asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Rutenburg concessionaires are developing the water power on the River Jordan, Palestine; is any electrical energy being produced by water power; are the internal combustion engines still supplying the energy for the electrical power; if the water power is not being developed, will he consider cancelling the concession given to Herr Rutenburg; and has he received any notification from the municipality of Jaffa protesting against the Palestine Government order compelling them to allow the Rutenburg Company to erect electric light standards in the streets?

I understand that the works required to enable electrical energy to be obtained from the water power of the Jordan will be commenced very shortly. The answer to the third part of the question is in the affirmative, and the answer to the second, fourth, and fifth parts in the negative.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that pressure is brought to bear on the Rutenburg Company to place in this country all orders for water turbines or dynamos which may be required?

The general policy of the Government in that connection is that I have taken many steps to ensure orders in this country, and I intend to follow that policy. But to commit oneself to that policy, regardless of any other consideration, would be to subject one to blackmail, and that I cannot allow.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability—I do not press for an I immediate answer—as the House has heard nothing of this concession now for over 18 months, of calling for a full report on the mode in which it has been carried out?

Certainly, yes.

Was any action taken by the late Government to call for a report on this concession?

That is a question which might equally be addressed to someone else.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has come to any decision upon the functions and scope of the Imperial Economic Committee; and whether he has made any selection of British representatives?

After careful consideration, His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion, particularly in view of the fact that the Imperial Economic Conference itself did not reach unanimity on the subject, that a standing Economic Committee with general terms of reference would not really assist co-operation between the Governments. They feel that, in all the circumstances, they cannot support adoption of the recommendation.

Does that mean the Imperial Economic Committee recommended by the Imperial Conference is dropped?

As far as the answer I have given, yes; and for the reasons that I have already stated.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any communications from the Dominions in this regard, and whether he is doing this after consultation with the Dominions?

The supplementary question is, Did we get into touch with the Dominions? The obvious answer is that we have had no time following the questions to get in touch with anybody. I have given the answer, which was arrived at after full consideration of all the facts.

As a member of the Conference in question, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the decision to appoint the Committee was only come to after the most careful consideration, and does he not think this matter is covered by the pledge already given, I think, by the Prime Minister, that the whole of these matters would be subject to discussion in the House?

Clearly the answer to the latter part of the question is, yes. It will come before the House of Commons. But, on the other hand, no one knows better than my right hon. Friend that Canada not only opposed, but gave very cogent reasons for their opposition, and that was in the mind of the Cabinet when they arrived at this decision.

Then before the right hon. Gentleman comes to a final decision on this matter, will he communicate with the other Dominions and ascertain their views?

The hon. Member had better put down a further question.

Are we to understand the Government have no objection to the setting up of ad hoc economic committees of an imperial character, and that it is merely the general committees, to which Canada objected, which they do not want to set up?

I should like notice of that, because it would be unfair to assume that the Government did not object to ad hoc committees. There are objections even to them. As I have already explained, there will be further discussion on the general question arising out of the Economic Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement in regard to the protracted negotiations between the diplomatic body and China concerning the policing of the railways and the kidnapping of white men and women?

The Chinese Government have assured the foreign representatives at Pekin that they regard the whole matter of railway policing and protection as an urgent problem of China's internal administration, and are fully conscious of their responsibility for a practical solution, and it is understood that they have already taken steps to re-organise the railway police force. As regards the general question of the protection of foreigners against brigandage, the Chinese Government have despatched renewed orders to provincial authorities to redouble their efforts in the prosecution of this essential duty, and the matter was made the subject of especial reference by the President in his inaugural address on 10th October last.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps have been taken to reopen the American Consulate at Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and if anything has been done to remove the present deadlock?

His Majesty's Government are naturally most anxious to see this question settled, and have been awaiting a favourable opportunity for entering upon discussions with the United States Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the length of time that this consulate has been closed? Does he know that this question has been asked in reference to this several times during the last two years, and is he aware that the people of Newcastle have to go to Hull to transact business?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that injury to British trade is caused by the necessity of securing import licences for introducing certain articles into Germany, and by the German tariffs generally; and whether, in the event of his proposing to effect any redaction in the total obligations of the German Government to this country, he will consider the possibility of securing from the German Government a promise to terminate the licence system and to abolish or reduce the tariffs on British goods?

I have been asked to reply. I fully realise that import restrictions and Customs duties are an impediment to our exports, but the German Government have recently extended considerably the list of goods not subject to licence requirements. I do not think that it would be desirable to make any settlement of the problem of German reparations dependent on action being taken by the German Government in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend.

Can my hon. Friend give us any hope that the licensing system will, before long, be put an end to?

I think, if my hon. Friend looks at the Board of Trade Journals for the 17th January and the 14th February, he will see that there has been a large extension, and possibly there will be a larger one in the near future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state who was first responsible for linking up the question of the settlement of the Jubaland dispute with that of the Dodecanese; and whether, seeing that the cession of these islands is a matter for arrangement between Greece and Italy, he will consider the separation of these two questions in future with a view to the immediate settlement of the Jubaland question with Italy?

I find that in concluding with the Italian Government the agreement of April, 1920, regarding Jubaland, Lord Milner made a written reservation in the sense that this agreement could only become effective as part of the general settlement of all the issues raised at the Peace Conference. These issues, as the Italian Government have often been reminded, embrace the question of the Dodecanese, and the Italian Government have for their part recognised that the Treaty which they concluded with Greece on 10th August, 1920, was the result of agreement between the Allies, and that the settlement of the Dodecanese question is not only the concern of Italy and Greece. The hon. and gallant Member must remember that the inhabitants of these islands ethnologically belong to Greece, and that their continued severance from that country is hardly conducive to that general tranquillity which His Majesty's Government have so much at heart. I have been unable as yet to devote time, to a full examination of this intricate matter, but I am now studying the mass of papers that have accumulated round the subject with a view to considering my own policy regarding it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the old adage Bis dat qui cito dat? The question of Jubaland refers to a promise and debt of honour which we have owed to Italy since 1915, and which we have not yet carried out?

Have the studies of the right hon. Gentleman yet brought him to the point of being able to give me this information: Are the inhabitants of these two parts of the world being consulted in any way as to their future allegiance?

With regard to the adage of the hon. and gallant Member I shall remember it when I am reading the papers. My business—and I think that is my only business at the moment—is to see what has been done before and make up my mind from the papers as to what policy I am going to pursue. I shall be glad if I might make an appeal, to hon. Members not to press these things too hardly at the moment, because it is not desirable in reply to supplementary questions to give answers that have not been properly considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has received any communications from the new Government in Egypt with regard to the future status of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, the British military garrison in Egypt, and the responsibilities of the British Government in reference to the protection of foreign residents in Egypt; and whether he will give an undertaking that no change from the policy of previous British Governments in these matters will be effected without Parliament being first informed;

The Egyptian Government have as yet made no communication to me on the subject mentioned by the hon. Member, as regards which His Majesty's present Government regard themselves as bound by the Declaration to Egypt of 28th February, 1922. In the event of the Egyptian Government declaring its readiness to enter into negotiations respecting the future relations between the two countries, and in the event of these negotiations resulting in a treaty, such treaty will be laid before Parliament in accordance with the arrangement which I recently announced.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when we shall get a Report of the visit of our consul to the Palatinate to inquire into conditions?

The gist of this Report was given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill). The negotiations on the whole question of the Palatinate, which are still proceeding, might be prejudiced by publication at present and I should prefer to wait until I see if I can report on a complete settlement.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Report will be laid on the Table of the House?

That informationed is contained in the answer which I have just given. I should prefer to wait until the matter is settled before laying the Report. I think if the Report were laid now it would probably do more harm than good, because we have just got beyond the stage of report in our negotiations.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the minority Report of the Royal Commission on Honours, signed by the Home Secretary, to the effect that the gravest abuses had not been inquired into and that the recommendations are inadequate to prevent abuses and allay suspicion in the public mind; and whether he proposes to take any action to prevent the grave abuses to which the Home Secretary's Report draws attention?

The matter has not escaped my attention, and I am considering whether, in the crowded state of business, anything further can profitably be done.

Is the right hon. Gentleman going to appoint the Committee to advise him with reference to honours?

The Committee was appointed with reference to political honours, and when the need arises, I shall certainly appoint a Committee.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will make provision for the re-establishment of the work of the Land Valuation Department, with a view to completing the land register at the earliest practicable date?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can see his way to re-establishing the Land Valuation Department at an early date?

I assume that the hon. Members have in mind the statutory provisions repealed by Section 38 of the Finance Act of last year, under which particulars of sales and of certain leases of land were required to be delivered to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The repeal of those provisions, while it has deprived the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue of a valuable source of information, has not limited the activities nor seriously impaired the efficiency of the Office, the work of which consists of making valuations of land and buildings for various Revenue purposes, and of making valuations and carrying out transactions in land on behalf of various Government Departments and of other bodies where Exchequer funds are involved. The reintroduction of an obligation to present particulars of sales and leases would neither authorise the making, nor provide the necessary material for the completion, of a comprehensive land register. At the same time my right hon. Friend fully recognises the importance of the issues underlying this question and will make it his business to examine them in due course.

May we take it that the Budget of this year will re-enact the Sections which were repealed in the Budget of last year?

My hon. and gallant Friend knows very well that I dare not anticipate the Budget statement.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the negotiations with King Hussein?

The negotiations with King Hussein still continue but have made little progress in recent months, and the position remains substantially as described by the late Prime Minister in his reply of the 2nd July to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn).

Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that there is any chance of getting these negotiations to a conclusion?

We have not forgotten them. We are always pressing them, but the circumstances are a little difficult. I had them under review only the other day.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to relax the stringency with which the Aliens Act, 1919, has hitherto been administered?

I have been asked to reply. I think the hon. and gallant Member has in mind not the Act of 1919 but the Aliens Order, 1920, which contains the code of provisions for controlling aliens. Assuming that to be so, my answer is, that my right hon. Friend and myself are watching very closely the administration of this law with a view to preventing more hardship to individual foreigners that is unfortunately inevitable under the Regulations required in the public interests of our own country and our own people.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the hardships involved on British workmen if the stringency of the Act be not maintained?

My answer was to that effect.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to pay subsidies to air transport companies in the Colonies which are outside the scope of the Imperial Air Transport Company; and whether the Government will make grants to Colonial Governments to assist in the establishment of air lines in the Colonies?

There is at present no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to pay subsidies to air transport companies in the Colonies or to make grants to Colonial Governments towards the support of Colonial air lines.

asked the Prime Minister if he can now state the intentions of the Government regarding the question of free railway passes between the House and the constituencies represented by hon. Members; and if he is aware that while some Members may now reach their constituencies on payment of a few pence other Members are compelled to spend from £5 to £10?

Before this question is answered, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it anticipates a question put down by me on Tuesday last. It was postponed at the request of the Minister until to-morrow, and is on the Order Paper for to-morrow.

I am afraid that I cannot interfere with the question being asked.

I am aware of the fact mentioned in my hon. Friend's question and I regard it as an anomaly that ought to be removed if possible. I am having the subject re-examined, and if my hon. Friend would repeat his question this day fortnight I may be in a position to report some progress.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that he at the recent General Election pledged himself to support the proposal of the British Legion for the setting up of a national employment committee to advise upon and recommend to the Government employment schemes of public utility, such committee to be non-party in composition, representative in character, and having purely advisory powers, he will now state when he intends to call into being such committee?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to adopt the resolution passed by numerous branches of the British Legion urging the immediate setting up of a national employment committee to investigate and to recommend to the Government employment schemes of public utility on a scale commensurate with the present problem of unemployment?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to adopt the suggestion of the British Legion and to immediately set up a national employment committee to investigate and to recommend to the Government employment schemes of public utility on a scale commensurate with the present problem of unemployment?

I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on Tuesday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Rawson). As stated therein, the committee referred to is prepared to examine any proposals that may be submitted to it. In this way the Government is dealing with the matter more expeditiously than by the other means.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that he, at the time of the General Election, pledged himself to support the policy of the British Legion that in Government and municipal employment and in all schemes for employment financed or controlled by the national or local authorities or guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act ex-service men should be given preference, he will now undertake to secure that in all schemes as above, with the exception of those under the Trade Facilities Act, and for all unskilled labour in schemes set up under the Trade Facilities Act, 75 per cent. of the men to be employed shall be ex-service men?

The Government have already announced that there is to be no change in the arrangement by which 75 per cent. of the men employed on relief works are to be ex-service men. As regards the Trade Facilities Act, I should say that the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee do, in fact, address a request to all companies assisted under the Act that they should do everything in their power to observe a 75 per cent. preference for ex-service men.

Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly look at the last part of the question, where it is suggested that, for all unskilled labour in schemes set up under the Trade Facilities Act, 75 per cent. of the men employed shall be ex-service men? Is that carried out?

I understand that that is covered by the answer I have given, but, if that should not be so, I should assume that the matter is carried out. I shall be very glad to have the question repeated.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases it is impossible to get the 75 per cent. of ex-service men, and that, therefore, other unemployed men cannot be taken on for the work? Can he say what proposals he would make in regard to that?

I may say, as regards the 75 per cent., as much interest is taken in election pledges, that I specially pointed out that circumstances might arise when so many as 75 per cent. of ex-service men could not be got, and that in those circumstances I would keep myself free to employ to the full extent unemployed men who desired to do the work. To that extent I understand that this is being carried out.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in many districts where men were kept at their respective trades in lieu of service in the Army, this regulation acts with exceeding hardship and is causing a great deal of distress among deserving unemployed men, and can he see his way to altering the regulation at the earliest possible moment?

Whenever representations of that nature are made, my hon. Friend can rest assured that the Department responsible will take them into full consideration, but it must be clearly understood that the main and guiding pledge is the pledge of 75 per cent., and that all the other cases will be exceptions, necessary in the circumstances, to that.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state if the Government intend to bring forward a Bill this Session dealing with London traffic, framed on the lines of the Measure which the late Government promised to introduce last autumn?

The Government recognise the necessity of securing the better control of London traffic. They are now examining the Bill already prepared, and will produce a Measure without delay.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the last part of the question, as to whether he is going to introduce a Bill framed on the lines of the Measure which the late Government promised to introduce last autumn?

The Government at the present moment are working hard to get agreement on a wider area even than that Bill, but a Bill will be introduced without delay, it will have a Second Reading if the House wishes it, and then it will be sent up to a Committee, when the details can be thrashed out and settled. That, I think, is the best procedure to save time.

Does the right hon. Gentleman, by "wider area," mean a larger authority, or what does he mean?

I am sorry if the words I used were open to any misunderstanding. I mean a larger area of agreement, so that elements that objected to the last Bill might come into the new proposals, in addition to those who agreed to the last Bill.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a very strong feeling among a large section of the community that any such authority should be a directly elected body, directly responsible to the public?

I think the proposal that I make is the best in the circumstances. We guarantee to produce a Bill, and will move that Bill for Second Reading. The House will carry it or otherwise, and, if carried, it will go upstairs. Then my hon. Friend, and those who object to any of the details of the Bill, can fight it out in Committee; and, when the Bill is agreed to in Committee, and comes down to this House, we shall then give it facilities for its further stages.

asked the Prime Minister if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government, following the policy of the two preceding Governments, rigidly to exclude from service at the Air Ministry, Ministry of Pensions, War Office, and Admiralty, respectively, any permanent or temporary civil servant who was a conscientious objector during the War?

No change has been made in the policy adopted in regard to Civil Service conscientious objectors. This policy is fully explained in the Report of the Select Committee (No. 69 of 1922), of which I am sending the Noble Earl a copy. It will be observed that the approved policy is not quite as stated in the question as it involved the retention in the permanent service of certain conscientious objectors who had complied with all the requirements of the law. The question whether any of the particular men concerned are or will be employed in the Departments mentioned is a matter for the Ministers respectively in charge of those Departments, but in fact I am informed that none are there employed.

When the hon. Gentleman says "no departure has been made," are we to understand that no departure is going to be made? The question on the Paper is "if it is his intention." Can he give us an assurance in this matter, in which we on this side of the House feel very strongly, that there will be no departure from the existing policy?

Will the hon. Gentleman include in his reply what the Government's policy is with regard to the unconscientious objectors who stayed at home to make money out of the War?

I suggest that both questions perhaps should be addressed to the Leader of the House, but the short position is that effect has been given to the Report of the Select Committee which very carefully considered this matter, and I cannot see at the moment any likelihood of a departure from that practice. That, I am afraid, is the fullest reply I can give.

asked the Prime Minister if he can give the House some assurance that steps will be taken to remove the disability precluding men and women in receipt of Poor Law relief from serving on public bodies?

I have been asked to reply to this question, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on Monday last to similar questions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people who have in fact paid before entering these institutions are brought within the purview of this designation, and will he make every effort to eliminate them from that section?

It my hon. Friend will look at the answer of last year, he will see the grounds that were given.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now reconsidered his attitude on the question of the grievance of ex-Army ranker officers in respect of their assessment for pension on the basis of non-commissioned rank?

I have sent for the papers and shall satisfy myself on how far the questions submitted correspond to the facts before taking any action.

When is the right hon. Gentleman likely to be able to give a definite answer on this subject?

asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the doubt existing on the matter, the cruisers proposed to be replaced by the accelerated programme have, or have not, been scrapped; and, if so, on what date they were scrapped?

As this House has already been informed, the Government have appointed a Cabinet Committee to consider the requirements of the Navy as regards the replacement of units of the Fleet, and normally the question of the building of the new cruisers would have awaited the consideration of the Committee's recommendations, but in view of the serious unemployment and of the urgency of cruiser replacement, the Government decided that the laying down of the five cruisers should be submitted to the House for approval with the Navy Estimates to be presented next month.

Will the right Gentleman answer the question whether the cruisers proposed to be replaced have or have not been scrapped? If he will refer to the Debate he will see that there is doubt on the subject.

So far as my speech is concerned, there is no doubt. I said that the cruisers of the County class had been scrapped, but there was no system in the scrapping. As soon as a Government came in in a position to systematise both scrapping and replacement, they would have to begin their policy at the point of the scrapping of the County class.

At what date were they scrapped?

The right hon. Gentleman said a Committee is being set up. Is it a Cabinet Committee or a sub-Committee or the Committee of imperial Defence?

A Cabinet Committee.

Has anything been settled with regard to the remainder of the naval programme—the submarines, etc.