asked the Minister of Pensions if his attention has been called to cases where large amounts of Poor Law relief have been granted to persons to whom Army or Navy pensions were due, but which were delayed in issue; that in a recent case £3 a week was given in poor relief to a widow and her family for nine months, and when the pension and arrears, amounting to over £100, was received by her she spent the whole amount without repaying any part of the relief granted; if, as similar cases have occurred, arrangements can be made by which the guardians can claim direct from the Ministry of Pensions when relief is given in anticipation of a pension which is ultimately granted, and thus relieve the ratepayers of a financial burden which is not fairly theirs; if he is aware that the Minister of Health, in a circular, No. 281, impressed on boards of guardians and all Government Departments the necessity of close co-operation in public administration; and if he will see that his Department assists in this direction?

I am giving this matter my personal consideration, and I hope it may be found possible to make arrangements which will meet my hon. Friend's proposal.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has recently withdrawn the special diet allowed to pensioners in tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus cases; and whether, since the withdrawal of these diets is a breach of faith to the pensioners concerned who received their pensions plus the special diets, and who will now be compelled to purchase such necessary diets from their pensions, he will withdraw the circular issued by his Department cancelling these diets?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Burslem on the 26th June, of which I am sending him a copy. Additional allowances for special diet have not been withdrawn from pensioners suffering from tuberculosis or diabetes. The allowance is indeed expressly continued in these cases by the new Regulations when the rate of pension or allowances and other circumstances justify the grant. I may add that the allowance in question is not provided for by the terms of the warrants, and has never been attached to any class of pension. No breach of faith is therefore involved by the modification of the Regulations.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of men, women and children pensioners in charge of his Department who have died during the years 1920 and 1921?

I regret to say that during the years 1920 and 1921 the approximate number of deaths among pensioners was as follows:

asked the Minister of Pensions what is the limit of years allowed by his Department during which a widow can claim a widow's pension in the event of her husband, being an ex-service man, dying from disease or wounds caused by the War; and whether, in view of the number of men who have died as a result of war service after a period of years, he can see his way to propose a longer period of years than is now allowed during which a widow may claim a pension?

I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the time limit of seven years in Article 11 of the Royal Warrant, and I would refer him to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Wandsworth, Central, on the 13th June, of which I am sending him a copy.

Is the period of seven years extended in special cases?

The cases are very few in number. I am told there are only ten, and I am treating individual cases on their merits.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that in the case of pensioners wishing to commute their pensions considerable hardship is inflicted when they are compelled to board for commutation hundreds of miles away from their homes; and can he arrange that in the case of ex-members of the Royal Irish Constabulary they shall be boarded for commutation of pensions by a board nearest to their homes, thus entailing upon them the minimum of expense and physical effort?

Special arrangements have been made for dealing with these particular cases by the appointment of medical referees in London, Manchester and Glasgow, and all possible regard is had to economy and convenience in arranging the requisite examinations. I may add that if an applicant resides at some distance from the nearest centre he is paid the cost of his railway fare.

Why is it not possible, seeing that enormous number of Irish soldiers who fought in the War, to board in some part of Ireland? Why should these men be dragged across to London? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that recently an officer who had both legs shot off and has to crawl along the floor on stumps had to come to London and—

This is not the time for speeches.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has had his attention drawn to the hardship of stopping children allowances in treatment cases, particularly in cases of prolonged treatment, in respect to children born more than nine months after treatment commenced, as laid down in the new regulations, paragraph 242D, sub-paragraph 3 (a); and whether, seeing that this regulation is at variance with the terms of Article 24 (3) of the Royal Warrant, he will consider the advisability of revising the interpretation mentioned in the Fortnightly Circular G, paragraph 7.

My right hon. Friend is not prepared to modify these instructions in the manner suggested. Treatment allowances were designed to meet the circumstances and family obligations of the patient at the time that treatment commenced. Article 6 of the Royal Warrant has been generously interpreted so as to permit of allowances being paid for children born within nine months after treatment commenced; but they are not properly payable in respect of children born at a later date.

asked the Minister of Pensions, in reference to Private Fairfax George Stacey, No. 181,699, Labour Corps, who died on the 2nd February, 1922, whether he is aware that he was discharged from the Army as unfit on 21st August, 1917; that he attended St. Bartholomew's Hospital and the London neurological clinic for treatment up to the 4th November, 1921; that after that date he was too ill to attend; that owing to his disability the pension which he was receiving was increased; that the doctor of the neurological clinic certified that his death was undoubtedly due to weakness caused by war service; that his widow applied for a pension more than three months ago; that owing to her circumstances she has since been in receipt of poor relief; and that no decision on her case has yet been received from the local war pensions committee; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to her case being dealt with at the earliest possible date?

The late soldier was discharged on account of dysentery and subsequently received pension and medical treatment for that disability and for hysteria. He died some 4½ years after discharge from broncho-pneumonia which, after full consideration of all the circumstances, the Ministry were unable to accept as being connected with military service. The widow was informed on the 21st June of the rejection of her claim to pension and of her right of appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many of the staff employed at any of the headquarters of the Ministry in London consist of ex-service officers and men; will he give a comparison of the numbers so employed with the number employed on 30th June or other convenient date in 1921; and will he say how many ex-officers are now employed as compared with the number employed on the above-mentioned date?

During the past 12 months the total number of staff employed at, headquarters was reduced by 1,867. As a result of substitution 2,107 ex-service officers and men were employed in the Ministry's headquarter offices on the 1st June this year, as against 1,670 on the corresponding date last year. I regret that I am not in a position to answer the last part of the question. Officers are not shown separately in the statistics kept of the ex-service staff.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in reviewing the question of the gap of five weeks between the lapse of unemployment benefit and its renewal in accordance with the undertaking of the Prime Minister, he will specially consider the position of ex-service men who have at present no chance of employment; and when will he be able to announce the decision of the Government on the subject as a whole?

All relevant considerations will be borne in mind, but it would be impracticable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts to distinguish between ex-service men and others. As regards the last part of the question, I hope that an announcement may be made shortly.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that some special dis- crimination should be given in the case of ex-service men who are suffering in this way from unemployment?

A great deal of time and attention have been devoted to this subject, and I am afraid the conclusion is that it is impossible to make that discrimination now.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether there are employed at the War Office at the present time two non-service intelligence or Press officers; whether he is aware that there are many trained journalists who served with His Majesty's forces who are fully qualified to discharge the duties now discharged by these non-service men; and whether he will take steps to substitute ex-service men for these non-service men?

I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the replies given to my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Moss Side and Harborough on the 19th and 27th June, respectively.

Does that mean that my hon. Friend is going to get rid of these non-service men and put service men in their places?

No. If the hon. and learned Member refers to the answer I have mentioned, he will see what it means.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been directed to the fact that at the recent display of the Royal Air Force at Hendon the aeroplanes used were each, approximately, four years old; whether similar machines are being used in Iraq, Somaliland, and India on active service: whether any squadrons of the Royal Air Force are equipped with up-to-date aeroplanes; what number of new and improved aeroplanes have been supplied to squadrons of the Royal Air Force this year; and what is the cost of such supply?

In answer to the first question, it is true that the aeroplanes used at Hendon, with the exception of the experimental machines, were not less than four years old, but they were all thoroughly sound and serviceable, many of them recently re-conditioned, and all capable of satisfactory performance. As regards the second and third questions, the same general remark applies, but some of the squadrons abroad have been partly re-armed with new aeroplanes, and the four squadrons working with the Navy are being completely re-armed. The answer to the fourth and fifth questions is, that 10 aeroplanes of new type have been issued to squadrons since the 1st April, 1922, and that the approximate cost was £106,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give the date of construction of the majority of machines now in use for air work in Iraq; whether these machines are satisfactory and their carrying capacity adequate when the proper load of petrol is carried for the desert journey; and at what date will more modern machines, such as those being now used on the, London-Paris route, be sent out to replace the older types?

With the exception of the Vickers type, all the aeroplanes used on the cross-desert route are either of 1918 or 1919 build; the Vickers, of 1921 build, with a few of 1919 and 1920. These aeroplanes are all serviceable, and it would be expensive and quite unnecessary to replace them at present. In the interests of economy, it is urgently necessary to use up existing serviceable war stocks of aeroplanes before ordering new ones. The aeroplanes are not specially built for the cross-desert route, and it is neither necessary, nor practicable to build a new type of aeroplane for every kind of work which the Air Force has to do. The civil aeroplanes used on the London-Paris route are of a variety of types, and would not be suitable for Royal Air Force work without extensive modifications. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the question of the re-equipment of the Royal Air Force with new types of aeroplanes is fully recognised as one of the greatest importance and is being given constant careful consideration by my expert advisers.

Is it not a fact that many firms engaged in the manufacture of aircraft and aircraft engines are being compelled to go out of business altogether through lack of orders?

I regret to say there is a good deal of truth in the Noble Lord's supplementary.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if his Department has approved the Burney airship scheme; and, if any reservations were made., what were those reservations?

The Burney airship scheme has been referred to the Committee of Imperial Defence for consideration, and I do not think that it would be proper for me to make any further statement on the matter at the present time.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Burney airship scheme has yet been considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence; and when a decision may be expected?

The Burney airship scheme is being considered by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and it is hoped that a decision will be taken at an early date.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government will reconsider the continuance of British martial law in Egypt now that that country has been declared an independent foreign State?

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this subject to his question of the 25th May.

Thank you for the reply. On what grounds is martial law continued?

If the hon. Member will look at the relevant White Paper he will find what he asks for.

Could we get any information as to the grounds for the continuation of martial law?

I think I have already given the hon. Member, or one of his colleagues, an answer on that very question. If he will put down a definite question I will endeavour to give a satisfactory reply.

Who is responsible for the continuation of martial law? Is it the British or the Egyptian Government?

I should like to have notice.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Pearson, an administrator in the Egyptian Government Railway Department, has been for some time incapacitated for work through illness, and that he is now carried to and from his office daily since his sick-leave has expired; and whether, since this leads to inefficiency in the working of his Department, His Majesty's Government will instruct Lord Allenby to order his retirement?

I have no information regarding the first part of the question. The remainder does not therefore arise. I should add that, in any case, Lord Allenby would have no power to intervene in such a matter.

Will the hon. Member endeavour to get some information?

Yes.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that there are persons domiciled in Great Britain who are beneficiaries of trust funds in charge of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland; will such persons be liable to taxation both in Great Britain and Ireland in respect of such funds; will opportunity be given them of having these funds transferred to Great Britain; and will he say when and to whom should application for transfer be made?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part, discussions are taking place between the Imperial and Provisional Governments with a view to dealing with cases of double Income Tax arising out of the grant of Dominion status to Ireland. As regards the third and fourth parts, the question whether such funds can be transferred from the courts in which they are vested depends upon the circumstances of the litigation out of which the trust arose, and in some cases such a transfer would no doubt be possible with the con- sent of all parties concerned, but His Majesty's Government see no grounds for any special steps in the matter, nor indeed would legislation on such a subject be practicable.

Would it not be possible, seeing that these funds were paid in in Ireland at a time when Ireland was under the control of this country, for persons interested to transfer their funds to England for safety under existing circumstances, and will the right hon. Baronet consider the propriety of legislation in order to give effect to the wishes of beneficiaries?

If the hon. Baronet will read the answer, I have answered both those points.

Has the right hon. Baronet considered the propriety of legislation with a view to protecting the interests of persons who have paid funds into court on a certain faith and footing and who desire to transfer them to England now?

Will any opportunity be afforded to Members of the House to discuss the terms the right hon. Baronet says are being arranged between the Imperial Government and the Provisional Government?

I presume the hon. Gentleman refers to double Income Tax?

Not necessarily in all cases. There may be other taxes of a like kind. Double taxation is contemplated in my question.

asked the Home Secretary (1) whether, with reference to the case which occurred at Bromley, Kent, on 16th June, 1921, in which the police were shot at by Sinn Fein criminals, and two of the police concerned were awarded the police medal for bravery, and for which crime four men were arrested, one of whom got 12 years' penal servitude, and the other three got 10 years' penal servitude, he can state whether these men are now serving their sentence or whether they have been released; and, if so, on what date;

(2) whether, in the cases of incendiarism and attempted murder which occurred at Wandsworth, when six or seven arrests were made and convictions obtained against Sinn Fein miscreants, and at Mitcham, where one arrest was made and conviction obtained, and at Clerkenwell, where two arrests were made and convictions obtained, he can state whether these persons are still serving their sentence or whether they have been released; and, if released, upon what date, and after having served what period of their sentence?

I am not sure what is the Clerk-enwell case to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but as regards the others the eight men convicted were released from prison in February last in pursuance of the amnesty for offences committed prior to the truce from Irish political motives. They had served from eight to twelve months.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any further information with reference to the happenings in Dublin during the last 24 hours?

I am afraid I have very little to add to the full and continuous reports which are reaching this country through the medium of the Press. The Provisional Government, as I said yesterday, are conducting these operations and they are not reporting their progress to me officially in any way. They appear to be persisting in their operations with resolution. There are considerable difficulties from the point of view of the great structural strength of the building in the lower portion of which the insurgents are ensconced, and the artillery have not yet made sufficient impression upon them to induce a surrender. There has been a certain amount of disorder in different parts of the City of Dublin by sympathisers with the insurgents, who have commandeered houses at different points from which they have fired on the passers-by and of course upon Free State troops. This again is a subject of some consequence. The situation is not wholly free from anxiety, but we are confining our assistance entirely to supplying the Government of the Free State with any material they may require, and they have continued to decline any assistance of any sort or kind from the British troops, in which they are no doubt well advised, as it is undoubtedly an Irish quarrel, in which the Irish Provisional Government are acting in the sense of the mandate they have received from the Irish people.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to give beyond what appears in the public Press? Surely he must be in communication with the Commander-in-Chief there and also with Mr. Cope, at Dublin Castle, who would inform him fully of what is going on?

I have a good deal of information of one kind and another, but I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press which it would be useful for me to give to the House or which the House in its discretion would wish me to give. Naturally, I make continual inquiries and get a good deal of information, but, on the whole, I think the case is pretty fairly put by the reports which are appearing in the newspapers.

Are we to understand from the answer that the British Government are giving arms and ammunition to the Free State troops, and, if so, what guarantees have we that those Free State troops will not mutiny and turn round against us?

We are certainly giving arms and ammunition to the Free State troops, and I am sure that in so doing we are acting in full accordance with the wishes and intentions of the House when it passed the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill.

If we are giving arms and ammunition to the Free State troops, what steps are we taking to ascertain whether this is really a serious affair or only a sham fight?

In a sham fight people do not usually get killed, and I deprecate very much suggestions which seem to show that the Irish Provisional Government and the troops under their orders are not doing the very best they can loyally and effectively to carry out the Treaty and to maintain order in their country. They are making an effort and they are suffering, and it, is quite true of both sides that there is little organisation. Both sides are weak, but it is certainly not a time to mock at a serious attempt made by men who are striking a blow for the freedom, order and ultimate unity of their country.

If this be purely an Irish quarrel, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be no interference on the part of British troops in Dublin?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, I would like to know what action British troops would take, providing the Free State troops were finally defeated?

We have enough real trouble on our hands without my attempting to forecast our actions in such hypothetical conditions.

If the—

The original question has been very fully answered.

asked the Prime Minister whether instructions have been sent to His Majesty's representative in Berlin with reference to the attitude that he should adopt towards any proposed restoration of the Hohenzollern or Wittelsbach houses to the throne of Germany; and whether he can assure the House that the chief interest of His Majesty's Government in Germany is the retention and stabilisation of the existing government?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I returned to him on the 22nd June, to which I have nothing to add.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether he appreciates the fact that any declaration by him would prevent this disastrous action taking place in Germany, and would, therefore, be far more useful made now than after the event in question?

asked the Prime Minister whether the German Government have intimated to the Allies that they do not propose to carry out, until 1925 the obligations entered into, consequent upon their acceptance of the London ultimatum of 5th May, 1921, with respect to the placing of the police upon a pre-War footing; and whether, seeing that this means in effect that Germany is retaining a military force largely in excess of that allowed under the Treaty of Versailles, he will state what steps will be taken to compel Germany to carry out her undertakings on a question vital to the establishment of European peace?

I have been asked to answer this question. The German Government has submitted proposals to the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control for the re-organisation of the police forces. These proposals are at present under examination by that body.

Would not that have the effect of practically putting a large proportion of the police on a military footing?

I do not know what the proposals are, so I cannot say.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, seeing that the German Government is required under the Treaty of Peace, and conventions entered into subsequently, to place the various police forces under the control of the local authorities on the same footing as in 1913, and that the German Government have arranged to maintain 75,000 police in Prussia alone as a mobile State force with complete military equipment, leaving under local control less than 10,000 of the older men who are no use for military service, what action will be taken to compel the disbandment of this force?

I have been asked to answer this question. The information in my possession is that the German Government have not arranged to maintain in Prussia a total of 75,000 mobile police, with full military equipment; the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

For how many police have the German Government arranged in lieu of the 75,000 mentioned in the question?

I am afraid that I cannot answer that.

Is it not obvious that recent events in Germany make it necessary for the Republic to maintain a sufficient police force? Are not my hon. Friends behind me simply helping the Monarchists in Germany?

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the present total strength of the police forces in Germany of which the Allies have reliable knowledge; and what proportion of the men are accommodated in barracks and how many live at home or in lodgings?

I have been asked to answer this question. Germany is allowed to maintain a total of 150,000 police in accordance with the Boulogne Note of June, 1920; the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control have not reported that the police forces are over strength at the present time. The War Office have no detailed information as to the number of police accommodated in barracks; this question is at present the subject of negotiations between the German Government and the Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine and Silesia since 1st April, 1922?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The cost of the British Army of Occupation on the Rhine and in Silesia for the period 1st April to 30th June, 1922, is estimated at £600,000.

How much of this is met by the German indemnity?

That should be addressed to the Treasury.

Is it £600,000 altogether or £600,000 in addition to the cost that would be incurred in any case?

£600,000 altogether—the two combined.

asked the Prime Minister if he can now announce the result of the sympathetic consideration which he promised the deputation he received from necessitous areas last week he would give their suggestion that the gap period of five weeks waiting for unemployment benefit should be abolished, in order that local authorities should not have thrown upon their rates the additional burden of maintaining those receiving no benefit during these five weeks?

This question is being carefully investigated by the various Departments concerned, and I am not yet in a position to give the decision of the Government upon it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how seriously this question is pressing on industries in the necessitous areas, and that it will strangle trade unless something is done promptly? Can he give an early sympathetic reply.

I am fully alive to that. It was represented to me with very great force, as the hon. Member knows, by a deputation quite recently, but it involves a great deal of consideraation of finance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is simply starving our people by instalments?

It is not really a question of starvation, but it is a question of the burden on the rates.

Is it not a fact that the local authorities are practically bankrupt, and that in many places they cannot afford to give. relief?

asked the Minister of Health if he will state the total number of persons relieved and the amount paid in relief by the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians in the week ending 7th June, and the corresponding figures for the two preceding years and for 1914, or for the nearest similar period for which figures are available in those years; and the amount in the pound of the Middlesbrough Guardians' precepts for the half-years ending Michaelmas 1914, 1920, 1921 and 1922?

I am sending the hon. Member the information he desires.

Will the right hon. Gentleman hand the same information to members of the Cabinet who are considering the needs of necessitous areas?

Certainly; if they require information on the subject I will transmit it to them.

Will it appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Yes.

asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has received official confirmation of the report that the Japanese Government has decided to withdraw its troops from the maritime Province of Siberia by the end of October, 1922, and any official information as to the Japanese Government's intentions respecting the Russian half of the Island of Sakhalin, which is now occupied by Japanese troops, and which Japan at the.Washington Conference pledged herself to evacuate as well as the maritime Province?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Japanese Government has not yet announced when it intends to evacuate the northern half of the island of Sakhalin.

asked the Prime Minister who is now the head of the Russian trade delegation in London; and has the Government made any representation to him with regard to the large subsidies for the propagation of Communist, policy which are finding their way into this country, and which are a violation of the trading agreement?

Monsieur Berzin is Chargé d' Affaires in the absence of Monsieur Krassin. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given before the official arbitrator on the 14th September, 1921, and 2nd May, 1922, and reported in the Press, in the case of May's Trustees v. London County Council, where the audited profits on a farm of 400 acres were proved at £39 per acre; whether he is aware that Income Tax, Schedule B, was paid on an assessment of about £2 an acre, and that the loss to the Exchequer since 1913, owing to the farmer in question being assessed under Schedule B, has amounted to £18,000; and whether he will state, for each year since September, 1913, the assessment under Schedule B, the actual profits, the amount of Income Tax paid under Schedule B, and the amount which would have been payable as Income Tax, Schedule D, and Super-tax, if such taxes had been chargeable in respect of the farm in question?

I had not previously seen any report of the proceedings to which the hon. Member refers. As he is doubtless aware, the Board of Inland Revenue are precluded from furnishing particulars regarding the affairs of individual taxpayers, and I am therefore unable to give the information for which he is asking.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the German Republic collected in Income Tax in 1920 and 1921?

For Income Tax proper the yield was 9,593 millions of paper marks in the year ended 31st March, 1921, and 28,146 millions in the year ended 31st March, 1922. For all taxes on income the figures are 11,025 millions and 31,853 millions respectively.