asked the Minister of Pensions whether all grades of female temporary staffs employed by the Ministry, including the nursing staff, are liable to a deduction of 12s. per week from their salary during sick leave, even if they are ineligible for the receipt of the maximum amount of sickness benefit or for any benefit; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of making deductions for sick leave equivalent only to the amount actually received in benefit?

The Noble Lady's statement is generally true so far as temporary women staffs in grades entitled to sick leave privileges are concerned. I am not prepared to modify the deduction in individual cases where for one reason or another the rate of benefit received is less than 12s.; and it is clear that any attempt to make the sick leave regulations conform to the circumstances of individual cases would give rise to serious administrative difficulties.

Is it not true that this only means just a little more trouble on the part of the Ministry to make a vast amount of difference to these sick nurses—very little trouble?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the exact amount of expenditure, in excess of the original estimate, His Majesty's Treasury is entitled to sanction on behalf of a Government Department or Minister of the Crown without the previous permission of the House of Commons; and, if there is no stated limit to the extent to which the Treasury can exercise powers of virement, will he have the amount fixed within reasonable limits?

The Treasury has a limited power to make temporary advances in urgent cases from the Civil Contingencies Fund where the necessities of the public service make expenditure in anticipation of a Supplementary Estimate essential, but the exercise of this power is jealously guarded; and it is the recognised principle that in such a case a Department must approach Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity in order to obtain sanction for its increased expenditure. Otherwise the Treasury has no power to sanction expenditure in excess of an Estimate without obtaining further Parliamentary authority. With regard to the practice of virement within a Vote, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee, 1922, particularly Appendix 25.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many ex-service men at present being treated in mental hospitals his Department decided to hand over for maintenance as pauper cases to Poor Law authorities, and in how many cases have boards of guardians accepted chargeability for such cases?

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of mentally-afflicted ex-service men that have been transferred from the care of the Ministry of Pensions to the Poor Law guardians and are now pauper lunatics; and whether any scheme has been devised for the Ministry of Pensions to keep these men under their charge?

The number of ex-service men in asylums for whom the temporary responsibility of my Department under the terms of the Royal Warrants has terminated in accordance with the express provisions of those Warrants is 750. A certain number of these cases are still under consideration by Appeal Tribunals and otherwise, and the figure I have given may still be somewhat reduced. I am not in a position to give information as to any refusal by a board of guardians to accept financial responsibility for these men. That is a matter which rests between the guardians and the asylums authorities. All cases of the class in question have received the most careful and sympathetic consideration, both by the medical officers of my Department and by the Appeal Tribunals, with a view, if possible, to continuing their previous benefits consistently with the provisions of the Warrants; but as I have already stated, I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that my Department should be permanently responsible for these or any other ex-service men whose disabilities are not connected with their war service.

I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I will raise this question on the Motion for the Adjournment to-night.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, when considering his next Budget, he will give the most serious consideration to allow to be tax free any form of machine now taxed used by a disabled soldier?

I am not clear what exactly my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. If he will send me further particulars of his scheme, I will consider it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will institute an impartial inquiry into the recommendations of the Lytton Committee as affecting the initial salary for temporary clerks appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will appoint an independent committee of inquiry into the recommendations of the Lytton Commitee as affecting the pay and conditions of ex-service post-War entrants into the Civil Service?

As I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull on 14th December last, this question has already been fully considered, and I am not prepared to agree to a further Committee of inquiry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make personal inquiries into the complaints of the civil servants against the authorities? There are a tremendous lot of complaints and something should be done.

Is it not the fact that the Lytton Committee put forward an initial salary bonus of £80 a year, which, added to that salary, made it possible for a man to live? Is it not impossible for a married man in the Civil Service to live on £80 a year—for that is what it amounts to?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government are going to give effect to the recommendations of the Lytton Committee affecting the initial salary of temporary clerks appointed to permanent posts in the Civil Service?

Effect was given to the recommendations of the Lytton Committee (Third Interim Report of the 14th June, 1921) in regard to initial salary shortly after the submission of the Report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction amongst those clerks, and does he not think that an independent Committee would be a desirable thing?

asked the Prime Minister whether it is still the Government's intention to carry out the recommendations of the Lytton Committee as to not dismissing any temporary ex- service civil servants while temporary non-service civil servants, male and female, are still employed?

It remains the policy of His Majesty's Government, in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Lytton's Committee, to accord full preference in the matter of employment in the Civil Service to ex-service men.

Is it not the fact that the Lytton Committee recommended that temporary ex-service men should be retained in preference to non-service temporary staff? Is it not the case that at the Kew Record Office women are being employed doing the work which ex-service men were doing until they were dismissed at a very slight reduction of pay?

There is a short answer to all these questions. It is that in the last three and a half years the number of temporary ex-service men employed has increased from 24,000 to 42,000, while the non-service temporary personnel has fallen from 149,000 to 25,000.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether 400 of the temporary staff at Kew, all ex-service men, have been dismissed; whether there is any prospect of their being absorbed into other branches of the Civil Service; whether there are 26,000 non-service staff still employed in the Civil Service; and whether he can make any statement as to the present policy of the Government as to substitution?

I am informed that 326 temporary clerks, of whom 58 were women, have recently been discharged on reduction from the Claims and Record Office at Kew. Every effort has been and will continue to be made to find further temporary employment for all efficient ex-service men thus discharged. On 1st January last 25,160 non-service personnel were temporarily employed in the Civil Service, but of these the great majority were women, engaged upon duties unsuitable for men. The present policy of the Government, in the matter of employment in the Civil Service, is to accord full preference to the just claims of ex-service man.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a request purporting to come from 10, Downing Street was recently made to the Press not to give publicity to the protests being made by ex-service men dismissed from the Civil Service; that in this request it was stated that it was unpatriotic to give such publicity; whether this request and statement were authorised by the Government; if not, by whose authority was the same issued; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?

There is no foundation for the statement in the first part of the question. The rest of the question does not, therefore, arise.

On a point of Order. I put this question down to the Prime Minister, because I understood that the Minister of Pensions had nothing to do with post-War pensions, and that it was useless putting it down to him, but it has been altered.

I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. In regard to the last part, I have no reason to suppose that the best expert services are not already available under the present system, but I will consider the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether Mr. George Harrison, No. 16583, lieutenant, Royal Marine Light Infantry, has been refused his pension; if so, on what grounds; and whether he is aware that this officer enlisted in 1914 and was demobilised in 1919?

The hon. Member appears to be under some misapprehension. This officer is in receipt of disability retired pay which has been awarded with effect from the date of his first application to the Ministry.

asked the Minister of Pensions (1) in how many cases the dependants of ex-soldiers have been refused pensions owing to the application of the seven years' limit, as laid down in the Royal Warrant of June, 1922;

(2) whether, under the terms of the present regulations, the widow of a deceased ex-service man has no claim to pension in respect of the death of her husband should he die as the result of his invaliding disability at a date later than seven years after his discharge or first removed from duty; and, if so, in view of the hardship that will be caused in numerous cases of this description, he will consider the possibility of amending the Royal Warrant so as to enable a claim to be made for pension at any time?

I am glad to say that I have been able to secure modification of the terms of the present Regulations which will enable me to deal with cases of hardship of the kind referred to. Details of the concessions, which are too lengthy for oral answer, were given in an announcement in the public Press of the 7th January last. The few cases that have arisen are now being dealt with under the revised arrangements.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in numerous cases disabled men applying for treatment, when examined by the pensions medical referee and found unfit in consequence of his pensionable disability, are instructed to receive treatment from the panel instead of from the Ministry; whether he is aware that, when this decision is given, the men, though unfit for work, do not receive any treatment allowance, but have to claim upon the National Health Insurance and in many cases, being out of benefit, are forced to appeal to charitable organisations or accept parish relief; and whether, in view of the fact that the Royal Warrant distinctly lays it down that men certified as requiring treatment will get the same at the expense of the Ministry and receive the appropriate allowances, he will see that the regulation is carried out?

The Royal Warrant permits the grant of treatment allowances only when the requirements of a definite course of treatment approved by the Ministry are certified to be such as will prevent the man from providing for the support of himself and his family. If this condition is fulfilled, treatment, allowances may be, and, in fact are, granted to men receiving treatment from their panel doctors. I may, perhaps, remind the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has this week appointed a Committee to examine the existing arrangements for the grant of assistance on account of sickness, unemployment and destitution from public funds with a view to securing the fullest co-ordination of administrative and executive action.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in the case of men assessed at under 20 per cent. not being considered to have become worse unless their disablement has increased to 20 per cent. or over, or in the case of the man who is already assessed at 1 to 5 per cent. who is considered as being no worse, even although the amount of his disablement has increased, in the opinion of the medical officer, to 19 per cent., he will consider the possibility of amending this regulation so as to enable these men to be re-examined for re-assessment of pension?

I am not clear what regulation the hon. Member has in mind. Any man whose disablement has been assessed by my Department at less than 20 per cent. can appeal, within a limit of time, to a medical appeal board, and, if and when the award is made final, to the independent Assessment Appeal Tribunal. If the man's claim is found to be justified an adjustment is made in the compensation payable.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, until recently, it was possible for men suffering from almost any medical complaint to receive special diet allowance; whether the regulations now only permit of these being granted in cases of tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus; that no allowance is granted where the man is already in receipt of 100 per cent. pensions or treatment allowances, and that the allowance cannot extend for a period of more than 13 weeks; and, if so, will he state on what grounds it was decided to stop special diet allowances?

The allowance for special diet is limited to men suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and diabetes mellitus where the circumstances justify the concession. The period of 13 weeks referred to is simply the initial period, and may be extended in any case on medical recommendation.

asked the Minister of Pension the average number of disabled men who received special diet or allowance for this purpose during the six months ended 31st December, 1922, the number of such cases during the week ending 31st January, 1923, and the percentage of such cases in which disablement was certified as tuberculosis?

The average number of men who received special diet during the last six months of 1922 was about 165 of whom nearly 95 per cent. were cases of pulmonary tuberculosis. I have not got the figures for the week ending 31st January last. In addition, during the last few months, an average of about 2,600 pensioners suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis have been inpatients in institutions and sanatoria where they receive, at the cost of the Ministry, any special diet that may be medically recommended.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Private T. Davies, No. 267,448, Monmouthshire Regiment, is stated to be suffering from tubercle of the lung, and that his pension is assessed on the grounds of aggravation by service and not attributable to service; whether this decision was arrived at on the grounds that his father had died from consumption and that he himself had suffered from chest trouble previous to enlistment; if he is aware that his father, John Davies, aged 72 years, is still alive and resides at 12, Jones's Terrace, Tram Road, Pontypridd, Glamorgan; and will he, under these changed circumstances, reconsider the case and order a further examination?

The Pensions Appeal Tribunal having confirmed the finding of the Ministry, I am not in a position to reopen the question. The decision of the Ministry was taken in the light of all the circumstances, and if the man wished to correct the statements which he himself made at the time of his discharge, that his father had died of consumption and that he himself had suffered from chest trouble before the War, he had ample opportunity of doing so before the Tribunal. The précis of his case in which these statements appear was in the usual course furnished to him well in advance of the hearing.

Is there any appeal if new medical evidence be produced?

The decision that the appeals tribunal should take the case out of the hands of the Ministry of Pensions was a decision of this House, enforced upon the Ministry by law. The particular point at issue here was the question as to whether the man's father was dead or not. The man had stated that he was dead. That information was laid before the appeals tribunal, and he was sent a copy of the précis in which that statement appeared.

Are there no cases in which the question has been re-opened after fresh medical evidence has been available?

As a result of the ex-service men pressing this matter on the House, the House of Commons, by general consent, took the matter out of the hands of the Ministry of Pensions and placed it in the hands of the appeals tribunal. Their decision is by law final, and the applicant has no further right.

Are there no cases in which the question has been re-opened, owing to the production of fresh medical evidence? Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that simple question?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put down a separate question.

asked the Minister of Pensions what number of appeals have been made for pensions by ex-service men who are suffering from tuberculosis during the years 1921 and 1922; and what has been the result of such appeals, number allowed and disallowed?

asked the Attorney-General the number of appeals which have come before the pensions appeal tribunal of ex-service men suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, including the appeals of widows of men who have died from the same disease, and the number of such appeals granted and refused?

I regret that I am not in a position to give this information. Neither the records of my Department nor those of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal are kept in such form as to admit of the figures desired being extracted.

Arising out of that very unsatisfactory answer, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the universal discontent that has been and is being expressed in regard to this question of appeals?

No. I am in constant touch with the representatives of the ex-service men and they are not, as an organised body, asking for the abolition of the tribunals. Moreover, they have put their latest new programme before the country, appealing for support for the ex-service men's organisation. In that programme the abolition of the Appeal Tribunals is purposely left out, because they do not wish to abolish them.

Is it a fact that the Appeals Tribunal is being resorted to so that the Minister may obviate his obligations to these men?

No. If the hon. Member had listened to my reply, he would know that the creation of these tribunals was put forward in consequence of strong appeals from the ex-service men, and in the last Parliament the extension of the principle of these tribunals was acceded to, without a Division and by the unanimous consent of the whole House, in reference to final assessments.

Is the right hon. Gentleman—

This is not the time for debating the question.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will issue to Members of Parliament all circulars, regulations, and instructions issued to pension officers, medical boards, and other committees, whose duties are the administration of the Pensions Acts?

I am not prepared to accept this suggestion. I may add that the first part of a new handbook for War Pensions Committees is now with the printers and I will see that copies are available for any Member who so desires. This publication together with the Royal Warrants and Regulations already available will, I think, serve the hon. Member's purpose.

Is it not the case that a number of instructions were sent, as mentioned in my question, and does the right hon. Gentleman ask this House to believe that Members who have passed this Pensions Act are not entitled to have the instructions sent to them?

I think the hon. Member will realise, when he thinks it over, that certain medical instructions, which take precautions that the right man is getting the pension and to guard against attempts by fraudulent persons to claim what is the proper right of the ex-Service men, are highly confidential instructions given to medical boards, and I do not think the hon. Member himself would like to see them published. Nobody would gain except those who are attempting to defraud the public.

While it may be true that there are some confidential instructions, why should not all the instructions, apart from those of a confidential nature, regarding fraud, be submitted to Members of this House?

I am most anxious that the whole position of the Ministry should be placed before Members, and I sincerely hope we may have a Debate in this House in order that this Ministry should be better understood.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the discrepancy between the cost of one county education authority and that of another for the same services; whether he is aware, for instance, that the cost per scholar in Carnarvon is £12 14s., and in Hereford £9 12s. 10d.; that on maintenance Carnarvon spends £174,000, where Hereford spends £102,840; and whether, for the information of hon. Members, the Board of Education will publish an annual return in which these costs will be analysed and compared?

The Board recognise the importance of analysing and comparing the cost of public education in different areas, and have already circulated certain figures to local education authorities for their information. Unless proper allowance is made for necessary differences in the circumstances of different areas, false inferences may easily be drawn from such figures, and they must be used with caution. The Board have the question of publication under consideration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Hereford is a notable case of an authority badly underpaying its teachers?

I would rather not express any opinion upon that point.

asked the President of the Board of Education (1) why a student is asked to pay a fee of £105 a year at the Bingley Training College while the fee at Ripon Training College is only £27 10s. a year; and what steps does he propose to take to remove this disparity in fees?

(2) whether, seeing that the high fees which local education authorities maintaining training colleges are being compelled to charge will have the effect of debarring a number of young people from working-class homes from going to a training college and becoming fully qualified teachers, he will look into this matter?

The high fees which are being charged by local education authorities who maintain training colleges to students coming from outside their area are partly due to the unwillingness of other authorities to contribute to the cost of the colleges by whose facilities they and students from their own areas benefit. Negotiations for an equitable distribution of the cost have, I am sorry to say, broken down, but there is no reason why authorities whose students attend the college of another authority should not defray the whole or part of their fees, as the Board suggested in Circular 1211 in 1921, and the Board would recognise their expenditure for this purpose for the calculation of grant. I am proposing to establish a Departmental Committee to review the training college position.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask that Departmental Committee to reconsider the whole position with regard to training colleges provided by local education authorities, and remove the unfair incidence of the charge resting on them?

I propose to draw the terms of reference sufficiently wide to cover all these points.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether there has been any reduction of the grants to training colleges, or whether any reduction is contemplated; and, if so, what the nature of the economies are which the Board of Education propose to try and enforce?

The Boards substantive grant to training colleges not provided by local education authorities includes a variable grant, which is determined from year to year in relation to the cost of living. The variable part of the grant was reduced for the academic year 1922–23. It has not yet been decided whether any further reduction should be made for 1923–24.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that school teachers who served in His Majesty's forces during the recent War will have deducted from their pensionable service the time thus served when they reach the retiring age; that there is, as a consequence, serious dissatisfaction amongst teachers; whether he has had any communication from the National Union of Teachers on this subject; and whether he is prepared to take such action as may be necessary to enable teachers to count such service with the forces as pensionable service?

The hon. Member is under a missapprehension. Service by a teacher in the forces of the Crown in the late War is, under Rule 19 (i) of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Rules, 1919, treated as recognised service, if the teacher was a certificated teacher at the date of his war service, or was employed in recognised service immediately before the commencement of such war service.

Is the President of the Board of Education prepared to reconsider the refusal of the Board to recognise the war service of women teachers?

I am afraid that that raises a much wider question, which I cannot answer without notice.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Circular 1296, suspending, without previous notice, the acting teachers' certificate examination of 1923, was issued after the change of Government and on his responsibility; whether he is aware that many of these acting teachers have gone to considerable expense in order to qualify for this examination, understanding that if they succeeded they would secure a higher salary; and whether the Board propose to offer any compensation to such teachers now that the expense has been incurred without any possibility of obtaining the increased remuneration, seeing that the Board will benefit by the improved training for which they have paid?

asked the President of the Board of Education whether it has been decided to suspend the acting teachers' certificate examination; if so, will he state the reason; whether he is aware that notice of this decision was only given 10 months before the date of the examination, when candidates had been preparing for more than a year; and whether, in view of the fact that if this decision is acted upon it will have the result of closing the teaching profession to all but those who have sufficient means to enter a training college, and that the amount of money that will be saved will be very small and out of proportion to the inconvenience which will be caused to intending candidates for the examination, he will have the matter reconsidered?

asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the great personal hardship suffered by many teachers in consequence of the issue of Circular 1296, suspending the certificate examination; and, in view of the fact that no previous notice had been given of such suspension, and the publication of the syllabus for 1923, setting out the dates upon which it was proposed to hold the examination, had led teachers to prepare for and incur expenditure upon the necessary training, whether in justice to these teachers he will withdraw the circular in question and permit the examination to take place?

The decision to suspend the acting teachers' certificate examination was taken by me at the earliest possible moment after investigation of the relevant circumstances, which indicated that certificated teachers were finding considerable difficulty in obtaining employment, and that in the near future this difficulty would be experienced in an increasing degree. I regret the inconvenience caused to those teachers who were preparing for the examination, but I am satisfied that the Board's action was advisable in the interests of the teaching profession generally, and I am not prepared to reconsider it. I have no power to grant compensation to the teachers concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is more than inconvenient to the uncertificated teachers, who have gone to considerable expense in order to prepare themselves for examination, which was to be for higher salaries; and now, after having incurred that expense, the Board has taken this step?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the teachers concerned are put to an expense of about £70 or £80, in each case based on a circular issued by the Government in 1922, and does he not think that this constitutes, to a certain extent, a breach of faith?

I quite recognise the hardship involved. It is not correct to say that those who have spent money on their training have wasted their money, because at the same time that we announced this restriction, we also announced that there would be further examination in which the learning that these teachers would have acquired would

stand them in good stead. The choice I have to make is whether it is fair to encourage people, still ten months away from their examination, to go on spending more money with the chance, after they have spent it, and obtained their certificate, they may be unemployed.

asked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of trained teachers now unemployed; how many of these hold university degrees; and what is the estimated number of young persons between the ages of 14 and 18 unemployed?

I regret I have no information to show the total number of trained teachers who are at present unemployed, or how many of them hold university degrees. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving a summary of information received from authorities of training colleges relating to employment of teachers who left training college in the summer of 1922.

Following is the table promised:

With regard to the third part of the question, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that the number of juveniles registered at Employment Exchanges in England and Wales as unemployed on the 29th January, 1923, was 45,819 boys and 38,293 girls, a total of 84,112; but he has asked me to point out that for various reasons, particularly because boys and girls under 16 are not insured against unemployment, these figures fall considerably short of the total number of boys and girls out of employment.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received communications from educational authorities with reference to instituting an inquiry into the place of the Welsh language in the schools and in the educational system in Wales; whether the same has been considered; and will he state the decision?

asked the Prime Minister if he will institute an inquiry into the place of the Welsh language in the schools and in the educational system of Wales, as was recently done in the case of English in the schools of England?

Several representations of the nature indicated in these questions have reached me, and I recently had the opportunity of discussing the matter with a deputation from the University of Wales and the Central Welsh Board. Pending further consideration of the matter by those bodies, or their representatives, I am not in a position to arrive at a decision.

May I ask whether the Board of Education has received representations in favour of extending the teaching of the Welsh language in elementary schools from the local authorities in Wales?

No; I do not think so. The representations I have in my mind are those referred to in the questions.

asked the President of the Board of Education if he has yet considered the advisability of ordering an open inquiry into the circum- stances leading up to the death of Vivian Merton Tanner, the 14-year-old boy who fatally stabbed himself at Christ's Hospital, Horsham, on 22nd January, 1923?

I have received a report from the governing body of the school, which is at present under my consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the pilots and technical personnel employed in subsidised air services are under any binding obligation to serve the State in any emergency?

No, Sir, but it is hoped that the majority will join the Air Force Reserve.

Will these personnel be told that they must join that Reserve?

The contract, for which I am not responsible, has still some months to run. I will certainly consider this point if the contracts are renewed when they run out.

Would the same conditions apply to subsidies given to airships?

There are no contracts for any airships. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question arises.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total sum we shall have to pay the United States will amount to at the present rate of exchange, at par of exchange, and at $4.50 to the £?

The settlement which we have expressed our willingness to accept fixes the debt at $4,604,000,000, of which $4,128,085 is to be paid in cash and the balance funded on the terms already announced. This involves a yearly payment at par of about £33,000,000 per annum, rising to £38,000,000 per annum in ten years time and about 8 per cent. more at $4.50 to the £. The above figures are exclusive of a sum of $61,000,000, plus interest, in respect of a war agreement for the purchase of silver, which we shall liquidate by May, 1924.

Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether he is to pay in gold or goods, and what will America accept?

Is there anything in the agreement which provides or makes it possible for us to name a maximum amount in sterling for which we might be liable?

No, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to call a meeting of British financiers with a view to adopting a lower rate of interest on war debt and thus follow the lead of the United States in assisting the nation out of its financial difficulties?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, during his recent visit to the United States of America, he suggested a reduction in the rate of interest on the war debt held in America; and whether he is prepared to adopt a similar reduction in this country?

The object of my visit to the United States of America was to arrange for the funding of our American debt on terms as favourable to this country as possible. It naturally has been, and will continue to be the object of those responsible for any funding or conversion operations in this country to carry them through on the most advantageous terms that can be obtained for the taxpayer. How far this may be possible depends very largely on the arrangements we make for redeeming debt in the meantime.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he discussed with the Government of the United States of America the mehods by which the interest on the debt due by the country is to be paid; whether any agreement was arrived at on the point; and, if not, whether he can give any information as to how he proposes that these payments should be made?

I was not able to reach any agreement on this matter. I would take this opportunity of asking the House not to press me on points arising out of the prospective settlement of our debt to the United States Government, until such matters can be discussed when the Bill now before the United States legislature has become law.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government propose to introduce legislation to deal with the injustice of the incidence of local taxation on agriculture?

I am unable at present to add anything to the reference to this matter in the King's Speech.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any steps are to be taken to prevent wheat being imported except as whole wheat and not as flour into this country; and whether any steps are to be taken with a view to prevent the export of offals?

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government is aware that the price of sulphate of ammonia is now £16 18s. per ton, which is a considerable increase on the price last year; whether this increase is due to increased cost of production or to the control of a profiteering combine; and, if the latter, what steps will be taken to secure justice to the farmers?

I am advised that the present price of neutral sulphate of ammonia (25¾ per cent. ammonia) is, as stated by the hon. Member, £16 18s. per ton. The price for the same grade in February last year was £16 13s. As the increase in price is only 1½ per cent. no special steps would seem to be necessary.

As one possessing some knowledge of the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia, I wish to ask whether the price is not regulated by the power of a combine that exists to control the price of sulphuric acid?

I do not think that arises out of the question.

Let the right hon. Gentleman either answer the question, or say that he cannot.

Who is to judge? Are we not to judge?

Is this increase in the price due to the increased cost of production or to the control of a profiteering company?

I have no information on that subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us if the price of sulphate of ammonia to farmers in Scotland is not regulated by the quantity of sulphate on the market, which is regulated by a combine? Can we have this information, or will the right hon. Gentleman tell us plainly that he knows nothing about it?

That is not the question put down on the Paper by the hon. Member.

Would it be in order to move that the right hon. Gentleman's salary be stopped for the time being? We want to know whether the price is controlled by a combine?

The Minister says that he has not the information asked for, and any further question must be put down.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any information as to when the Report of the Committee of economists on methods of agriculture, appointed at the end of last Session, may be expected?

No, Sir; I am not yet in a position to make any announcement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of proof gallons of British and Irish spirits exported to Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, British West Indies, Cuba, Hayti, the Bahamas, and the Bermudas during the calendar years 1918 to 1922, inclusive?

As the information asked for is in tabular form, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say if any of the spirits sent to the countries named were used for industrial purposes? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I spoke up yesterday, and you objected.

The particulars are as follow:

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the allowance of £10,000 per year hitherto paid to the Duke of York becomes increased on his. marriage to £25,000 per year under a previous decision of this House or whether this increase has to obtain the approval of Parliament before any payment on the increased scale is made; and whether Income Tax and Super-tax are or are not payable on these incomes?

The increased provision is already authorised by 10 Edw. VII and I Geo. V, cap. 28, and is chargeable with Income Tax and Super-tax in respect of that portion which is not deducted in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules applicable to Schedule E of 8 and 9 Geo. V, cap. 40.

Arising out of that very unintelligent answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh. oh!" and "Order!" and "Get on with it!"]—arising out of that —you have to remember this, that those hon. Members who are—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—Mr. Speaker, if you will keep the crowd in order—

If the hon. Member will always remember to address me, I will see that he has a fair opportunity.

Arising out of the answer that I got, and which, not being a lawyer, I have great difficulty in following—being an ordinary member of the working classes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech, speech!" and "Order!"—

Will the hon. Member put his supplementary question?

Yes, Sir, I will put my supplementary question. Arising out of the answer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on!"]—I am going on whenever these people will give me the chance. I am going on. I am in no hurry. If they do not give me a chance, I will address you, Mr. Speaker; if you will give me your attention—

I am waiting for the supplementary question.

Arising out of the answer, Sir, which I got, I ask you to get the right hon. Gentleman to reply in a fashion in which the people whom we on these benches represent will understand, and further, do they not think, those who are laughing, those who are well fed—is it not an insult—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]—that it is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]. When I am finished I will sit down.

The hon. Member has heard other Members put supplementary questions in the correct form, and perhaps he would do the same. If he reads the answer which will be sent to him in reply to his question, he will see that the matter is simple. What he fails to understand is that the reply contains references to Acts of Parliament, which were given to enable him to go to the right authority in the matter.

Is it not the case, Mr. Speaker, that the Government here— [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] —

Will hon. Members allow the hon. Member to put his question so that I may hear it?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that the Government are anxious to economise? Is it not the case that the working classes have had their wages reduced, and is this not a glorious opportunity for starting at the top of the tree? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] In view of members of the working classes who are starving—

called Question No. 38.

On a point of Order. As a supplementary question, may I ask whether the Government will introduce a Bill to amend the Act in question?

That is not a supplementary to the main question. That must be put as a separate question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the levying of a tax of £1 per head on each citizen of the United States entering Great Britain and a further tax of 10s. per head on his leaving or, alternatively, will he consider a taxe des jours on all aliens residing in the United Kingdom for a longer period than one week?

All relevant suggestions will receive my careful consideration in connection with the forthcoming Budget, but I could not in any case agree to discriminate against the citizens of the United States as suggested.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the national and commercial advantages which would ensue from the construction of a canal from the Clyde to the Forth; and whether, in view of those advantages and of the necessity of providing work for the unemployed, he will give early and favourable consideration to the project?

I have been asked to reply to this question. The attention of the Government has been drawn to this project, which was, I understand, claimed by its advocates to be in the interests of naval security. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already stated that, for such a purpose only, the large expenditure involved is not considered to be justified at the present time, and I am advised that commercially the proposed canal would not pay its way. In all the circumstances, I do not think that this scheme would afford an advantageous method of providing work in relief of unemployment.

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think it would be a great advantage to the development of agriculture in Scotland to have running right through the centre a canal for conveying produce, thereby increasing the trade of Scotland?

That is so, but a canal which is going to cost about £ 35,000,000 to make, and which cannot pay its way, is not a commercial proposition at the present moment.

Is the answer given to this question a definite refusal on the part of the Government to consider such a thing?

No, Sir. The promoters of the canal can put forward their scheme and their estimates. The Minis- try of Transport will then examine them most carefully, consider them, and come to a conclusion, but it is for them to bring forward their proposals.

Have not the promoters of the scheme, in addition to the reasons advanced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, submitted evidence showing that the construction of such a canal would immensely stimulate the industrial development of the district through which the canal is supposed to pass, and also assist the shipping interest?

I am not aware that they have put forward any specific and definite proposals.

asked the Prime Minister if the recent occupation of towns in Baden by French troops was carried out with the full authority of the Rhineland Commission; and if the British representative on that Commission was a consenting party to the decision?

The Rhineland High Commission, on the initiative of the French High Commissioner, has agreed to an ordinance bringing the towns referred to within its jurisdiction. The British representative refrained from taking part in this decision.

asked the Prime Minister whether any request has been received from the French Government to cede a small portion of the occupied territory to French occupation in order to facilitate the removal of Ruhr coal to France; and, if so, what answer has been returned to this request?

asked the Prime Minister whether the French Government has requested His Majesty's Government to transfer to the French zone a part of the Rhine territory at present occupied by British troops; and what answer has been made?

No such request has been made by the French Government.

Are the representatives of the French Government, who have come over to this country, proposing to raise this question; and, if so, can we have an answer before the Debate closes?

I believe there are representatives of the French Government over here at the moment, but I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman what their business is. Perhaps he will put the question to the Prime Minister.

I will. Will the right hon. Gentleman say if these representatives are raising this question? What is their business? I think we ought to have an answer to that.

The meeting held to-day has been postponed until tomorrow, and it is therefore impossible to give the information asked for.

asked the Prime Minister whether the opinon of the Law Officers of the Crown has been taken as to whether the acton of the French Government in occupying the Ruhr district is contrary to the Treaty of Versailles; and, if so, whether he is able to make a statement on the subject?

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

Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the opinion of the Law Officers will be sought on one special point, namely, whether action under Part 8 of the Treaty, on which the French occupation is based, requires the unanimous consent of the Reparation Commission?

I think my hon. Friend will see that it would be useless to take the course which he recommends, because any opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown here must necessarily be based on principles of interpretation laid down by British law in British Courts, and those principles of interpretation may not be accepted by other nations.

Is it not a fact that the interpretation of Part 8 rests on the unanimous decision of the Reparation Commission? How did the British representative vote?

On what?

On the point as to whether the advance into the Ruhr is within the terms of Part 8.

That does not arise out of the question on the Paper, but, speaking from recollection, my belief is that the British representative did not vote at all.

If that be so, how can it be the unanimous decision of the Reparation Commission?

I made no statement to the effect that there was a unanimous decision.

asked the Prime Minister whether, under Article 19 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, he will instruct the British representative at the Assembly to raise the question of the revision of the Treaty of Versailles?

I do not think that any advantage would result from the course which the hon. and gallant Member suggests.

Is it competent for the representative of this country to raise the question under Article 19, in view of what the Foreign Secretary said in the House of Lords the other night?

I think it is.

asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to take the initiative in seeking the co-operation of the Government of the United States of America to bring pressure to bear upon the Governments of France and Germany to agree to have the question of reparations submitted for solution to the League of Nations?

I can add nothing to the statement which I made on this subject in the course of the Debate on Tuesday last.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of our having come to a settlement of our debt to the United States, he proposes to negotiate with France, Italy, Belgium, and our other debtors, with the object, not only of stabilising foreign currencies, but also in the hope of relieving the British taxpayer of part of the great burden entailed in meeting our obligations to the United States?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the French and Italian Governments that this country is prepared to consolidate the debts due from them on similar terms to those which may be concluded for the repayment of our indebtedness to the United States?

I laid before the Paris Conference a scheme which had commended itself to His Majesty's Government for a general settlement of the questions of Reparations and of Inter-Allied Debts. As regards the future, I can only say that we retain an entirely free hand to reopen either or both questions when a suitable opportunity presents itself. As Belgium is mentioned in the question, I ought perhaps to point out that, with the exception of a reconstruction credit of £9,000,000, on which interest is being paid in cash, there is no debt remaining due from Belgium to this country.

Has the Government considered the advisability of making some preparation for redeeming the major portion of our National Debt?

asked the Prime Minister how many claims have been met and the amount expended out of the reparation fund in compensation for those who suffered from submarine and aerial warfare during the War, how many claims of seamen and the dependants of seamen, who suffered from submarine warfare and the sinking of vessels through mines, have been received and how many settled, and the amount actually expended on such claims; and what is the total amount available for the purpose?

On the evening of the 13th February payment had been made of the sums recommended by the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action in respect of 9,059 claims by sufferers from submarine and aerial warfare. The amount expended is £620,902. The total number of seamen and their dependants who have lodged claims with the Reparation Claims Department is 24,750, and of these, 8,261, involving a sum of £562,052, have so far been paid. £5,000.000 is available for compensation for sufferings or damage arising out of the action of the enemy during the War within Annex I to Part VIII of the Treaty of Versailles, but the claims against this fund include claims in respect of property as well as all claims in respect of death and personal injury.

Will the Noble Lord be good enough to say how much of the sum available will be set aside for the claims of seamen and their dependants?

The procedure followed is that each claim has been investigated by the Royal Commission, and a decision given upon it. These assessments are now being paid out by the Department as fast as possible. I am unable to inform the hon. Member what is the total amount allotted to seamen.

Can the Noble Lord tell us when any payments out of the sum of £5,000,000 in respect of material damage to cargoes is likely to be available?