asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with regard to the customs tariff in China, he will state which Powers have not ratified the Washington Treaty up to the present; and what are the causes for their abstaining from doing so?

The French Government have not yet ratified the Treaty. I understand that one of their main reasons for withholding ratification is a controversy with the Chinese Government as to whether the instalments of the French share of the Boxer indemnity should be paid on the basis of gold or paper francs. I have no information respecting the attitude of the Belgian Government, but the other parties to the Treaty have all either sent their ratifications to Washington or indicated their intention to ratify.

Are we doing anything at all to expedite the ratification of the Treaty—using our good offices, or in any other way?

I require notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what provision, if any, has been made in the League of Nations' budget for the ensuing year for the continuance of the work initiated by Dr. Nansen, as High Commissioner of the League, for the settlement of Russian refugees; and whether the British representative on the League Council will be instructed to press for the continued allocation to the High Commissioner of the sums necessary for this purpose?

The sum of 153,000 gold francs has been included in the 1924 budget of the League of Nations for this purpose; the second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether this will involve any charge on the British Treasury?

No; I think not.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the dispute with regard to Memel has now been settled by the League of Nations; how long the matter had been in the hands of the Conference of Ambassadors; when action regarding it was first taken by the League of Nations; and on what date the settlement was finally effected?

The Convention regarding Memel prepared by the League of Nations was signed on the 16th instant by representatives of His Majesty's Government and of the Lithuanian Government; it awaits the signature of France, Italy, and Japan. The matter was in the hands of the Conference of Ambassadors from the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles; it was referred to the League of Nations on the 25th September, 1923.

In view of the great success of this action, is it the policy of the Government to advocate the transference of other outstanding questions to the League?

asked the Prime Minister whether the British members of the League of Nations Permanent Advisory Committee on Armaments are authorised to express the views of the British Government; and, if so, whether this is done in consultation with the Foreign Office?

The British members of the Committee represent the Admiralty, War Office and Air Ministry, and express the views of those Departments respectively. The Committee deals with technical matters, and consultation with the Foreign Office is not always required, but takes place when necessary.

asked the Prime Minister when the next meeting of the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations is fixed to take place at Geneva; and whether any of the Annual Reports for the year 1923, due from the British Government to the League, will be submitted to the League by that date?

So far as I am aware no definite date has been fixed, but the Council approved in December a proposal that the Commission should meet before the end of June. Every effort will be made to present the Reports due from His Majesty's Government before then, but I cannot give any definite undertaking in respect of any particular Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any international instrument which permits the removal outside German territory of German prisoners condemned by Allied military courts in German occupied territory for offences against the civil law?

No international instrument which is recognised by His Majesty's Government provides in terms, so far as I am aware, for the removal outside German territory of German citizens condemned by Allied military tribunals, but an Ordinance was enacted by the High Commission which; reserved a right for the Rhineland High Commission to prescribe the prison in which sentences shall be served. German citizens are amenable to Allied military tribunals for all offences against the persons or property of the armed forces of the Allies, and for offences against the Ordinances of the High Commission, but not for offences against German civil law.

Are any such prisoners actually interned outside German territory now?

I require notice of that question.

asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a complete revision of the Peace Treaties was a necessary condition for the pacification of Europe and for the re-establishment of its economic prosperity was made with the authority of the Government?

His Majesty's Government, with all its very exceptional powers, could have given authority for no statement made before it existed.

Do not the Government adhere to the statement made, previously to coming into office, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

That is not the question.

asked the Prime Minister what proportion of the revenue now being received by France from the Ruhr will be paid to this country?

The French and Belgian Governments have not made any report to the Reparation Commission either upon the operations undertaken by them in the Ruhr or as to the financial results of those operations. I understand that the French and Belgian Governments, in accordance with their view that the operations in question are legitimate measures for collection of the sums due from Germany under the Treaty of Versailles, hold themselves accountable for all amounts so collected, less the cost of collection, to the general account of the Allied Powers. As the hon. Member is aware, His Majesty's Government is under the Treaty and the various inter-Allied agreements entitled to 22 per cent. of such sums, subject to the operation of the various priorities provided by the Treaty and these inter-Allied agreements. The contention of the French and Belgian Governments as to the legitimacy of the measures taken and their right to deduct the cost of these measures from the value of German assets and revenues of which they have taken possession are not admitted by His Majesty's Government, and pending full consideration of the whole question, by the Reparation Commission and the parties to the Treaty themselves no definite settlement can be arrived at.

Was there not a return made in the first six months of 1923?

I should like notice of that question. That was not in my time. If there has been a return made, it has not been brought to my attention.

What have been the net proceeds of the occupation of the Ruhr since the French occupation?

I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my answer that there has not been any report made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the frontiers between Abyssinia and the Sudan have never been ratified, and that this condition of affairs leads to a good deal of administrative difficulty; and what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take in order to secure early ratification?

The Abyssinian-Sudan frontier has been defined in accordance with the Anglo-Abyssinian Treaty of the 15th May, 1902, which was laid before Parliament (Command Paper 1370), but the southern portion from the junction of the Sobat and Pibor to Lake Rudolf has only been provisionally accepted by Abyssinia, and the adjacent country remains partly unexplored. These circumstances combined with the inability of the central Abyssinian Government to exercise control over their frontier tribes render improbable any early delimitation of the frontier.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that when the Abyssinian delegates applied for admission to the League last September this point was specifically put to them—whether or not they did control all the territories which were recognised as Abyssinian territories, including distant parts, and they gave the most absolute assurance that they did. Will the hon. Gentleman, therefore, consider bringing his answer to the notice of the League?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what essential respects the rights and privileges accorded to British subjects in Russia differ from those accorded to Russian subjects in this country?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has made, or proposes making, any representations to the Soviet Government of Russia to secure for British subjects in Russia privileges similar to those accorded to Russian subjects by His Majesty's Government?

I will answer these questions together. The privileges enjoyed in this country and in Russia by each other's nationals are at present governed by the Anglo-Russian trade agreement, to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member. It will be one of the tasks of the forthcoming Con- ference to endeavour to establish on a satisfactory basis the definite regime in either country of nationals of the other party.

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether the trade agreement provides for differentiation as regards the treatment of British subjects in Russia and that of Russian subjects in this country?

I must refer the noble Lord to the terms of the agreement and he can see for himself.

Have British subjects any rights whatever in Russia at the present time?

Does the hon. Gentleman suggest, or admit, that there is less freedom under the Soviet Government in Russia than there is in this country?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information with regard to the bomb outrage on the British Legation at Athens: and what steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government to obtain an apology?

The information which has reached His Majesty's Government is substantially the same as has appeared in the Press. The Greek Prime Minister, together with several members of his Cabinet, and the Regent, called personally at the Legation within a short time of the explosion and tendered official expressions of concern and regret. A similar apology has been received from the Greek Chargé d'Affaires in London His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Greek Government were in no way responsible for the outrage, and they have shown commendable activity and promptness in doing everything within their power to arrest the culprits.

Have the culprits yet been arrested?

We have no information as yet.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what are the total expenditure and unescapable commitments on the Singapore naval base up to date; whether the question of discontinuing the work or not will be left to the free decision of the House; if so, will the Reports of the naval experts who have advised upon the matter be circulated for the information of Members; and, if the Government close down the work without reference to Parliament, will such steps be taken as will make it necessary for the work to be started entirely afresh in the event of their successors reversing this decision?

The total expenditure incurred to date is about £70,000. There will be a further sum not yet ascertained for closing down the scheme. The decision of His Majesty's Government is to be discussed by this House next Tuesday, but the Government Whips will be put on. The reply to the third part of the question is No. As regards the fourth part, the details as to the closing down of the work are now under consideration.

Is the site for the aerodrome offered by the Malay States included in the figures just given?

I am not sure.

Is it not the case that the advice of the Government's naval experts on the strategic side is not disputed, and that the Government make their decision on other grounds?

That was specifically stated by the Prime Minister last night. It is not disputed.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a man who formerly served in the Royal Navy as a continuous service man, and subsequently volunteered and was placed in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and continued to serve until October, 1919, is entitled to the long service and good conduct medal and gratuity, as awarded to the Royal Fleet Reserve by the Jerram Commission?

The reply is in the negative. Royal Naval Volunteer Reservists may, however, earn a good conduct medal (without a gratuity) under the special regulations of that Reserve.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what fees, if any, are charged for cadets at Dartmouth under training for the Royal Navy?

In ordinary cases parents or guardians of cadets (other than. King's Cadets) are required to pay a yearly contribution of £150 towards the cost of training in the college, but 10 per cent of the entries may be admitted at the reduced rate of £40 a year, 10 per cent. at the rate of £70 a year, and 10 per cent. at the rate of £100 a year. In addition to the foregoing sums, the parent or guardian is charged with the cost of outfit and the personal expenses incurred by the cadet for washing, repairing boots and clothes, pocket-money, instruments, school books, sports, etc.

Is it the policy of the Board of Admiralty further to reduce or to abolish these fees, so as to open the training to suitable boys of all classes?

I require notice of that question. I may say that there are special arrangements made for the sons of officers and men.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to increase the size of any of the graving docks at Malta, or to construct new docks, so as to be able to dock the latest large British warships; whether it is proposed to provide dock accommodation for these ships in India: and when the ex-German floating dock allocated to Malta will be lengthened and ready to take the largest warships?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the negative. It is anticipated that the ex-German floating dock allocated to Malta will be ready to take the largest warship towards the end of 1925.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the total number of air planes attached to the British, Japanese and American Navies, respectively; and what future strength is provided for?

At the present time there are 84 machines allocated to the British Navy, exclusive of reserve machines. Provision has been made to increase this number to 112 during the financial year 1924–25. The Japanese Navy is understood to possess 50 service' machines, exclusive of reserve and training machines and, according to Press reports, this number is to be increased to 130 service machines by 31st March, 1929. The United States Navy is understood to possess 260 service machines, exclusive of reserve and training machines and, according to latest information, this number is to be increased to approximately 400 by the middle of 1925. I should add that Japanese and United States figures include certain aircraft available for coast patrol, which can, however, be used with the fleet at the will of the respective Admiralties.

In view of these figures, does the hon. Gentleman consider that we are at a one-power standard in the air, as far as the Navy is concerned?

Can the hon. Gentleman give us comparative figures as to the dates on which the aeroplanes attached to the respective Navies were constructed?

I should have notice of that question.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will see that steps are taken to transform depots and factories under his Department not required for naval purposes to the purposes of commerce and industry, so as to avoid risk of unemployment to the employés as the result of any change of national policy?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Prime Minister's reply of the 7th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. B. Turner), and to my reply of the 27th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha).

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether awards have been made in connection with depth charges, blisters, phantom pilot or tell-tale cable, submarine destroyer, paravane devices, respectively, used during 1914–18; and, if so, whether claims antedating those of the successful claimants was considered?

Awards have been made by the Royal Commission in connection with inventions of depth charges and paravane devices. No award has been made for "blisters," and a claim in regard to leader gear is pending. In the consideration of the successful claims, any claims to have antedated such inventions have been considered. I am not aware what exactly is meant by "submarine destroyer."

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether all the engine-room artificers passed and recommended for warrant rank, as published in A.F.O. 1089/1923, have been promoted to the rank of warrant engineer; and, if not, why any particular rating has not been promoted?

All the ratings in question were promoted with the exception of one, who was physically unfit for warrant rank, and was subsequently invalided.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will consider the advisability of approaching the Postmaster-General with the view to having a percentage of the licence remitted in the case of ex-royal naval wireless ratings belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve, and who have wireless sets installed in their own houses, with a view to their maintaining their efficiency in Morse signalling and other Fleet work?

I presume the hon. Member refers to the Royal Fleet Reserve. I am afraid the proposal is not one which the Admiralty could recommend.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of officers, previously pensioned and retired, who are now employed in the Admiralty?

26 pensioned and retired officers are now employed at the Admiralty, of whom eight only draw retired pay in addition to the appropriate emoluments of their respective positions.

Is it not possible to find men who are not in receipt of pensions to do the work which these gentlemen are doing?

I understand that these gentlemen, for the most part, have special qualifications.

Under what Order do these retired Navy officers draw retired pay as well as pensions?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that approximately 400 ex service men employed as casual labourers at the Royal Naval Armaments Depot, Lodge Hill, Kent, have received notice that their employment will end and that they will be discharged at noon on 22nd March; and will any steps be taken to provide more work for the men concerned, in view of the fact that there are no other facilities for their employment in the neighbourhood, which already has an unemployed population above the average?

The number of men affected at Lodge Hill is 250. These men were engaged on the express understanding that their employment would be terminated towards the end of the present month, and I regret that it is not possible to continue their employment in Admiralty service.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give a definite assurance that one of the conditions preceding the approval of a grant of money to a municipality or other body for the purposes of unemployment relief work shall be that 75 per cent. of the total number of men employed at any time upon the work in question shall be ex-service men in all cases where that percentage of ex-service men is available in the district concerned?

I have already announced that the condition that 75 per cent. of the men taken on for relief works shall be ex-service men will be continued. In a few cases where the number of ex-service men available is not sufficient, it has been the practice slightly to reduce this percentage.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that ex-service men who have been undergoing treatment in the various Ministry of Pensions hospitals are, upon discharge and upon reverting to their flat-rate pensions, debarred from benefit at the Employment Exchanges, due to the fact that they are unable to produce cards sufficiently stamped; and will he take such steps as will enable these men to obtain full benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act irrespective of the qualifying number of contributions?

The unemployment insurance scheme as introduced in 1911, and as extended in 1920, is a contributory one, and I am unable, therefore, to do what the hon. Member suggests, namely, pay benefit irrespective of the qualifying number of contributions. I can assure him, however, that within the limits laid down by Statute, the most favourable treatment possible is given to disabled ex-service men.

asked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men and women are in pauper lunatic asylums and how many in private lunatic asylums which are run for profit; how does their care and treatment differ from that of pauper patients; and are they separately housed?

As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer: .

In regard to the first part of the question, I am not certain what patients are intended to be covered by the term "ex-service men and women," but if the information desired is as to the number of patients for whom the Ministry of Pensions make payment, and the institutions in which they are, I will communicate with my right hon. Friend with a view to seeing whether that information can be supplied.

In regard to the second part of the question, the patients for whom the Minister of Pensions makes payment receive a weekly allowance as pocket money and are allowed certain other privileges.

As to the last part of the question, the care, treatment and housing of the patients in public mental hospitals is determined by the medical experts according to the mental and bodily needs of the patient. There is no distinction in this general principle between the private patient and the rate-supported patient.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, when the old coastguard service was abolished, an agreement was come to also to abolish the Coastguard Life Insurance Fund; and, if so, what proceedings are being taken as to the realisation and distribution of such fund?

No decision has yet been taken to abolish the Coastguard Life Insurance Fund, but in view of the changed conditions resulting from the abolition of the old coastguard service the views of the members as to the future of the fund are being ascertained. The information on which to base a decision is not yet complete.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the nett amount of additional financial assistance, if any, given to local authorities by the abolition of the gap period over and above what they would have received under any circumstances during the current insurance year; and how is the amount arrived at?

The abolition of the three weeks "gap" is estimated to result in the payment of an additional sum of about half-a-million pounds in unemployment benefit in the period up to October next. I am afraid, however, I cannot give any estimate of the financial assistance thereby given to local authorities, if by that the hon. Member means, as I assume he does, the sum by which the amount of Poor Law relief which would otherwise have been paid has been reduced owing to the abolition of the "gap."

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the mere abolition of the gap has increased the benefit, when only 26 weeks' benefit is paid in the insurance year?

That question does not arise.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that under the National Health Insurance Act master and apprentice in the mercantile marine are required to contribute to the Unemployment Insurance Fund; that the apprentice's remuneration, if any, is paid not on a voyage-to-voyage basis as in the case of a seaman, but on either a yearly basis or on an agreement covering his full term of apprenticeship; and that it follows, under any circumstances, that an apprentice can never be out of employment within the meaning of the Act, nor can he while on indentures! benefit by the contributions made by him, or on his behalf, to the Unemployment Insurance Fund; and whether he intends to take any steps to alter this arrangement?

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that unemployment insurance is payable by or for sea-going apprentices even although the pay of such apprentices is on a yearly basis, or under agreements covering the full term of apprenticeship; and, seeing that such apprentices can never be out of employment within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, whether he will amend the law so as to exclude them from the category of insurable persons.

As the answer to these questions is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL EEPORT.

Following is the answer:

In common with persons employed under a contract of apprenticeship in other occupations, apprentices in the mercantile marine service are required to be insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts if they are in receipt of a money payment, but not otherwise. This is a statutory provision which I have no power under the existing Acts to vary. The decision to include apprentices who receive a money payment within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Acts was taken after full consideration had been given to objections of the kind referred to, and I am not satisfied that sufficient grounds have been shown for any alteration of the law in this respect. I may add that, although indentured apprentices may not be liable to become unemployed during their period of apprenticeship, contributions paid in respect of them during that period remain standing to their credit and are available, subject to the statutory conditions, in the event of an application for unemployment benefit being subsequently made.

asked the Minister of Labour what will be the additional annual cost of the changes made under the confidential memorandum just issued by the Ministry revising the existing arrangements for the payment of unemployment allowances?

As has previously been announced, it is estimated that the relaxation of certain restrictions on the payment of uncovenanted benefit will result in the payment of further benefit out of the unemployment fund, in the period up to next October, to the extent of from £2,000,000 to £4,000,000.

Does that reply cover the whole of the uncovenanted benefits referred to in the confidential memorandum which has been broadcast?

It covers the whole of the extra cost.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will issue an Order to local employment committees requiring applicants for uncovenanted benefit to state their nationality; and whether he will issue monthly returns showing the number of aliens in receipt of such benefit, differentiating nationality, and the total amount of money paid to them?

Applicants for uncovenanted benefit are already required to state whether or not they are British subjects, and, if not, to state their nationality, figures for a past period based on these statements could not be compiled without excessive cost, owing to the need for examining many millions of documents in order to pick out the few relating to aliens. A monthly return for the future could be obtained at less cost, but the cost would still be considerable In view of the need for confining expenditure to essential purposes and the fact that aliens in insurable employment pay contributions like anybody else, I feel that I should not be justified in incurring the expenditure unless, notwithstanding what I have said as to the cost, it is the general desire of the House that the return should be provided, in which case, I shall, of course, be prepared to publish such a return.

May I ask, in consideration of the machinery which the right hon. Gentleman has at his disposal, what would be the estimated cost of issuing these monthly returns?

I understand that the first collection would cost at least £2,000.

Does the right hon Gentleman not think it would be advisable that we should have this information?

I think my answers as to what I think have been precise enough. If representations are made by responsible Members of either party, I am prepared to carry out the work.

I asked what would be the estimated cost of a monthly return, and the right hon. Gentleman has only given the estimated cost of the first return.

The estimated cost of the first collection of information is £2,000. I cannot give an estimate as to what the further cost would be.

May I ask whether it is not a fact that for uncovenanted benefit these aliens have made no contribution whatever?

The alien is under the Act of the last Government, and he contributes exactly like anybody else, and has the same right so far as covenanted benefits are concerned. In regard to uncovenanted benefit, he has previously beer refused the right to it, but he has beer, submitted to all the terms of contribution that every other person has been under.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, when considering plans for providing work for the unemployed, he will make an inquiry into making Richborough into a fit harbour to provide an outlet to the constantly increasing output of Kent coal?

I am advised that the Disposal and Liquidation Commission have recently asked a civil engineer with great experience in port management to examine and advise as to the future of the Port of Richborough. When the engineer's report is received the matter will be carefully considered.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the remuneration paid in some cases to managers of branch employment offices in Scotland; that the branch manager at Newton Stewart received as his total remuneration for the six months ended June last the sum of £114 5s. 3d.; that he had to pay two assistants out of that amount; and that the hours worked were from 50 to 56 per week; and whether he will consider taking the necessary steps to bring such branch managers within the scope of any National Minimum Wage Bill?

The remuneration of branch managers is based on the volume of work at their offices. That paid to the Newton Stewart branch manager for the six months ended 31st May last was about £25 in excess of the sum mentioned in the question. Inquiry has already been made into the adequacy of this remuneration, but if the hon. and gallant Member thinks there are any facts which have not been fully considered, I shall be glad to have the matter looked into again.

Since the branch managers are paid in proportion to the amount of business done, is it not to their advantage to keep as many men on the unemployed register as possible?

Is it a full-time job?

This is one of the jobs that can fairly be called on the border line, and, as I said, if the hon. and gallant Member has any further facts that he desires to communicate or further considerations he would wish to have investigated, I am willing to do what I can in order to get to the bottom of the question.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that unemployed men and women at Employment Exchanges often have to wait in the open in all weathers as long as two hours at a stretch to sign the register or to draw benefit; that most of these unfortunate people are ill-clad and ill-nourished, so much so that it entails great danger to their health; and whether he will give instructions that more humane arrangements must be made at the various Employment Exchanges in the interests of the health of the million men and women unemployed?

As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Whenever large numbers of applicants have to be dealt with at any Exchange, specified times of attendance are allotted to individual applicants, and if the applicants come when they are asked to do so there need be no long waiting. If they come earlier, as they sometimes do, they lengthen their period of waiting by their own action. It sometimes happens that a large number of workpeople are suddenly thrown out of work in a particular area and make their claims at the same time. In such circumstances it is not always possible to avoid some period of waiting, but every effort is made to reduce this to a minimum.

asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that large numbers of unemployed will begin to run out of benefit during April, whether he proposes to introduce a short Bill to extend the period of benefit provided by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1923?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, owing to the fact that insured persons begin to run out of benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts by the middle of next month, a large additional burden will be thrown on to Poor Law guardians throughout the country; and what steps, if any, the Government propose to take to relieve local authorities of this charge by 16th April, the date when the unemployment benefit begins to be exhausted?

I am aware of the facts mentioned, and will certainly introduce a short Bill, if I find it impossible to get through the House in time the larger Bill I am having prepared.

In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said that no legislation would be taken before 31st March, does he expect to get this Bill before 16th April, and, if not, is he aware it will throw a very heavy cost on the local authorities?

I have already stated that if it is impossible to get the larger Bill through, I shall certainly introduce a short Bill to deal with the subject.

But will the right hon. Gentleman get the Bill through before 16th April, when the heavy cost will come on the local authorities?

That depends on hon. Members rather than on the Minister.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will give instructions to the local employment committees to see that, where parties making application for unemployment benefit are refused this on the plea that the applicant is not genuinely looking for work, and where, on rehearing, this is overturned and benefit allowed, the benefit is made retrospective to the first day of payment following on the first application?

I do not think it would be right to lay down a hard-and-fast rule on this point. The local employment committees already have discretion to recommend that benefit should be ante-dated if they thought proper to do so in exceptional cases.

asked the Minister of Labour what were the numbers on the registers of the Employment Exchanges during each of the last three weeks?

The numbers on the registers of the Employment Exchanges were as follow:

The following is the statement referred to:

Prior to the present week the unemployment returns published weekly by the Ministry of Labour have included separate figures for (a) persons on the live registers of the Employment Exchanges and (b) persons working systematic short-time and drawing benefit for intervals of unemployment. The persons recorded as working systematic short-time include only those whose arrangements for short-time working are such that it is known precisely in advance on what days work will be available. The figures under this head, therefore, cover only a small proportion of the total number of the persons working short-time and drawing benefit for intervals of unemployment; in fact, during the past six months the figure in the weekly return has varied between 47,833 and 75,361.

The differentiation of persons working "systematic short-time" is not of any considerable value in itself, and actually tends to be misleading, because it may give rise to the erroneous impression that the figure under this head includes all persons working short-time and drawing benefit. A much more important distinction would be that between persons "wholly unemployed" and those "working short-time"; in many cases, however, elaborate investigation would be necessary in order to decide into which of these two groups particular individuals should be placed, and on this account it is thought to be impracticable to compile weekly statistics on this basis.

After careful consideration, it has been decided to publish in the weekly returns in the present and future weeks a single set of figures, compiled by adding to the figure which on the old basis would have been given under head (a) a figure representing so many of the persons working systematic short-time as are not at work at the date of the return. The resulting total will be greater than the figure which on the old basis would have been given under head (a) alone, but less than the sum of those given under head (a) and (b) .

The weekly return will include comparative figures on the new basis for previous weeks.

asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for last year; what part of the same was paid by employers, employés, and the Government; and the total sum paid out during the year in unemployment pay out of this Fund?

I will, if I may, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving these figures for the insurance year ended 1st July, 1923.

Following is the statement referred to:

The income of the Unemployment Fund for the insurance year ended 1st July, 1923, was £46,205,000 as follows:

Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what is the benefit experience and whether or not contributions can be reduced?

I must have notice of a question of that sort.

asked the Prime Minister when he intends to make a statement to the House as to the precise nature of the Government's remedy for unemployment?

asked the Prime Minister what is the Government's remedy for unemployment; and whether it involves new legislation?

The hon. Members seem to be under some misapprehension regarding unemployment in our present social conditions when they refer to "a remedy" for it. The Government are attacking it from many sides and aspects, and have already made some substantial contributions to its treatment. More will follow.

Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister himself shortly before the Election, in writing, stated that the Socialist party—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Labour party!"]—of which he was the leader, alone had a positive remedy for unemployment; and does he not think it is desirable, having regard to the fact that that party alone has a remedy, that the House of Commons should be informed what that remedy is?

We had better debate this further on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, in a large number of towns throughout the United Kingdom, salaried sub-postmasters are compelled to work a full duty of 48 hours per week, in addition to maintaining the night telephone service throughout the night; that this nightwork involves an addition of, approximately, 12 hours per week actual work, plus responsibility for the working of the exchange for another 60 hours; and whether he will make an inquiry into these facts, with a view to including these officers within the scope of the proposed legislation to ratify the 48-hour week?

The conditions of employment of these sub-postmasters were dealt with in a reply given by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Middleton) on the 19th February. I have already announced to the House that the legislation which I propose to introduce to regulate the hours of work will be designed to carry out the provisions of the Washington Hours Convention, and will, therefore, apply only to industrial undertakings.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that Bill will be introduced?

At the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his predecessor at the Ministry in 1921 promised, on behalf of the British Government, that effect should be given to the compromise agreed upon at the Washington International Labour Conference, re the use of white lead for interior painting; and, if so, will he facilitate an amending Bill to honour the pledge given?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on the 27th February to the Noble Lord the Member for Nottingham, South (Lord H. Cavendish-Bentinck).

asked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that in the boot industry compliance with the awards of the Umpire in all matters referred to him under the national agreement has been compulsory, and that a penalty has been attached for failure to carry out these awards up to an amount of £500, which is the sum deposited by each side, he will consider the extension of such an arrangement to other industries?

It is a standing agreement between the parties in the boot and shoe trade that decisions or awards shall be accepted, and I would suggest that the absence of disputes in this trade is mainly due to the existence of agreed joint machinery and to the desire of both sides to carry out decisions reached through that machinery. I entirely agree that such standing joint voluntary machinery is of great value in the prevention of stoppages of work, but the particular arrangement to be made in each industry is a matter for the employers 'and workers' organisations concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on several occasions the deposit of £500 has been, to a more or less extent, forfeited by one side or the other?

I am aware that certain forfeitures have been made.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of registering all agreements made between employers and trade

unions, and whether the Government are prepared to enforce the honourable observance of such contracts by both parties?

In view of the fact that agreements between employers' and workers' organisations are, as a rule, honourably observed by both sides, I see no reason for adopting the policy suggested by the hon. Member

asked the Minister of Labour what Reports are in the possession of His Majesty's Government regarding the working of the system of enforced publicity in certain industrial disputes in Canada; what is the date of such Reports; and whether he will issue Papers giving the latest information on this subject?

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of official publications concerning the working of this Act In the circumstances, it does not appear to be necessary to lay further Papers before the House.

Following is the list referred to:

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the general demand for improved wages in several leading industries and the fact that the good offices of the Government are not sought before the struggle has entered into its most dangerous stage, he will consider the advisability of calling an industrial conference in order to ascertain the ability of the trade most closely affected to pay such advances, to endeavour to find an effective remedy for the injurious effects on trade of the recurring threats of strikes and lockouts, and to bring about such reorganisation of labour as will minimise the effects of the repudiation of agreements when the majority of the organised men have authorised their leaders to sign such agreements on their behalf?

This Government interests itself in these disputes when they have reached points that seem to make action desirable and effective. Beyond that, I can add nothing to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of publishing, when any industrial dispute is threatened, a Gov- ernmental statement giving an official and reliable resume of the points at issue so that the public can be well informed on the subject?

I have been asked to reply. Under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act the Minister of Labour may, if he thinks fit, appoint a Court of Inquiry for the purpose of providing Parliament and the public with an independent statement of the facts relating to a dispute whether a dispute exists or is apprehended. I do not think it is necessary to seek the extension of these powers.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to establish a national minimum wage for each industry, which cannot be secured in cases of disagreement between employers and employed without compulsory arbitration and an agreed umpire, he will set up a committee to consider the subject, dealing at the same time with the question involved of overtime and hours of labour?

I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on this matter upon the Motion moved in the House of Commons by the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Compton) or the 4th March.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the objections of grocers throughout the country to the Grocery and Provision Trade Board and the recommendations of the Cave Committee as to autonomous district boards being set up, and the effect of national scales of wages in this trade upon the cost of living, he will follow the precedents set up by his immediate predecessors and delay the meetings of this board until a consolidating and amended Measure of the Trade Boards Act be passed?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 12th March to the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry).

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the scale of wage which might be suitable for London will often cause great hardship in the country districts?

That does not arise, I think, out of this question.

asked the Minister of Labour if it is contemplated setting up a Trade Board for the drapery trade; and, if so, will he undertake to see that Scottish cases will be dealt with by a separate Board sitting in Scotland?

I have received representations in regard to the application of the Trade Boards Acts to the drapery trade, and I am at present considering what further steps should be taken to examine the subject. Should it be decided to apply the Acts, the question of a separate Board for Scotland would be carefully considered.

asked the Minister of Labour how many permits under the Alien Order, 1920, were issued to employers during 1923 giving permission to aliens to enter into engagements as waiters in the United Kingdom; and whether any special directions as to time limit or otherwise are laid down by him or by the immigration officer in connection with such permits?

As the reply is somewhat long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

During 1923, 42 permits under the Aliens Order were issued to employers in Great Britain in respect of alien waiters. Save in one case, the permits were conditional upon the employer sending a British subject abroad for employment, and were valid for a limited period, generally six months, subject to extension on request to 12 months if the British subject remains abroad for so long. The one case in which these conditions were not imposed was that of an alien who had been previously resident in Great Britain for many years, and had in this country a British-born wife and three young children. When a permit is expressed to be valid for a certain time, it is the invariable practice of the immigration officer to impose a corresponding time condition on giving the alien leave to land.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recognition of the Soviet Government by His Majesty's Government, he can see his way to recognise the Mexican Government; and whether, seeing that the Mexican Government owe certain definite liabilities towards British bondholders, he can treat and recognise them in exactly the same way as he has treated and recognised the Soviet Government and their liabilities?

I am afraid that I can add nothing to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) on the 5th March.

In view of the similarities of the cases, why has discrimination been shown towards Russia?

Because of the many dissimilarities.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that over 1,400 cases still remain to be settled by the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, and that its second division only disposed of 56 cases between the 6th November and the 4th March last, he will give instructions for additional divisions to be at once set up in order that claims should be promptly dealt with and the hardships to claimants which are involved in the protracted delays avoided?

I nave been asked to reply. The position is being very carefully watched, and the question of setting up further divisions of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal has already been under consideration. I do not think, however, that the time has yet come when it is possible fully to gauge the results of the working of the second division, which only began its sittings last November. There has been a reduction in the number of outstanding eases, and it should be borne in mind that some of these cases may be disposed of by the application of decisions given in other cases involving the same principle without the need of a separate hearing by the tribunal.

Does the hon. Gentleman fully appreciate the great hardships inflicted by this delay upon so many people? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] Can he not seriously consider whether some means cannot be adopted whereby the hearing of the cases may be expedited?

Is the hon. Gentleman also aware of the number of seamen's cases that have been waiting for years, and that many seamen have received nothing?

I can say that the matter is fully appreciated, and that every effort will be made to expedite it.

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statement, made at Portsmouth on 16th March by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that the land question was at the root of unemployment and that the land monopoly must be broken by the taxation of land values; whether this is the policy of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether immediate steps will be taken to deal with the land problem upon the lines indicated?

The statement referred to is in harmony with the declared views of the Members of the Government on this subject. The matter is not escaping the attention of the Government, but, as the hon. Member knows, items in a programme have to be taken in a progression and not in a block.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question is one of the few questions for which there is a absolute majority in this House, and that the Government, therefore, might be able to make progress with it?

Exactly! That is what I meant by my answer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the amount of Parliamentary time consumed on this question in 1909?

I also had that in view in my answer.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to present the Resolutions upon the conclusions of the Imperial Economic Conference before the Budget statement?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by the Lord Privy Seal in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Captain Terrell).

Does the Prime Minister realise that an answer which refers to the method of presentation is wholly irrelevant to this question, which seeks to discover the time of presentation?

I think that, if the hon. Gentleman will look at it he will find that the method and the time are mixed up, because it is impossible to devise a method without considering the Budgetary arrangements, which have to be determined very largely by the time. We are, as a matter of fact, exploring the whole question, because we intend to carry out the pledge that we gave to the House.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman will put the whole of the Resolutions specifically to the House before the Budget, or incorporate them in the Budget so that they may be discussed?

The House has been very good in this matter, and I should like that there should be no misunderstanding. The first view one takes is that the Resolutions should first be put down and be discussed, but when you come to give a second thought to it, you discover that that means you are dealing with your Budget. Quite obviously, it would be improper to bring in any Resolutions dealing with the Budget before the Budget, but, again, it would be quite useless to bring them in after the Budget. Therefore, what we are doing at the moment is to go carefully into every single Resolution. I have already drafted a letter which I propose to send to the Leaders of the two parties, but I find considerable difficulty yet in making a definite proposal. As soon as I have made up my mind regarding the Resolutions, I propose to communicate with the Leaders of the two parties to see if they will agree to my proposal, so that the Resolutions may have the chance of being brought before the House in some shape or form.

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the vital importance to Australia and the disappointment caused by the postponement of the Imperial airship scheme, when he will make known the Government's decision on this matter?

( by Private Notice ) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an announcement has been made in the Press to the effect that the Government have definitely decided not to proceed with the Burney airship scheme, and that an official announcement to such effect will be made in the next few days; and will he state if there are any grounds for such a report; whether he is also aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Air on 11th March definitely stated, in this House, that the originator of this scheme would be given an opportunity of laying his views before the Committee, and that this opportunity has not yet been afforded?

I propose to answer these two questions together. There is no foundation for the statements that have appeared in the Press that the Government have definitely decided not to proceed with the Burney airship scheme. That scheme is at present being thoroughly examined, and, as stated by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air on the 11th instant, an opportunity will be given to its originator to lay his views before the Committee before a final decision is taken by the Government.

Will there be an opportunity for this House to discuss the decision of the Government when it has been arrived at?

Yes, there will be several opportunities in connection with Supply, even if there are no other opportunities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that part of the disappointment is caused by the loss of employment through the delay, and will he expedite this decision?

I can assure the House that the examination is being expedited, but this Government refuses to make itself responsible for a scheme of such enormous magnitude as this without a thoroughly sound examination.

asked the Minister of Health how many small houses have been erected during the last three years with the approval and help of his Department; how many of these have been built for £500 each; what is the average cost of such erection and the average rent now being paid; and if he can give an estimate of how much the tax will be on the community by erecting, say, 100,000 houses at £500 each and letting them at an inclusive rent of 9s. per week?

As the answer is necessarily rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

How can an agricultural labourer pay a rent of 9s. a week?

Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously intend to go on with the scheme for building houses to cost £500 each to be let at a rent of 9s. per week?

If it will satisfy the hon. Member I may tell him that I do intend to proceed with the housing scheme.

Following is the answer:

168,966 houses have been erected under the provisions of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1919. The average all-in cost is estimated at £1,040 per house and the average rent, excluding rates, for all types for England and Wales is 9s. 8d. per week or, if the Metropolitan area is excluded, 8s. 8d. per week. In addition, 39,184 were erected with the aid of the subsidy to private builders under the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, 6,148 houses have been erected under the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923.

From the information available I cannot say how many houses have been erected for £500 each. The average price for houses included in contracts let by local authorities under the provisions of the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, to the end of January, excluding cost of land development, etc., is £363 for non-parlour type and £418 for parlour type. It is estimated that the loss in respect of 100,000 houses costing £500 each and let at 9s. per week, including rates, might be approximately £1,500,000 per annum for 60 years, which, as the hon. Member will realise, would not necessarily all be borne by the State.

asked the Minister of Health whether any conditions will be imposed in respect of the houses to be built for £500 and to be let for 9s. per week so that they may be assessed for rates and taxes upon an economic rental value; and, if not, whether relief will be accorded to other properties, assessed on an economic rental value, to compensate the latter for paying their own share of rates and taxes plus a proportion of the share of rates and taxes on properties in the same tax area that are not assessed on an economic rental value?