asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether ho can yet state the total number of electors, male and female, for the Province of Burma Legislature; and when the election for this Legislature is to take place?

The date fixed for the elections in Burma was 21st November, and it is expected that the results, will be known by 15th December. I have not yet received figures of the actual number of persons enrolled as electors.

Was there practised at these elections any non-co-operation?

There is no reason to suppose that the elections are not being held under normal conditions.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the action of the Viceroy, in overruling the Indian Assembly in the matter of the Bill for the protection of native princes, will be brought before this House by laying Papers upon the Table: and, if so, will this House have an opportunity to record its opinion on the subject?

The text of the Indian States (Protection against Disaffection) Act, together with full explanatory papers, was laid before both Houses of Parliament in pursuance of the Statute on the first available opportunity last week, and the papers were distributed on Saturday. The Statute requires that the further action required to give validity to the Act shall not be taken until eight days, on which both Houses have sat, have expired. It is open to any hon. Member to table a Motion recommending that His Majesty in Council should be advised to withhold His assent to the Act.

I beg to give notice that I will table a Motion that His Majesty be advised not to sanction this Bill.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what decision ha6 been come to on the question of the application to the Indian Army of the Boyal Warrant of August, 1920, regarding the treatment of officers retained beyond their date of retirement owing to the emergency created by the War?

The final recommendations of the Government of India on this question have recently been received and are now being considered.

When can I expect a reply?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman can receive a reply as soon as the matter has been considered.

Has not this been under consideration for over two years?

I do not think so. I should require to have notice of the actual time during which it has been under consideration, but I do not think it is anything like two years.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the opportunity will be taken of the appointment of a Joint Committee in India to examine and report on the electoral rules for the Indian Legislature and Provincial Councils to bring in a rule for the deposit of a certain amount by each candidate for election to be forfeited if the candidate fails to get the required proportion of votes, in the same manner as in elections in the United Kingdom?

The question is under consideration in connection with the Committee's Report, on which final decisions have not yet been taken.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many police officers in India of more than 10 years' service have applied to retire on proportionate pensions up to date; and whether this retirement of these officers is due, as stated in the Indian Press, to the unbridled race hatred that the Government of India have permitted Indian politicians to preach throughout the country, or to what?

Of the 72 police officers from whom the Secretary of State has received applications for permission to retire on proportionate pension, all but 9 have over 10 years' total service. As officers who apply to retire prematurely are not required to give any other reason for their application than the change in the conditions of their service brought about by the Act of 1919, any answer I could give to the second part of the question would merely be an expression of opinion.

Can the Noble Lord say whether any steps are being taken to prevent the loss of so many experienced officers to the Indian Police Service?

The officers to whom the question has reference, who have retired, have accepted the opportunity which was open to them to retire under proportionate pensions under the Act. It would be contrary to the pledge given by the Secretary of State to endeavour to induce those who have availed themselves of the opportunity to re-consider their decision.

Will any steps be taken to ameliorate the conditions under which police officers are serving in India and thus to induce those officers to remain in the Service?

May I ask you, Sir, to ask the Noble Lord who is answering the questions to speak a little louder, because we do not hear what he says.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War the number of men returned as missing during the War who are, rightly or wrongly, officially recorded as deserters?

No men returned as "missing" during the War were returned also as "deserters"; the two categories are mutually exclusive. Naturally some deserters—how many I am not in a position to say—have not since been heard of and are missing in that sense, but I have no reason to suppose that men returned as deserters were wrongly so returned, since no man is ever presumed to be guilty of the serious crime of desertion without evidence to that effect. A court of inquiry is held, the witnesses are examined on oath, and the onus of proof rests with the military authorities.

What will happen to a man assuming he has been reported missing and is found to be a deserter and is caught? What will be his doom?

He is brought before a court and is liable to the penalty of imprisonment.

Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it is time to give a free pardon to all these men?

I do not think it would be possible to maintain discipline in the Army if desertion was not subject to punishment.

The question only relates to cases of desertion during the War.

Have any soldiers recently serving in Ireland been reported as deserters?

No soldier is ever presumed a deserter until his case has been examined before a court of inquiry, and I cannot believe that officers who sit on such courts would bring in such a serious charge against a soldier without proper evidence.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that we have at least ten cases in South Wales where men have been described as deserters and the documents were missing from the War Office?

If hon. Members will give me evidence of such cases, I will promise they shall have sympathetic consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War where the schools for vocational braining of soldiers are situated; whether the results of conducting these schools are satisfactory to his Department; and whether there is any idea of closing them?

The training centres in question are at Hounslow and Catterick. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative, but the permanent retention of the centres must naturally depend on whether funds can be made available for the purpose. This question is still under consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what number of men are at present in the British Army of Occupation in Germany; and what has been the total cost of this Army of Occupation since the Armistice?

The strength of the British Army of Occupation in Germany on 1st November, 1922, was 552 officers, 8,138 other ranks, and the total cost of the force(exclusive of accommodation and miscellaneous services which are provided free), from the Armistice to 31st July, 1922, was £54,658,127. The hon. Member will realise that the Army of Occupation was at first much larger than it is at present.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman inform the House what proportion of that amount has been paid by the Germans?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the War Office satisfies itself that persons and firms are financially solvent before contracts to buy or to sell are entrusted to them?

Yes, the War Office takes such steps as are necessary to ascertain the general standing and credit of its contractors before placing contracts with them.

Why were not the same precautions taken with Messrs. McGrigor before the War Office continued to allow them to call themselves Army agents?

I do not think the two cases are quite analogous. It is not a question primarily of public money.

Why were these agents allowed to call themselves Army agents, if they were not Army agents?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps the War Office takes to assure itself of the soundness of the Army agents with whom it deals; whether in the case of Sir Charles R. McGrigor, Baronet, and Company any such steps were taken; and what measures it proposes to adopt in order to indemnify those ex-officers who, in the belief that the Government's dealings with this firm were a guarantee of its solvency, have, through its failure, lost both Army gratuities and private savings?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps it-is proposed to take to compensate officers who are affected by the failure of Messrs. Sir C. E. McGrigor and Company, official Army agents?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War what steps the War Office proposes to take in the case of the McGrigor bank failure, more especially in regard to payments made to the credit of officers after the institution was known by the War Office to be insolvent?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War (1) what action the Government propose to take in order to indemnify those Army officers and their dependants who have incurred losses through the failure of the Government agents, Sir C. R. McGrigor, Baronet, and Company;

(2) whether any payments were paid on behalf of the War Office into Sir C. R. McGrigor, Baronet, and Company, after the 6th October last, when it is reported notice was given to the Treasury that the position of this company was unsound?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what action is being taken to give assistance to officers and their dependants who are in financial difficulties by reason of the failure of the Army agents, Sir Charles R. McGrigor, Baronet, and Company; whether he is aware that it has not been the practice for this bank to publish duly audited balance sheets; and what steps were taken by the finance branch of the War Office to satisfy themselves of the solvency of these Army agents?

I would refer the hon. Members to the answer which I gave on the 24th inst. to the hon. and gallant Member for Yeovil (Mr. A. Herbert). With regard to Questions Nos. 10 and 14, payment of Army non-effective pay and of officers' widows pensions is made by the Paymaster-General and not by the War Office, and I understand that on 13th October last the Paymaster-General made payments amounting to £13,340, in respect of sums due to certain persons who had given powers of attorney to Messrs. McGrigor in that behalf. I do not think that the fact that these persons had for their own purposes made the private arrangements in question with Messrs. McGrigor entitles them to exceptional treatment at the expense of public funds. As I have stated, the War Office were in no way responsible for the stability of this firm as bankers. The War Office were only legally responsible for the obligations of Messrs. McGrigor as Army agents and this agency work ended with the payment of public money either to the officers concerned personally or into their banking accounts whether at McGrigors' or elsewhere. With regard to Question No. 17, I am aware that this bank in common with others of undoubted stability had not made it a practice to publish balance sheets.

Arising out of Question 14, was there any reason for the payment of this £13,000 after the War Office had had notice that the position of McGrigor and Co. was unsound; and who was responsible for that payment?

I answered the hon. and gallant Member, that that payment was made by the Paymaster-General, who is not under the War Office. I would point out that, if the War Office had in the first instance taken action on the notice which Sir William McGrigor gave, that he was in difficulty, they would have done away with all possibility of his retrieving the position, and would have immediately caused suspension of payment. It was greatly to the interests of the customers of the bank that the delay took place, as it enabled Sir William McGrigor to raise £100,000. which went to the benefit of the sufferers and made it possible to issue an early dividend.

Is it the practice of the War Office to pay in sums of money due to officers to an institution which has declared itself insolvent?

The War Office did not pay any money to McGrigor's after the first notice of their difficulties was received. They did not, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, declare themselves insolvent. They did not put the details of their position before the War Office. They only said that they were in difficulties.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer the last part of my question? If there was no duly audited balance-sheet, will he inform the House what steps were taken by the finance branch of the War Office to satisfy themselves of the solvency of these army agents?

No special steps were taken. I would remind the hon. Member that several inquiries have been held from time to time as to the system of army agents, and it has been the deliberate policy of the War Office, as a result of these inquiries, neither to control nor in any way interfere with the banking business of these army agents. When the Supplementary Estimates which will be laid on this subject are discussed, it will be possible to give a fuller answer than is possible in question and answer across the floor of the House.

Is it not very natural that these officers should have authorised a recognised banking firm to receive money on their behalf, being led to that belief by the practice of the War Office and the Paymaster-General, and is it not a very hard thing that these men having followed the directions of the War Office should now be mulcted in a loss of £13,000?

It is just because there is a hard case that the Government are going to recommend the House to make a grant. It is not the case that there was any direction to any officer to bank with Messrs. McGrigor. They were not even compelled to draw their pay through Messrs. McGrigor. They could get a cheque through the Command Paymaster. As a matter, of fact, more than one-fourth of the officers who were paid through Messrs. Holt and Messrs. Cox in the War instructed those agents to pay money as it became due to them into other banks. So that it was clearly understood by officers that there was no obligation, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

The House will have an opportunity to debate the whole matter later.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether 40 dis- abled soldiers were discharged from the Government Small Arms Factory, Enfield, owing to the resumption of full time and to their inability to follow full-time employment through wounds and disease received during the War; whether the Chief Inspector issued a notice to the effect that dismissals would affect men in Category IV, that is, disabled soldiers; and whether he can state where and in what position these men are now?

Yes, Sir. Forty disabled soldiers have recently been discharged from the Department of the Chief Inspector of Small Arms, after the notice indicated in the question had been given. This action was due not to the inability of the men to follow full-time employment, but to the necessity of reducing staff consequent on the reversion to the normal system of full-time work. That system was reverted to after very full consideration, and in the general interest of the Departments concerned and of the public service. Had the disabled men not been discharged, it would have been necessary to discharge pre-War employés, a course which would have been neither equitable nor consistent with the essential requirements of economy and efficiency.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that 700 mentally afflicted ex-service men have recently been transferred from the care of the Ministry of Pensions to the Poor Law guardians and are now pauper lunatics; whether he will take steps to re-transfer these men to the Ministry of Pensions; and, if not, will he arrange for their photographs to be published in the Press so that their relatives can have them under care and observation?

asked the Minister of Pensions what steps he is taking to end the system whereby a number of ex-service men in asylums are classified as paupers?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can now give any further information with regard to the reclassification of ex-service men in lunatic asylums?

asked the Minister of Pensions if any, and what, regulations have been made for the transfer to asylums as pauper lunatics of men who have lost their reason in consequence of injuries sustained in the late War; and whether, if any regulations for such transfers are in contemplation, he will give an undertaking that men so injured shall be treated as State pensioners and not as paupers, and that no burden for their maintenance shall be placed on local ratepayers?

I have been asked to reply. The main principle of the Royal Pensions Warrants, as approved by Parliament, is that compensation shall be granted to disabled ex-service men only if the disability claimed, mental or other, is found to be due to or worsened by service. Exceptional provision of a temporary and compassionate nature was made under which my Department gave medical treatment for the period of the War and one year after to men discharged with disabilities which were in no way due to or even worsened by service. A comparatively small number of insane ex-service men in public asylums were of this class. There has been no new decision and no new regulation in this matter. The Ministry-has simply carried out the Warrant and principles laid down by Parliament.

The Government do not see their way, in view of the grave question of general principle involved, to alter the Royal Warrants in the sense suggested.

In all these cases there has been a right of appeal to an independent tribunal against the decision that the disability was not connected with service, and this right has in many cases been exercised by the relatives, who, some months ago, were specially informed of the position and invited to make an appeal if this had not already been done. Moreover, I have had all the cases specially reviewed in order to make sure that no injustice should be done.

The position, as regards the ex-service officers and men, numbering more than 6,000, whose insanity has been recognised as due to or worsened by service is not in any way affected. They remain on the footing of private patients, and are under the special care of the Ministry.

The Minister says "a comparatively small number," and in my question I mention the figure of 700. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is correct or not, and does he not think it stands to the eternal discredit of the nation that men who served and are suffering such affliction should be termed "pauper lunatics"?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what is going on with regard to these men in lunatic asylums? Is he aware that medical boards certified men as having an hereditary taint of insanity before they went to the War, and so sent them to lunatic asylums, when that insanity was brought on through "T.B." or grievous injuries received during service?

I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) that the figure 700 is not accurate. All these cases are being examined, and that figure cannot be accepted; it will be very much smaller. I have examined some of these cases, and have just seen a case of a man who had been for a very long period in an asylum before he was enlisted. The mistake was found out almost at once, and it is ridiculous to say that his lunacy is clue to the War.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many protests he has received from boards of guardians who know these casus, and whether these men under discussion were passed as fit for service, and if they were so passed, ought they not to be entitled to be fit for pension?

May I ask my right hon. Friend, although this question has been settled in the sense which he has described by two Governments, whether His Majesty's present advisers will not take into consideration the small number of people whose cases are concerned, and the consequent small expense to the public, and the very grave and widespread feeling of unrest that men who, rightly or wrongly, were accepted for service should now be in pauper lunatic asylum?

May I ask my right hon. Friend, in regard to the question by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), whether any of these men remain unidentified?

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for that question. None of these men are unidentified, and therefore the publication of their photographs would serve no useful purpose? To publish them would only cause needless anxiety and pain to their relatives. With reference to the question by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), it is not a large sum which is involved, but if this country is going to be involved in the principle that disablement of any kind, or illness of any kind, not due to the War, is to be brought within the power of the Pensions Ministry, mere is hardly any limit to the responsibility which will be shouldered.

Why not?

Fit for service!

Is it the fact that any of these cases have been treated as cases not attributable to or aggravated by service, merely on evidence as to the existence of a hereditary taint in a man's relatives, apart from any actual evidence that such taint manifested itself before the War in actual mental defect?

The very valuable point raised by the Noble Lord's question will, of course, be taken into account la the review which is going forward. I have myself examined some of these cases, and they have been clear cases of men who had been for a long period certified as insane and who, having been well at the moment, were enlisted by mistake, and then a few days—

You dirty dogs!

Order, order! Turn him out.

I cannot allow observations of that kind.

(to hon. Members): I don't care a damn for you.

I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw from the House.

I will withdraw. I am glad to do so. You are a dirty lot of dogs, slobbering over dead soldiers, and starving the living.

asked the Prime Minister what opportunity will occur during the present Session for a discussion on the position of ex-service men and their dependants?

I fear there will be no opportunity for a discussion on this subject, unless it is raised in the course of the Debate on the Address.

In view of the fact that an opportunity may not arise on the Address, will not the Leader of the House make an opportunity, owing to the grave importance of the subject?

This Session is called, as my hon. and gallant Friend well knows, for a specific purpose, and I should not agree to do anything which would detain the House longer than was absolutely necessary.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not admit the right of a new Parliament to have an opportunity of discussing a matter of such great importance?

I admit the right of the majority of the. House of Commons to decide any question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one union alone in South Wales there are 3,000 ex-service men being relieved by the-board of guardians?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can give any details as to the financial results of the attempt to build locomotives in the State-owned works at Woolwich; and whether he has any comparative data as to the simultaneous attempt to build locomotives under private enterprise at the Elswick works?

Fifty locomotives have been completed at Woolwich at an average cost of £15,600; work on a further fifty has been suspended at a stage about 30 per cent, short of completion. The locomotives have been handed over to the Disposal and Liquidation Commission, but so far as I am aware none have yet been sold, and I am therefore not yet in a position to indicate the loss on the transaction. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the great railway companies of the country have been approached with a view to taking over these locomotives?

I believe everybody has been approached.

rose—

We have already had numerous supplementaries, and there are many questions on the Order Paper.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any steps have yet been taken to revise the constitution of Ceylon, as promised; and will he scrutinise the scheme, when drafted, so as to eliminate the communal system of representation?

Certain proposals discussed in the Legislative Council of Ceylon were submitted some time ago to the late Secretary of State by the Governor, and are now under consideration. Representations have been received urging the continuance of communal representation from Burgher, Tamil, Mahommedan, Indian and European Members of the Legislative Council, and owing to the existence of this system in the past in Ceylon and its continuance in India, I doubt whether it will be practicable to abolish the system for some time to come. It must be borne in mind that in the discussion in the Legislative Council members were unanimously in favour of the retention of the non-territorial electorates and the representation of minorities provided for in the present constitution.

In view of the hon. Member's known views on the question of communal representation, will he see that such representation is reduced to a minimum, and will he reconsider from that point of view the constitution that it is proposed to give Ceylon?

I have not had time to go into that matter, and I shall be very happy to receive representation on the point.

The first part of the question was answered yesterday, but I would like an answer to the other two parts.

I made a full statement on this subject yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Central Nottingham (Captain Berkeley). As I then explained, the Secretary of State is in communication with the High Commissioner and further details are expected.

May I take it that there is no record in the War Office or in the Colonial Office of the number of raids that have actually taken place?

There is no such record that I have been able to obtain.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think it necessary to keep supervision over these matters of reprisals?

I have already-asked for statistics.

In determining policy in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the nerve disease and distress to the whole population are often very much greater from a dread of air raids than the injury to life and limb, and will he look into this as—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

As I explained at the end of my answer yesterday, the whole policy will be reviewed by the Government.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the estimated cost of the new residency for the High Commissioner in Bagdad?

The total cost is approximately £167,000, inclusive of about £60,000 for the site. In addition to this a sum of £15,000 was provided in the Middle Eastern Services Vote for the current financial year for the completion of certain outbuildings and quarters for certain officials of the High Commissioner's staff and £8,000 for repairs and maintenance of existing buildings and offices. A saving on this year's provision is anticipated. The commitment was authorised in 1919. It should be explained that the Residency besides being the official residence of the High Commissioner himself contains office accommodation for the whole of his staff.

Is this pursuing the policy of cutting down anywhere we can which was announced last week?

As I have explained, this commitment was entered into in 1919, and the present Government are in no way responsible for it.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the retrenchments proposed by the Government in Fiji include the closing wholly or in part of the Indian hospital at Suva, and the dismissal of Dr. Staley, whose work during the past two years for the Indian women and children in the Fijian group of islands has been repeatedly and publicly Spronounced to be of the highest value to the whole community?

Dr.Staley was engaged by the Government of Fiji for two years only and the term of her temporary appointment will expire shortly, Retrenchments in medical and other, establishments in Fiji are urgently necessary for financial reasons, and although the final recommendations have not yet been received, the Secretary of State would not be justified in urging the continuance of any particular appointment against the wishes of the Colonial Government.

Would it not be a waste instead of an economy to send Dr. Staley away?

I should be very glad to receive further evidence on that point, but the situation, even with the suggested economies, is that the expenditure at Fiji is £420,000 and the revenue is only £360,000, and we have got to cut down everywhere we can.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what subsidies are now being paid to Ibn Saud and to other Arab potentates, respectively, including the Sheruf of Mecca and King Hussein; and whether it is intended to continue these payments?

The only subsidy now paid is that of £5,000 a month to Ibn Saud. There is no present intention of discontinuing this payment. No subsidy is being paid to King Hussein, who is also Grand Sheruf of Mecca.

Is there no means of altering the policy so as to save this payment of £5,000 to this independent potentate?

As stated in the reply to the question, subsidies have already been abolished in the case of all the other Arab potentates, which is a cutting-down. This is a rather large question of policy, which must be reviewed before we can suddenly discontinue the present arrangement.

Is this the only potentate who refuses to keep quiet without a subsidy?

I have no reason to suppose that that statement is in the least accurate.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of suicides which have occurred in England, Scotland, and Wales for each year from 1913 up to date: and, if possible, an analysis of the nature of the verdicts?

Will the answer include the number of deaths from starvation?

I am sending all I can supply. I cannot answer offhand whether cases of starvation are included or not.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that men retired from the police force and pensioned off prior to the War at a comparatively low rate, rejoined the police forces during the late War and served several years, and have received no pension or allowance after retirement in respect of the War period service; and, if so, will

Particulars were not collected for the years 1915, 1916, and 1917, but as regards the other years I am sending to the hon. Member, and will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, a table giving the figures for England and Wales and distinguishing the verdicts of felo de se from the other verdicts. No further analysis of the verdicts is possible, but an analysis of the methods of suicides will be found in the Annual Reports of the Registrar-General. Inquiries as to suicides in Scotland should be addressed to the representative of the Scottish Office.

I am aware that numerous pensioners obtained temporary re-engagements in the police; while so serving they continued to draw their pensions in addition to their pay as temporary constables, and in such cases there is no power to increase the pensions except in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920.

Is it not a fact that the pay of these men who rejoined, while they were serving during the War, did not equal the pay of other men who were serving in the force? Can the right hon. Gentleman sec his way to look into this whole question to see if he cannot remedy this very obvious injustice?

I do not mind looking into the question, but my hon. Friend will realise that I cannot answer the first part of his supplementary question, as I have been only a very short time in my present office.

asked the Home Secretary if any allowances are made to the police attached for duty to this House when it sits beyond 11 o'clock for their food?

Police performing duty in the Palace of Westminster at present receive a special duty allowance of 1s. a day, whether the House sits late or not. This allowance, which is not provided for in the Police Regulations, is to be discontinued as from 1st January next, and the men concerned will be eligible for the grant of refreshment and other allowances on the same conditions as other members of the force.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question whether the petty withdrawal from these men of a shilling for extra work has received sanction before it comes into effect?

I will certainly look into the matter, but the decision had been given before I entered into my present office.

Can this money be withdrawn without the Home Secretary's approval?

The right hon. Gentleman Las just said that it was done before he took his present position. The hon. Member can put down a question.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in accordance with the Prime Minister's promise to consider carefully the re-establishment of women, police, he is now prepared to make a statement on the subject?

As I stated yesterday, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Rotherham, I am con- sidering this matter, but am not yet in a position to make a statement.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in respect of recent cases of British women employed by Chinese resident in this country, the police should be accorded wider powers for periodic inspection of premises with the object of enabling the police force to exercise closer scrutiny in the matter of drug importation and its illicit usage amongst residents in seaport towns particularly?

The question of giving the police increased powers of inspection in cases where there is ground for suspecting a breach of the law is under consideration in connection with the Bill for the amendment of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Is not the presence of Chinese seamen in British ships largely responsible for the importation of drugs? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the President of the Board of Trade on this matter?

I shall be glad to consult my right hon. Friend, but I cannot answer in reference to shipping matters.

asked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to anend the present Workmen's Compensation Act, and, if so, when?

asked the Home Secretary (1) whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce an amended Workmen's Compensation Act on the lines of the Holman Gregory Report at an early date;

(2) if he is aware that over 60 per cent, of the premiums paid to insure against workmen's compensation and employers' liability are being absorbed by the insurance and indemnity companies for profits, reserves, and working expenses, while at the same time men suffering from accidents are, owing to the amount of compensation allowed by the Act, and also to the fact that insurance companies are allowed to withhold pay as they deem desirable, being forced to make application for relief to the Poor Law guardians; and, if so, what steps he intends to take to ensure that an adequate provision shall be made for persons entitled to compensation for accident?

The question of legislation for the purpose of amending the Workmen's Compensation Act will be carefully considered by the Government, but I am not in a position to make any statement at present. I am aware of the fact to which the hon. Member calls attention, that a large proportion of the promiums paid by employers goes in expenses, and that is a point which will receive full consideration. Insurance companies have no power, as suggested in his question, to withhold compensation payments as they deem desirable.

When considering the question of compensation for injury will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of codifying all the Acts dealing with injuries to workmen and to compensation for them?

I am ready to consider that suggestion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present method of payment falls at the end of the year? What does he propose to do?

It will be continued.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Section 10 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, 9 and 10 Geo. V., c. 92, which deals with the admission of former enemy aliens, expires next month; and if it is proposed to continue this Section of the Act or to allow it to lapse?

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Aliens Restriction Act is due to lapse on the 23rd December next; and whether the Government will take steps to continue the Act while the present conditions of unemployment continue?

I would refer to the answer I gave yesterday to a question by the hon. and learned Member for the Ealing Division.

asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been come to with regard to the substitution for the present legal speed limit for motor vehicles of more drastic penalties in cases of dangerous or neglectful driving, together with the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle only to such persons who can show reasonable skill and physical fitness?

I have been asked to reply. Both the points referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend are dealt with in the Second Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on the Regulation of Road Vehicles, issued in March last—see paragraphs 112–119, 134–140, and 213–214. The Report is still under consideration.

When will the Government tell us what is going to happen? When will a decision be reached?

I could not say. It is a very difficult subject, and it may be some months before the final Report.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware that a schedule of temporary freights reducing traffic charges on the carriage of potatoes on the lines between Scotland and England by from 20 per cent, to 40 per cent, was in force from November, 1921, to June, 1922, inclusive; that no similar schedule has been introduced this season; and whether he will use his best endeavours to have this done?

I am aware that temporary rates, approximately 20 per cent, to 40 per cent, below the ordinary rates, were in operation for potato traffic from Scotland to England during last eeason, and I am informed that similar temporary rates will be given for this traffic from the 1st December, 1922, until the 31st May. 1923.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport if 'he has received protests against the transfer of control of the Scottish railway systems from Scotland to London, involved in the provisions of the Railway Act, 1921; if, as one result of this transfer of control, the present basis of return fares, which are less than twice the single fare, are in future to be standardised upon the more costly English basis; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to safeguard the interests of the Scottish people?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the second part, Part III of the Railways Act, 1921, provides that each amalgamated company shall, as from the appointed day, levy the standard charges (including fares) settled by the Rates Tribunal. Until the appointed day the companies may make the charges in existence on the 15th August, 1921, but are at liberty to make such reductions as they think fit, and it is understood that, in making a general reduction in ordinary fares on 1st January next, they intend to make a reservation and, as a general rule, to adopt a standard basis of double the single fare for the return journey. Sections 60 and 76 of the Act give the Rates Tribunal power to hear applications from interested parties for reduction of charges made by the companies, and the Tribunal may make such modification as it may deem just. The Minister has no power to intervene.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether a circular was issued by his Department to jobmasters and proprietors of garages on the question of the hire of cars for the General Election; and, if so, whether he will state the terms of the circular?

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

asked the Home Secretary whether there are certain by- laws in force in Hyde Park and other Royal parks for the regulation of the conduct of persons using the same which are different from the requirements of the ordinary law and are largely unknown to the public; and whether steps will be taken to revise the said by-laws, so that they may be brought into consonance with the ordinary law with which the public are familiar?

The Regulations under the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, in so far as they deal with matters of importance relating to the behaviour of users of the parks, differ but little in effect from the provisions of the ordinary law. The Regulations are prominently displayed at every entrance to the parks, and I have no reason to think that the requirements they impose are less well known to the public than are the similar requirements of the ordinary law.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the House that there is any provision in the ordinary law of the land that a person is forbidden to speak to another person in a public place without a formal introduction?

I do not suggest to the House anything more than is contained in my answer.

Has the right hon. Gentleman studied recent decisions and the opinion of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions on a recent ease, and does he not think it desirable that the by-laws should be revised and the police receive fresh instructions?

That is the question on the Paper.

In considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making the law equal as between menand women?

Does the Home Secretary realise that thousands of women are arrested on the evidence of the police without a word being said, but that when one man is arrested the whole nation is roused?

I am quite aware that a great many difficulties beset this question, and I do not think that this is a very convenient time to debate it. I am considering the matter.

asked the Postmaster-General how many temporary postal sorters engaged during the War have been displaced; how many of such were physically unfit for war service; whether those who were employed for long periods and who proved efficient at their work, and yet dispensed with, will be given an opportunity to fill vacancies; and whether he is aware that the bulk of these men are now unemployed?

About 3,000 temporary male sorters engaged during the War have been displaced. It is probable that the bulk of these men were over age or not physically fit for war service. As far as possible those who had served with the Forces and were eligible have been offered appointments as postman or porter; moreover, a special competition was held in September, 1921, among the temporary sorters, including the non-service men, and the first 200 candidates were offered appointment as sorters. In view of the claims of boy messengers, postmen and other grades in the Post Office, I regret that I am unable to offer any more permanent posts to the temporary sorters.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it a good example to private employers to throw so many hundreds of men on the labour market at a time like the present?

May I point out to my hon. Friend that this does not increase the total bulk of unemployment? It is really a question of which men shall be taken into the Post Office. If I retained temporary sorters, I would throw others out of employment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these men were employed for seven years, that they have learned this particular job and now are not fit for other occupation?

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to institute an inquiry into the question of providing a wide extension of the tele- phone system in rural areas at reasonable rates to meet the requirements of the agricultural and other rural industries?

In view of the very favourable terms on which new exchanges are now opened in rural areas, the very low tariff for rural party lines and the rapid growth in the number of rural call offices and telephone subscibers, I do not consider that there is any case for an enquiry at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive further representations on the subject from the various interests concerned?

Certainly.

asked the Postmaster General what progress has been made as to the installation of rural telephones within the past six months?

Since May last about 200 new exchanges in rural areas have been authorised. In the same period 437 call offices have been opened at provincial post offices, chiefly in rural districts, and about 200 more have been authorised and are awaiting completion. The number of rural party line telephones in use has increased by 1,850 since the 1st May.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is able to give an approximate date for the re-introduction of Imperial penny postage?

I regret I am not at present in a position to make any statement on this matter.

asked the Post master-General if he can state approximately the number of internal telegrams sent per month at the 1s. rate, as against the average number previously sent at the pre-War rate of 6d.; and whether he can hold out any possibility of a reduction in the near future to the lower sum?

The number of inland telegrams sent in the United Kingdom (including Ireland) during the financial year 1913–14, when the rate was sixpence, averaged about 6,000,000 a month. The number sent during the financial year 1921–22 at the 1s. rate was about 5,000,000 a month. In view of the fact that even with a 1s. tariff the service is run at a considerable loss, I regret that I cannot hold out any hope of a return to the sixpenny rate in the near future.

asked the Post master-General whether his attention has been called to the varying degrees of efficiency of the various London telephone exchanges; and whether he is able to state which exchange, in the opinion of the Department, is worked with the greatest satisfaction to the subscribers and which exchange is the subject of the greatest number of complaints?

Statistics which give some indication of the comparative efficiency of the various London telephone exchanges are periodically prepared and utilised by my Department, but in view of the many factors involved, including differences in local conditions, I do not think it is possible, consistently with justice to the staff concerned, to publish a list of exchanges in order of merit.

Is anything done to help the Departments which prove to be most efficient? Is no reward or bonus given them to encourage them?

There is no reward or bonus, but all questions of efficiency are noted, and no doubt the Departments concerned are marked out and have a good mark for good work.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take into consideration at an early date the desirability of appointing an Estimates Committee of the House on similar lines to that which existed during the last Parliament or with extended powers?

I am considering my hon. Friend's suggestion, and will make a statement at an early date.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the scheme submitted by the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians to the Ministry of Health whereby the money at present paid by them and by the local Employment Exchange to able-bodied persons for doing nothing may instead be utilised by the local unemployment committee in paying wages for work rendered; and, if there are any legal difficulties in the way of such co-ordinated action, will the Government take steps to remove the same before the House rises, so that instead of money being paid away without securing any adequate return public works of a useful character may be carried out?

I have been asked to reply. Arrangements have been made in a number of cases for test-work to be provided through the local authority for those in receipt of outdoor relief. I understand that a scheme of this nature has been submitted by the Middlesbrough Board of Guardians to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and is receiving his sympathetic consideration. Suggestions that unemployment benefit should be used as part-wages for work done have been made on numerous occasions. This would require legislation involving serious issues of principle, and in these circumstances all we can undertake to do is to examine the whole question thoroughly between now and next Session.

May I ask the Prime Minister himself whether, in view of the seriousness of this question and the economic waste involved in paying money for no services rendered, he cannot consider the matter in time for the House to deal with it before the Adjournment?

No, that is obviously impossible. As my hon. Friend has explained, this subject has often been discussed in the House, and I think it is a very open question whether the actual giving of money in employing men on useless work is worth it.

On useful work?

The difficulty is to get useful work.

Will the Prime Minister consider giving more favourable opportunities to local authorities, than those given by the late Government, for the putting into operation of the many useful schemes of work submitted by them from time to time?