asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether France has ratified the Washington Treaties?

The answer is in the negative.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether France intends to ratify this Treaty, and, if so, when?

I cannot say that at all.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty which Powers have so far ratified the Washington Treaty; whether any action is being taken by any of the signatories owing to the non-ratification of the Treaty by all the signatories; whether there is any limit to the time within which the Treaty must be ratified; and whether non-ratification by all the signatories will have any effect on our attitude towards the Treaty?

The Naval Treaty concluded at Washington has been ratified by the British Empire, the United States and Japan; within the last few days it has been passed by both Chambers of the Italian Parliament and is now awaiting the Royal Assent. As regards the other points raised by my Noble and gallant Friend, I would refer him to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Dundee on 13th December, to which I have nothing to add.

Can my hon. Friend give any indication of what the attitude of the Government will be in the event of non-ratification of the Treaty by France?

That is a hypothetical question to which I cannot give an answer.

When does the Treaty come before the French Parliament?

I have no knowledge of the business procedure of the French Parliament.

Have any steps so far been taken to bring the Treaty before the French Parliament?

I am not quite sure.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether in 1902 there was an agreement executed by Siam with the Malay State, Kelantan, under which that State was recognised to be a dependency of the Kingdom of Siam; and, if so, was that agreement still in force at the date of the execution of the Anglo-Siamese Treaty in March, 1909;

(2) whether, under the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909, Siam transferred to Great Britain all rights of suzerainty, protection, administration, and control whatsoever which they possessed over the State of Kelantan;

(3) whether, since the execution of the Anglo-Siamese Treaty, Great Britain has restored to Kelantan its position as an independent foreign State; if so, on what date was its independence restored; by what means was it restored; what were the reasons for doing so; and was this House informed of what had passed?

It is the case that under the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909 Siam transferred to Great Britain all rights of suzerainty, protection, administration and control whatsoever which it possessed over the State of Kelantan. It is also true that in 1902 an agreement had been executed by Siam under which Kelantan was recognised as a dependency of the Kingdom of Siam and that agreement was, I believe, still in force at the date of the execution of the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909. Whatever may have been intended by the use of the word dependency in the agreement between Siam and Kelantan referred to above, the mention of sovereignty was deliberately excluded in the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909. His Majesty's Government did not admit that the sovereignty of Kelantan was vested in any other than the Ruler of that State. They did not consent to take it over under the Treaty, nor has His Majesty ever claimed or exercised the right of sovereignty in Kelantan. In pursuance of this policy an agreement was signed in 1910 between the High Commissioner for the Malay States and the Rajah of Kelantan regulating the relations between His Majesty's Government and the Rajah. In the preamble to this agreement Kelantan is not spoken of as a dependency but as under the protection of Great Britain, and in the body of it the former claim of Siam to an annual payment or to the receipt of the customary annual present known as the Bunga Mas is not included. Further, in 1911, with His Majesty's approval, the Rajah of Kelantan assumed the title of Sultan and was by letters patent recognised as Sultan and Sovereign of the State of Kelantan, its Territories and Dependencies. The object of the above proceedings was to clarify the status of Kelantan. It was not considered by His Majesty's Government that any change was in fact being made as to the sovereignty of the Ruler of Kelantan, and it was not thought necessary to make any statement in Parliament.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he is quoting from the verses of Omar Khayyam?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Lord Allenby communicated in full to the Foreign Office the note of the ex-premier Tewfik Nessim Pasha, consequent upon the Robson outrage; and, if so, whether the Government is prepared to inform the House of the contents of the note and of what reply was returned to it?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The texts of Nessim Pasha's note and of Lord Allenby's subsequent declaration were published in Egypt, and full summaries appeared in the English Press, so that no useful purpose would be served by further publication.

When the hon. Gentleman says summaries have been published, does he not think this House is entitled to have a complete copy at least of the Tewfik Pasha despatch?

I think the summaries published give ample information.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, when archæology, science, and art have been duly satisfied from the recent discoveries at Deir-el-Bahari, His Majesty's Government will, if necessary, use its influence to suggest that the body of King Tutankhamen may be allowed to remain in what he desired to be its last resting place?

His Majesty's Government have no desire to intervene in a matter in which the decision properly rests with the Egyptian Government.

Has the hon. Gentleman or the Government any proof that the real Tutankhamen has been found?

I have no official knowledge that the body of his late Majesty is in the sarcophagus.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that Lord Allenby has issued a decree fining the inhabitants of a certain district of Cairo 600 Egyptian pounds; and, if so, by what authority the British representative has taken this action?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The action taken by Lord Allenby was by proclamation under martial law.

Is not Egypt a foreign State?

No, Sir, not, strictly speaking, yet.

Did not the Government give us to understand long ago that full sovereignty, with certain reservations, had been conferred upon the Egyptian State?

Was not this order made in consequence of the attempted assassination of an English working man?

That is so. In answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), under the arrangements made, full sovereignty, if there was to be full sovereignty, at all events, withdrawal of martial law and the promulgation of a Constitution, would depend upon certain conditions which have not yet been fully accepted.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to strong resentment being prevalent in Egypt arising out of alleged interference by Lord Allenby in an attempt to set up a Cabinet in that country by imposing Adly Pasha on the nation against its will; and whether he proposes to take any action to prevent such interference in Egyptian politics?

His Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that Lord Allenby has interfered or intends to interfere in a matter which is primarily the concern of the King of Egypt.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about the United States of America refusing to reopen the Consulate at Newcastle; whether the charges against the former American Consul were fully investigated in this country and were found to be substantially correct; whether these same charges were also investigated in America; what was the result of their investigations; and does he propose to submit the entire case to arbitration?

According to the latest communication received from the United States Embassy, dated 9th November, the United States Government are only willing to reopen the United States Consulate at Newcastle on condition that His Majesty's Government will publicly withdraw the charges made and allow the former Consul and Vice-Consul to be re-appointed. This was the reply returned to a proposal for a compromise which had been worked out by British and United States officials and which would have been accepted by His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Government, being satisfied that the charges against the United States Vice-Consul were substantiated and that the Consul must be held responsible for the actions of his subordinate, were naturally unable to agree to the terms proposed by the United States Government. I understand that an investigation of the charges was carried out by United States officials in this country, but I have no knowledge of its scope or character except that the result was to exonerate the Consular officials in the opinion of the United States Government. The case is hardly one which can be submitted to arbitration.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great amount of loss and inconvenience to the business community of Newcastle, that his predecessor promised me in the last Parliament that this was about to be rectified, and that he hoped that would be done in a short time? Will the hon. Gentleman see that, if possible, arrangements are made whereby this inconvenience and loss are avoided?

I am aware of the inconvenience, and it is for that very reason that the Government have been taking every possible step to get over the difficulty.

Would it not be better to let this drag along as a salutary lesson to those concerned?

Will the hon. Gentleman lay the papers relating to these matters on the Table?

I cannot make any promise of that sort at the present moment.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can say when the abolition of the visa on passports for Italy will come into force?

The proposal for the mutual abolition of visas between this country and Italy which was made to the Italian Government in September last, and renewed in January, has not yet been accepted, but it is hoped that a favourable answer may shortly be returned.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to submit the whole question of Continental visas, as far as this country is concerned, to the League of Nations?

No, Sir.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any cases are now being presented to the Permanent Court of International Justice by Great Britain through the League of Nations on behalf of British subjects recruited for the French army in Tunis?

His Majesty's Government and the French Government have, in accordance with a resolution adopted by the Council of the League of Nations on 4th October, 1922, referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice the preliminary question whether the dispute which has arisen between the two Governments as to the Nationality Decrees issued in Tunis and Morocco (French zone) on 8th November, 1921, and their application to British subjects, is or is not by international law solely a matter of domestic jurisdiction as contemplated by Article 15, Paragraph 8, of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Court having given its opinion on 7th February last that the dispute is not solely a matter of domestic jurisdiction in international law, His Majesty's Government are now in communication with the French Government with a view to the reference of the whole case on its merits to the same Court.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Secretariat of the League of Nations are bound under Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to publish all treaties which have been registered; whether it is intended to publish the terms of the Franco-Belgian Military Convention; and, if not, whether any protest has been made by His Majesty's Government at the infringement of one of the articles of the Treaty of Versailles?

I would refer the hon. Member to the first part of the answer which I gave to him on 14th December last. As stated therein, the documents in which the French and Belgian Governments defined and approved the Convention in question were communicated to, and registered by, the League of Nations and were duly published. It is obvious that the military and technical details arranged by the French and Belgian staffs cannot be published. His Majesty's Government do not consider that any infringement of the Covenant has taken place or any protest called for.

Is there any doubt about the interpretation of this Article, because it was supposed to safeguard the world from secret Treaties?

I think there is always doubt about interpretation where differences of opinion exist.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Portuguese Government has yet passed any legislation which will allow British shipping to enter Portuguese ports on the same terms as registered Portuguese ships; and can he make any statement on the subject?

I fear there is no prospect of any such legislation being passed by the Portuguese Government, and there are no treaty grounds on which His Majesty's Government could demand this. In September last a decree was issued by the Portuguese Government which removed certain of the disabilities inflicted on British shipping by previous legislation, and negotiations are now in progress with the Portuguese Government with the view of obtaining still further alleviations.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a number of married officers between the age of 35 and 40 are about to be compulsorily retired from the Royal Navy before 31st March next, and that some of these have children to educate, and have little or nothing besides their pay; and will he reconsider these cases in view of the fact that there are other officers of similar rank who will be anxious to retire voluntarily, and that many of the officers whom it is proposed to retire have good War records?

I am aware that it has been necessary to select for retirement a certain number of lieutenants ex mate between the ages of 35 and 40, some of whom are married with children. Before any selection was made, however, full opportunity was given to officers of this class, of the ages in which surpluses exist, namely, 30 to 40, to retire voluntarily, and it was only when the number applying to retire was found to be short of requirements that selection was resorted to. In the circumstances I am afraid that these retirements must stand.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the hard cases of these officers who have been retired compulsorily?

It is impossible to reconsider them without creating as many fresh hard cases.

Are these officers chosen from the whole of the Navy, or only those in home waters?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that a number of sons of retired or serving officers of the Army and Royal Navy are now serving in the junior commissioned ranks of the Royal Navy, and are about to be compulsorily retired before 31st March next; and will he reconsider these cases in view of the fact that officers who have served the State have no trade or profession in which to place their sons, except in the Services in many cases, and that these young officers are entitled to favourable consideration if they have been found to be efficient, and especially those who served during the great War?

All the officers from whom the selections were made served during the War, and the cases where parents have no trade or profession in which to put their sons are by no means limited to sons of officers. In any case it would be impossible to depart, without great hardship and unfairness, from the general principle that the selection of officers for retirement must be made according to the merits of the officers themselves. I may add that, when the retirement scheme was announced in May last, an appeal was made to those officers who had special chances of settling themselves in civilian life to come forward and enable others to remain in the Service, and many officers whose parents had opportunities for placing them in a trade or profession then applied to retire voluntarily.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of reducing the number of officers to be compulsorily retired, in view of the fact of the hard cases of the sons of officers and also clergymen who have no other profession to turn to in this commercial country?

Will he also consider the multitude of men who are not officers, who have been discharged and whose sons are exactly in the same position?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that instructions have been issued for the enforced retirement from the Royal Navy of a number of young officers before the 31st March next, many of whom have good War records and are highly efficient; that the retirement of these young officers on gratuity and pension, in view of their expectance of life, is not economic, the State paying money for nothing for many years except for past services: and that these officers will be replaced in due course by cadets now at the Royal Naval College; and whether, seeing that the compulsory retirement of these young serving officers and their replacement by others is detrimental to efficiency in the Navy and not reasoned economy, in view of the fact that the services dispensed with and the pensions and gratuities to be paid are not commensurate with the loss to the Service of these officers, he will reconsider this question?

I am aware that it has been necessary to select a number of young officers for retirement from the Royal Navy, most of whom have already retired and the rest are due to retire on or before the 31st March. I can, however, assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, had any other course been possible, the Board of Admiralty would not have undertaken this highly unpleasant duty, which has been forced upon them by the reductions in the Navy consequent upon the Washington Agreement.

The remainder of the question raises issues of administrative efficiency and economy, and necessitates a somewhat lengthy reply, which, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will cir-circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Admiralty continuing to carry out all the reductions according to the Washington Treaty, in view of the fact that other countries are not doing so?

We are carrying out the scheme of reduction, on the assumption that other countries will play their part under the Washington Treaty.

If it is found that other countries are not playing their part, are we to reconsider the matter?

Does the Admiralty approve of these reductions in the case of so many officers?

I think my answer makes it perfectly clear. We do agree in the Washington Treaty, but regret the inevitable consequences.

Has not the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department been dictated by those who have been advocating economy?

The remainder of the reply is as follows:

The retention on the active list of surplus officers would obviously lead to considerable periods of unemployment, which, by reducing the times spent in appointments, must seriously reduce efficiency, and also lead eventually to a big block in promotion, which could only result in raising the age of promotion and making it almost impossible for the younger officers of outstanding merit to reach Flag rank at a comparatively early age, a point to which successive Boards of Admiralty have attached the utmost importance. Moreover, in view of this necessity of having a number of young officers in the higher ranks, the officers at present surplus to requirements cannot be regarded as a substitute for cadets now entering Dartmouth, who are many years younger. Even from the point of view of economy alone, I think it will be found, when regard is had to the differences in full pay and to the fact that officers on the active list are by their service adding very substantially to their retired pay, that the course adopted is the more economical.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the anxiety of the petty officers and men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines for a favourable reply to be given to Item 12 of the 1922 Welfare Requests, he is in a position to make any statement on this matter?

The 1922 Welfare Requests are being dealt with as rapidly as circumstances admit, but I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement on the matter at the present time.

Have the Admiralty a plan? To whom do they look for a plan?

I can only repeat that I am not in a position to make any statement.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the arduous nature of the duties of the crews of His Majesty's destroyers engaged in the Irish defence flotilla, and recently emphasised when one vessel was at sea for over 10 days searching for a suspected craft, the payment of hard-lying money will be considered?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply of the 13th December last.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the official account of the Battle of Jutland was sent to Lord Jellicoe on 2nd June, whether he is now in a position to announce the date of its issue to the public?

Lord Jellicoe's remarks on the narrative of the Battle of Jutland were not received in the Admiralty until 16th January. They are very full and detailed, and will still require some time to consider.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Official Naval History of the War, by the late Sir Julian Corbett, was conducted under the auspices of the Committee of Imperial Defence; and whether he will submit to the Committee that the history should either be discontinued or should be written under the auspices of the Naval War Staff by naval officers?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister on 5th December last.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to further reduce the personnel of the Navy; and, if so, will the terms on retiring be improved, seeing that the officers and ratings already reduced find it impossible to obtain employment in civil life?

The reductions ordered in Fleet Orders 1358 and 1359 are approaching completion. After that point, it is not likely that any further reductions will be necessary.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) if he will state the number of engine-room artificers and their grades who volunteered to leave the service under A.F.O. 1358–9; what percentage of these were allowed to go; whether men who did not volunteer are now, under a very recent Order, being forced out of the Navy; if so, what are the numbers and length of service of those being reduced; and, if sufficient men did not volunteer under A.F.O. 1358–9, will the Admiralty reconsider the terms offered so as to get a voluntary reduction instead of a forced one;

(2) what number of men undertook to retire from the Navy under the reduction Order of some months ago; how many of those who volunteered to resign are at sea; whether the new Order effecting further compulsory reductions affects men who expected to serve at least 12 years in the Navy; and whether the Admiralty will reconsider the question of forcing men out of the Navy with the view of substituting a less harsh measure, or by allowing the reductions to take place by permitting all men who offered to retire to do so and/or by the process of natural wastage?

The number of ratings who volunteered for discharge under Admiralty Fleet Order 1359/22 is not known, but all those who volunteered and who fulfilled the conditions required by the Admiralty were allowed to go under the terms of the Order, up to the full surplus numbers in each branch and grade. The total number of volunteers discharged was about 11,500, of whom 500 were still at sea on 1st February. It was found that in certain branches and grades the number of volunteers was insufficient, and orders were accordingly issued for the compulsory discharge of the surplus ratings. The men so discharged may be men of any length of service and include 175 engine room artificers. I need hardly tell the House that the Board of Admiralty profoundly regret the necessity of discharging these men from the Service, but with our reduced Navy there would be no work for these men to do, and in the interests of economy it is imperative to effect the reductions before the end of the financial year. The terms of compensation granted are, in the opinion of the Board, equitable.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any person or persons have been paid awards in connection with the invention of the depth charge; and, if so, what amounts have been paid and to whom?

According to the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors, Command Paper 1782 of 1922, Paymaster-Commander Teasdale Buckell was awarded £250 in respect of his claim for depth bombs and depth bomb throwers, and Mr. H. J. Taylor was awarded £800 for inventions relating to mines, depth charges and sinkers.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the allegations in the articles, by Mr. Winston Churchill on the subject as to who was responsible for the invention of the tank were made with the sanction of the Board of Admiralty?

The Board of Admiralty have had no communication with Mr. Churchill on the subject.

To whom is given credit for having invented the means of propelling the tank—the catterpillar wheels?

The whole of this question was dealt with authoritatively by the Commission for Rewards to Inventors, before which, I think, Mr. Churchill also gave evidence.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that naval schoolmasters were serving at sea in 1920 and subsequently, and that the present curriculum of naval school work was in vogue as far back as 1918, but that notwithstanding schoolmasters, Royal Navy and Royal Marines, respectively were paid on the same scale under the 1920 revision; and, inasmuch as the work of the Royal Marine schoolmasters has now been brought into line with that of the naval schoolmasters, will he give further consideration to the question of again placing the Royal Marine schoolmasters on the same footing as their naval confreres?

The scale of pay of the Royal Marine schoolmasters has been fully considered, and as they are not subject to the disabilities of sea service, it is not thought justifiable to place them on the same scale as naval schoolmasters.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether orders were placed by his Department in November and December last with Price's Patent Candle Company, Limited, E. Cook and Sons, Limited, and Ogstan and Tennant, Limited, all of which are part of what is known as the Lever Combine; whether the Department assured itself before placing contracts that these firms do not pay trade union rates of wages, and, if so, will he cause inquiries to be made in order to make sure that the Fair Wages Clause is adhered to in future by all firms contracting for the Admiralty?

Orders were placed in November and December with the firms named. The contracts contain the usual Fair Wages Clause, and no intimation has been received from any quarter that it has not been observed by these firms either under these or previous contracts. If the hon. Member will cause details to be furnished stating in what respects it is alleged the Clause is being infringed by these contractors or others, the complaint shall be inquired into.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the unemployment at East Cowes, Isle of Wight, aggravated by the closing of the Royal Naval College at Osborne, whether any decision has been arrived at with regard to the future use of the buildings and property whereby unemployment may be relieved?

The question as to the use to which the College buildings shall be put in future is under consideration, and it is not possible at the moment to decide what (if any) works that would relieve unemployment could usefully be carried out. I may add, however, that since the beginning of the year works have been or are being carried out on the Osborne Estate which will have employed temporarily a large number of men.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the local authorities have now settled the question of contributions towards the cost of the new arterial road from Manchester to Liverpool; and, if so, when will work be started on it?

I have been asked to answer this question. Although resolutions to contribute their quota have been passed by the County Council of Lancashire and the Town Councils of Bootle and St. Helens, the majority of the local authorities concerned have not yet decided to participate in the scheme, and some have definitely declined to do so.

When is this work likely to commence, in view of the fact that most local authorities are not likely to decline to proceed with it?

I am afraid the work is not likely to begin at once. For instance, Manchester has definitely, so far, refused to contribute, and without Manchester we could not go on with the scheme.

Does my hon. and gallant Friend think it reasonable to ask a local authority, through whose territory roads do not pass, to make any contribution towards their construction; and will he consider whether in cases such as this a larger grant from the Road Fund should be made?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman should give notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Labour what will be the approximate number of insured persons who, provided they do not get work in the meantime, will probably have exhausted their right to all covenanted and uncovenanted benefit by the end of April, and who will not be entitled to draw any further benefit until 1st July?

asked the Minister of Labour what is the estimated number of men and women now in receipt of uncovenanted unemployment benefit whose period of benefit will expire during the months of February, March, and April, respectively; and whether he can indicate what kind of provision for the immediate needs of these men and women will be proposed by the Government?

By the end of January the number of persons who had exhausted the maximum benefit payable under the Acts was about 11,200. According to the best estimate that can be made, this figure is likely to increase gradually up to a total not exceeding 150,000 by 4th April, the earliest date at which 22 weeks' benefit can be exhausted. It is not possible at present to give a reliable estimate of the numbers who will exhaust benefit from 4th April onwards. The further provision of benefit which the Government propose to make will be embodied in the Bill which I have promised to introduce at an early date.

Will the hon. Gentleman see, in view of the seriousness of these figures, that the Bill which is to be introduced will be introduced in time so that it may be operative before 4th April?

The Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible date.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the continued hardship caused to dock labourers, shipwrights, and others by the present method of administering the Unemployment Insurance Act, he is now prepared to bring in a Bill to amend Section 7 (2) ( b ) of the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1920, whereby men are penalised by losing continuity of claim when they work for longer than two days in any week?

asked the Minister of Labour if he will so amend the provisions which govern the payment of unemployment benefit as to remove the present disinclination on the part of persons to seek more than two days' temporary employment in a week?

I hope it may be possible to propose an amended rule in the Bill which I am introducing at an early date.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a large number of cases occur of men who, having contributed to the unemployment insurance fund during employment and, falling out of such employment, are refused benefit under the Act on the ground that they are in receipt of income from subsidiary work enjoyed during the time of their main employment and during the time of contribution, and are not entitled to recover the amount so paid without the right of participation; and whether steps will be taken to amend the Act in this respect?

Generally speaking, the Acts do not disqualify applicants for benefit in these cases unless the subsidiary employment is bringing in a daily remuneration of more than 3s. 4d. I cannot undertake to propose an extension of this limit, which is imposed by Section 7 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920. I would point out that the contributions paid by applicants who are disqualified remain available for benefit in the event of the rate of remuneration falling below 3s. 4d., or in the event of the subsidiary employment being also lost.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether subsidiary work on the 3s. 4d. limit applies only to work from the time the person became unemployed, and not to any work he may be successful in obtaining?

I must ask for notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received from any municipal or urban authorities suggestions as to the payment of unemployment money through the said authorities, thus enabling them to provide work for the absorption of unemployed labour which would otherwise be impossible for them to undertake?

A number of resolutions in similar terms have been received from municipal and local authorities, and many suggestions of a like character have been made from time to time. The question has been under examination by the Cabinet Unemployment Committee, and I hope that a statement of the Government policy on the subject will shortly be issued.

asked the Minister of Labour whether unemployed are entitled to payment who none the less give their services for their food and accommodation; and what action is taken in cases of this nature to ascertain the facts?

The decision whether unemployment benefit is payable rests with the insurance officer, subject to appeal to the court of referees and the umpire. Generally speaking, persons receiving food and accommodation in return for their services could not be regarded as unemployed and are not, therefore, eligible for benefit. Every effort is made to ascertain the facts in such cases before a decision is given.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the amount contributed annually from all available sources under the provisions of the Unemployed Insurance Act, and the amount disbursed for benefits and administration for any year, including 1920, up to date, separately?

As the reply to the question is somewhat lengthy, I will, with the consent of the hon. Member, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement: —

The amount contributed annually from all sources to the Unemployment Fund and the amount disbursed in respect of benefit, administration, etc. therefrom in each of the insurance years 1920–21 and 1921–22 is:

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of persons registered as unemployed at Govan Employment Exchange during November, 1922, and the number who were refused benefit during that month on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking employment?

The number of persons on the register at the Govan Employment Exchange during November, 1922, averaged 9,428 wholly unemployed and 675 on short time; the number of fresh registrations during the month was 1,969. During the month 96 persons were refused benefit on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking employment.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will issue to Members of Parliament all circulars, regulations, and instructions issued by his Department to all Employment Exchange officials, and all unemployment committees whose duties are the administration of the Unemployment Acts?

I think the most appropriate course will be to place in the Library a set of the principal documents now current, so far as issued to the public or to local employment committees, and I propose to do this.

Are we to have the circulars and regulations issued to the Employment Exchange officials?

Some circulars, of course, are of a confidential character.

Are all the documents issued to Employment Exchange officials to be published?

I have just answered that question.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, having regard to the many defects shown by the working of the Unemployment Insurance Act, some being of such a nature as to discourage the acceptance of work, he will institute an inquiry with a view to initiating amending legislation?

In the amending Bill, which I hope to introduce at an early date, I shall endeavour to deal with such matters as appear to require amendment; but I doubt if the proposed inquiry would be likely to be useful.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider amending the Unemployment Insurance Regulations so as to allow uninsured men, like agricultural labourers, who are given relief work during periods of unemployment, to be exempted from liability to contribute?

asked the Minister of Labour if uninsured men who are given relief work during periods of unemployment are compelled to contribute to Unemployment Insurance; and, if so, whether he will endeavour to remedy this hardship by an amending Bill?

Representations have been made to me in this connection with regard to agricultural workers employed on relief work, and special arrangements have already been made to facilitate the granting of certificates of exemption in such cases. I am sending to each of the hon. Members a copy of a leaflet which has been issued by the Department.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the statemnet by the British Ambassador to the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris on the 13th February that an effort was being made to transfer some of the unemployed in England to various forms of work in France; whether he was speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and, if so, under whose auspices are these men to be transferred; what the conditions of their employment will be; what industries they will be employed on, and where and how men willing to go to France for this purpose shall apply; and whether he is in a position to state the percentage of men unemployed in France?

I cannot add anything to the reply on this subject given on 19th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith. As regards the last part of the question, my information is that the number of men unemployed in France is not large, but I have no means of stating this number as a percentage.

Can the right hon. Gentleman get information from the British Ambassador in Paris, as the matter is of great interest?

Is it not true that British workmen are being dismissed in France at the present time, as the work of making our cemeteries is being given to foreigners?

I would like notice of that. On the question of interest, I think that I am in agreement with the hon. Member; but it is difficult to get information at present, as the French statistics do not appear to be on the same lines as our own.

asked the Minister of Labour whether any statistics are available to show the extreme distances people have to travel by railway or otherwise, thereby expending money, to collect the unemployment pay; and, if so, whether he will inform the House of their nature?

There are no statistics on this subject. Applicants for benefit living more than six miles from a local office can obtain payment by post without attendance, except that it is the ordinary practice for them to attend when first making a claim. Those who reside between four and six miles away attend at the local office once each week. Applicants living not more than four miles distant may be required to attend more frequently. I do not think these arrangements are unreasonable.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he will state the present amount of indebtedness of the Unemployment Insurance Fund; the latest weekly receipts from contributions from employers and employed; and the latest weekly expenditure, including State contribution, administrative expenses, and interest on the loan;

(2) what was the total amount paid in benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act during the calendar year 1922 and the month of January, 1923; and how much was provided during the same periods from employers' contributions, workmen's contributions, State grant, and loans, respectively?

With the concurrence of the hon. Member, I propose to give a combined answer to these questions, and, inasmuch as the reply is in a tabular form, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL EEPORT.

Following is the table: —

asked the Minister of Labour if anything is being done in addition to unemployment benefit to provide schemes for putting unemployed women to work?

The nature of the work on relief schemes is unavoidably such that it has been found to be impracticable to find employment for women on such work. Indirectly, however, these schemes have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to women, and the work set in hand through the medium of the Trade Facilities Act has also provided employment for women workers as well as for men. In addition, I should mention the training schemes for women to which Government assistance is given.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the estimated total number of persons usually dependent on wages who were unemployed in Great Britain on the latest date for which, an estimate has been or can now be made, including those excluded from the Unemployment Insurance Scheme by reason of their occupations, those workers above or below insurable age, those insured but not entitled to any benefit and, therefore, in many cases, not regularly registering, those involuntarily thrown out of work by reason of a trade dispute in the establishment in which they are employed, and any other classes believed to be omitted from the statistics of Unemployment Insurance on the Employment Exchange?

In the absence of complete data, I regret that I cannot give the hon. Member a reliable estimate of the total number unemployed; on the best estimate that I am able to form, the total number of adults unemployed is about 1,470,000. The information with regard to the number of juveniles unemployed is still less complete, but, so far as I can judge, the number is probably something over 200,000.

Is it not a fact that these figures are decreasing?

The figures on the register are certainly decreasing.

asked the Minister of Labour by whose authority officials of Employment Exchanges are asking unemployed men to accept work abroad and refusing to say in what country the work is to be found?

I am not aware that any exchange official has taken the alleged action, which would, in fact, be quite contrary to the practice of the exchanges. If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will make inquiry.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the present numbers of unemployed persons in the United States of America?

I regret that it is not possible to supply the hon. and gallant Member with a precise figure, since the United States Government does not publish periodical returns of numbers unemployed. In September last, however, the United States Secretary of Labour estimated that there were 1,500,000 people totally unemployed and an equal number partially unemployed.

asked the Minister of Labour whether any instruction has been given to insurance officers and local employment committees that, unless men can produce documentary evidence from firms to whom they have applied for employment, they are to be refused unemployment benefit on the ground that they have not sought work; whether he is aware that this action has been taken in many cases; and whether, in view of the difficulty in obtaining such documentary evidence and of the fact that men who have been refused benefit on the ground that they have not sought work are being denied poor relief, he will give instructions that the absence of such documentary evidence is not to be regarded as proof that employment has not been sought?

No instructions of the kind suggested have been issued by the Ministry. Applicants for un-covenanted benefit must prove that they are genuinely seeking work, and the Local Employment Committees may, therefore, ask them whether they can produce evidence of search for work. There is no rule that benefit should not be allowed unless documentary evidence is produced, and it is certainly not generally the case that benefit is not allowed unless such evidence is forthcoming.

If the facts are quite the reverse of the information of the Minister, or as laid down by regulation, will he look further into the matter, in view of the fact that many are being struck off the list for unemployment benefit in consequence of the non-production of documentary evidence from employers?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is his definition of the area that an unemployed man should travel in seeking employment? Is he aware that in the South Wales coalfield men are refused benefits because they will not travel 10 or 15 miles, when they know there is no employment possible?

Both those questions relate to the discretion of the local employment committee. The work done throughout the country by local employment committees is beyond praise, and unless a very grave case is made out, I should be the last person to be disposed to interfere with that discretion.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, assuming that 50,000 or 60,000 signees at the Employment Exchanges are seeking work, their own industry being closed down, it is difficult for them to get any documentary evidence from their employers, and does he not think it a shame that such men should be refused unemployment benefit?

The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that at Bristol an official of the Employment Exchange issued orders to an unemployed man to go to all the factories in Bristol, carrying a book and pencil, and write down all the places he had visited and the time and result of each visit; whether this official, in giving these orders, was acting upon instructions from headquarters; and, if so, will he explain what the functions of an Employment Exchange are?

I am making inquiries in the case, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 300 temporary ex-service clerks have recently been discharged on reduction from the Ministry of Labour at Kew, and that others are under notice; that there are a large number of women still employed in the Ministry in posts which are directly substitutable by ex-service men under the terms of the Lytton Report; and will he consider the desirability of reinstating the men dis- charged and cancelling the notices to the remainder, substituting them to the posts at present held by clerks who are not ex-service men?

I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions on this subject by the hon. Members for Richmond and Tottenham North, on Thursday last.

asked the Minister of Labour how many trainees are now being instructed in Government instructional factories; how many ex-service men in all have been trained up to date: and how many are there for whom improverships have not yet been found?

The number of men in training in Government instructional factories is now about 9,000. The total number of men who have been trained to date is about 67,200. In addition, about 11,000 had training before the Ministry of Labour took over responsibility for the training scheme. The number of men awaiting improverships with maintenance is now about 3,850. These figures relate to Great Britain and Ireland.

In the cases where an improvership has not been obtained and a man has been waiting a long time, can he have a course of refresher training in order to bring him up to date?

Refresher courses have already been initiated, and are now in operation

How many ex-service women have been trained?

I must ask for notice of that question

How many men are waiting for admission to the instructional factories?

There are a good many. I hesitate to give a figure, but as far as my memory goes I think there are something like 8,000 people on the waiting list

Is this the time to reduce the training establishments?

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that 67,000 trained men have had improverships with employers and are therefore fully trained?

I gave the numbers of those waiting for improverships.

Is it not a fact that there are very few men who leave the Government factories as trained men who can get improverships to complete their training, and does not the right hon. Gentleman consider this a very serious matter worthy of more serious attention than it has received, as the training of these men—

The hon. Member is entering into an argument.

asked the Minister of Labour how many ex-service men have finished their period of training in various trades under the scheme approved by this House; how many of the men so trained have found permanent employment and the number still unemployed; and whether unemployment pay is granted to unemployed trainees?

The number of men who have terminated industrial training up to 13th February is 67,200; in addition, about 11,000 men were trained by the Ministry of Pensions prior to 1st August, 1919, or 78,200 in all. I have no exact information as to the number of men who, having received their full period of training, are now in permanent employment. Nearly all the men have been trained in insurable trades and are therefore eligible for unemployment benefit under the same conditions as ordinary applicants

Is there any unemployed pay for those who have been trained and are unable at once to get work?

The question arises in that case whether they are available for whole time employment. That is a question of fact in each case.

Is it not a fact that a large number of these men who have not been able to get employment are also in the position of not being able to get any out of work pay through the Employment Exchanges?

It may be so under the Regulations, but it depends, as I have said, on the question, which is a question of fact, whether they are available for whole time employment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Poor Law authorities are refusing relief to these people on the ground that they are under the control of the Ministry of Labour?

I do not know any cases of that kind, but I could give many cases to the contrary in which Poor Law authorities supplemented the benefit paid by the Employment Exchanges.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that trade union officials in many cases prevent these trainees from getting jobs?

asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been or will be taken to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Training and Employment of Disabled Ex-service Men; and what is now the position in regard to the Roll of Honour?

A reply was given to the hon. Member's question yesterday. As the reply was rather long I will, if I may, send the hon. Member a copy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he refers me dealt solely with the question of the Roll of Honour, and my question asks about the recommendations of the Select Committee generally, including improverships and after-care?

If there is any point not covered by my answer, and the hon. Member gives me special notice of it, I will look into it at once, but it did seem to me that the answer covered the points asked by my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 2,238 ex-service men, together with 1,877 women and 4,871 children dependent upon them, are at present chargeable to the ratepayers of the Poplar Union at a weekly cost of nearly £3,000 a week; and. what steps he proposes to take to remove those men and their dependants from the charge of Poor Law guardians, and provide them with the means of earning their own living?

In the course of the Debate last week I dealt at some length with the steps which the Government are taking with a view to giving assistance towards the provision of work, particularly by local authorities. A certain amount of work has been put in hand in the Poplar area, and if the hon. Member can suggest any other schemes that are eligible for assistance I shall be glad to consider them.

Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will find the money?