asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he can now give a summary of the work accomplished under the Empire Settlement Act of May, 1922, stating how many men have actually gone overseas, and for how many final arrangements have been made for going overseas as a result of the operations of that Act, whether he can say how much of the one-and-a-half millions sterling provided for the working of the scheme in the financial year 1921–22 has been dispensed; and whether any plans for training men anxious to avail themselves of the scheme of the Act are in operation or in contemplation?

I would refer my right hon. Friend to the statement snowing the progress of schemes concluded under the Empire Settlement Act, printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th May (Cols. 822–6). Up to date the total number of persons accepted under these schemes is 24,104, of whom 19,170 have already proceeded overseas. The Empire Settlement Act did not come into operation until June, 1922, and the total expenditure under the Act during the financial year 1922–3 was £35,000. In the Estimates for the current financial year, £1,186,200 is provided for the purposes of the Act. Of this sum the actual amount expended to date is £49,000, and the total commitments under the various assisted passage schemes is £173,000. No arrangements have been made for training men in this country for work overseas, but I have this matter under consideration. Under the Empire Settlement Act, however, the contribution of His Majesty's Government may not exceed half the expenses of any scheme, and no Dominion Government has expressed a desire to co-operate in a scheme of this nature.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether any distinction is made between apprentices, who had served one year to their trade prior to 1914, and junior clerks in assessing alternative pensions?

Special provision is made in the Royal Warrant (Article 24 (6) ( b ) for assessing the pre-War earnings of men who, at the outbreak of War, had served for not less than one year as apprentices. This concession is specifically restricted to men who, in fact, were apprenticed to a recognised trade, and cannot be applied to cases of junior clerks who entered at the bottom of their employment or profession, and whose earning power would normally increase with experience. The conditions of apprenticeship are essentially different, inasmuch as the apprentice is definitely under instruction, is paid less than would be given under a contract of service, and is entitled on completion of apprenticeship to a recognised standard rate of pay.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Private Robert Green, 52, Frog Lane, Wigan, had 5s. per week deducted from his pension from November, 1920, to August, 1922, and that Private Green states that he has never been paid more than his assessed disability; and if he will have inquiries made into this case with a view to the amounts deducted from this man's pension being refunded to him?

The weekly deductions referred to were in respect of advances made to the man, on the understanding that they would be recovered if a subsequent medical board did not uphold the provisional assessment of disablement. The recovery was properly made, and I regret that no refund can be authorised.

asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he can state the quantity of pigs sold by Dutch killers to Scottish bacon curers in the 12 months ending 31st March, 1923: whether he is aware that these Dutch pigs, after curing, were sold as Ayrshire rolls: and whether any action has been taken to ensure that consumers when purchasing bacon as Ayrshire bacon will be served with the genuine article?

I am not in possession of the figures desired by the hon. Member. I understand that the fact is as stated in the second part of the ques- tion. Unless the practice be an infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act, I am not aware of any action which can be taken to prevent it. As to the question of infringement, I am having further inquiry made.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the cost of the Valuation Department for the years 1920, 1921, and 1922?

The cost of the Valuation Department borne on the Inland Revenue Vote for the years in question is as follows:

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many officials in the Valuation Department are established; what is the aggregate of their salaries; and what would be the aggregate of pensions payable to them if discharged?

There are 436 established officials on the staff of the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue Department at a total remuneration (including bonus) of approximately £270,000 per annum. In the event of all these officials being placed on the retired list at the present time, there would be payable in respect of superannuation allowances a lump sum of £100,000, and an annual charge of from £30,000 to £40,000.

further asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state approximately for any period by what amount the value of property returned for Estate Duty has been increased owing to the action of the Valuation Department; and what has been the increased amount of duty thereby collected?

The information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member in the first part of his question is contained on pages 154 and 155 of the 64th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Cmd. 1436). It is estimated that the increase of Estate Duty due to the increased values certified by the Valuation Office for the year ending 31st March, 1921, is approximately £1,000,000.