of the difficulty involved?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the hon. and gallant Member does not appear to be aware of what passed in the House last week. If he will refer to the replies which I then gave on this subject he will find that his question is fully answered.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself described the Committee as not giving satisfaction and unable to reach a solution? If so, why are they to be endowed with fresh powers?

I did describe the Committee as one which had not yet given satisfaction, and I expressed doubts as to whether it was advisable to re-appoint it. The evident sense of the House, including the right hon. Gentleman opposite, was in favour of reappointing it, and I gave way to that sense of the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman afford the House an opportunity of debating the terms of reference to this Committee and the Amendment which I have put down?

No. I can give no facilities. I offered the Motion if it was taken on the terms on which the Committee was appointed last year. If the House wishes, so far as I am con- cerned, the Committee will be set up, but I cannot set aside time for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment.

Then I would like—

We cannot have the matter debated now.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether an explanation can be given of the alleged misleading quotation of Captain Castex's article in the "Revue Maritime" of January, 1920, on submarine warefare, by the First Lord of the Admiralty at the sitting of the Committee on Limitation of Armaments on 30th December at Washington; and whether this misleading quotation, if made, affected adversely the proposals to reduce the submarine tonnage of the leading naval Powers?

Though I somewhat regret that Captain Castex's articles should not now be permitted to fall into oblivion, it may be convenient if, in answer to my gallant Friend's question, I enumerate the points to be borne in mind by those who would rightly estimate their bearing on the submarine discussion at Washington. These points seem to me to be the following:

1. It is clear, in the first place, that his statements did not commit the French Admiralty, still less the French Government, least of all the French people. He spoke only for himself; but none the less his views could not be ignored. The articles themselves were ably written, they occupied the place of honour in a French technical journal of authority published under the direction of the French naval staff, and their author is, or was, an instructor of French naval officers.

2. An important part of the first article is occupied with an exposition of German views on the proper use of submarines in war. It is in the course of this exposition that the notorious passage occurs respecting the unique value of this weapon for the purpose of accomplishing the final ruin of British sea power. But it has to be observed that though this statement is embedded in a statement of German opinions with which Captain Castex is in general agreement, he is entitled to plead that this agreement does not extend to every sentence which the statement contains. We cannot therefore conclude that he desires the destruction of England, but only that if he did, unrestricted submarine warfare would be the maritime weapon upon which he would probably rely.

3. It is true that Captain Castex, while approving German principles, sees blemishes in German practice. He thinks, as we all think, that they too often conducted submarine warfare with a cruelty which was both useless and stupid, useless because it did not further the military objects they had in view, stupid because, in addition to being useless, it outraged the consciences of civilised mankind. But for submarine warfare properly conducted he has nothing but approval.

4. The question then arises, what in Captain Castex's opinion is submarine war properly conducted? For present purposes it suffices to reply that it certainly permits the destruction without warning and without examination of merchant vessels, the sinking of liners with their crew, their passengers and their cargo. Now it was these very operations, originally devised, as he proudly claims, by French ingenuity, which came under review at the Washington Conference. It was these operations which, under Mr. Root's guidance, the Governments of France, of Italy, of Japan, of the United States and of the British Empire unanimously declared to be grossly immoral; it was the perpetrators of them who were pronounced liable to be punished as pirates.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether the League of Nations is taking any steps, by the appointment of a Commission or otherwise, to protect racial minorities in Thrace, Macedonia, and the Dobrudja?

There is no commission or other body appointed by the League of Nations to supervise Treaty stipulations affecting religious and racial minorities, but there is a special section of the Secretariat-General at Geneva to deal with matters arising out of this branch of the League's functions. The procedure is that minorities whose protection has been placed by Treaty under the guarantee of the League of Nations can, as soon as the Treaty comes into force and the Council of the League has accepted the obligation, appeal to the League, which deals with each appeal as it comes in on its merits The Treaties affecting racial minorities in Thrace and Macedonia are not yet in force.

Is it not the case that 500,000 refugees have already arrived in Bulgaria, and is that not primâ facie evidence that they are not receiving just treatment at the hands of other countries, in the conquered territory? Is there any hope for these unfortunate people until these Treaties are ratified and, if not, when will these Treaties be ratified, or when may they expect to get any redress?

My hon. and gallant Friend has travelled into a vast area of international policy, and I would recommend him to address that question to the Foreign Office.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this afternoon I did ask a question about Bulgaria and I was told that nothing was going to be considered for the present and that the Conference in Paris was only going to deal with the Treaty with Turkey? Can the right hon. Gentleman bring this matter in some way before the League of Nations so as to get some settlement for these unfortunate Bulgars?

My hon. and gallant Friend will see that it is not the business of the League of Nations to lecture the Supreme Council, or tell them how to get on with the business of finishing these Treaties. This is really a Foreign Office question, and I hope he will address it to the Foreign Office.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it is not possible to urge on the Council of the League a further elaboration of the machinery dealing with this subject in view of the very great importance it is likely to assume in the course of the next few months?

Is there not power within the League of Nations to elaborate such machinery?

I do not quite understand the question put by my Noble Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck). As regards the question put by my Noble, Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil), I think it is quite possible that some further elaboration of the machinery for dealing with minorities may have to be made by the League. I rather imagine that practice and experience alone must be considered before we can make elaborations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons who have been brought before the courts for the non-payment of Income Tax and the aggregate amount of fines imposed; and the number of people who have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment for fraudulent evasion of such tax?

During the year 1921 nine persons were prosecuted for Income Tax offences; in one case the charges were withdrawn, and in one case the defendant was bound over; the remaining defendants were sentenced to imprisonment and to pay the costs of the prosecution, and one was in addition fined £600.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what is the amount of each payment and to what potentates in Iraq are subsidies paid by the British Exchequer?

No subsidies are paid by the British Exchequer to potentates in Iraq. The civil list of the King of Iraq is a charge on local revenues.

Are we to understand that the British taxpayer pays nothing to any of these potentates in Iraq?

That is quite true. The potentates to whom we do pay something are outside Iraq, and the reason for these emoluments is our desire to maintain peace.

Who are the potentates outside Iraq to whom we are making payments?

I should have notice of that question.

They are on the Front Bench.