asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in response to the request of his predecessor, reports have been received upon the existence of slave-owning and slave-trading in territories for which this country has contracted treaty obligations; and whether these reports will be issued in the form of Parliamentary Papers prior to the discussion on the Foreign Office Vote?

In accordance with the request of the League of Nations, the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for the Colonies have called for reports on the means taken to secure the suppression of slavery, and on the results of the application of the measures taken. I understand that no reports have yet been received, but they will be communicated to the League in due course. I assume that the hon. Member is not referring to Abyssinia, as under the Treaty of 1884 it was the Emperor Menelik and not His Majesty's Government who undertook obligations in regard to the prevention of the traffic in slavery throughout his dominions.

May we rely upon these reports being given to this Parliament, and will they be published in this country, so that the public may know what is going on?

I will consider that.

Is it not a fact that British warships are now being detailed for the purpose of putting down this traffic, and are not the public entitled to know the purpose for which their ships are being used?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these captured natives are citizens of the British Empire?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a British Consul has been appointed to Montenegro; if so, whether he will be requested to make an early report on the condition of the country; and if that report will be communicated to this House?

Some delay has arisen in this appointment, since it has been found necessary to retain in his present post the officer originally selected; steps are, however, being taken to despatch a suitable officer to Cettinje who, in the course of his normal consular duties, will furnish a report on his new consular district so soon as he has sufficiently acquainted himself with local conditions. I cannot pledge the Government in advance to communicate to the House a report which is at present non-existent.

Will the British Consul live at Cettinje or will he spend part of his time at Ragusa?

The intention is that he shall live at Cettinje.

Will our Consul be a British subject or a foreigner?

He will be a British subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that a communication has been sent to M. Sabline, who is acting as secretary of the remaining members of the old ambassadorial staff at the former Russian Embassy in London, calling upon him to vacate the premises to make way for a Soviet Ambassador and to hand over the archives at the Embassy to the Soviet representatives, he will state what action is proposed to be taken by the Government to enforce these demands; and when it is expected that an ambassador will be officially accredited to this country by the Soviet authorities?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the terms of the answer given to the noble and gallant Member for South Battersea on Monday, in which it was explicitly stated that His Majesty's Government have no power to compel the present possessors either to vacate the premises or to surrender the archives. In reply to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member on the 5th of March last.

asked the Prime Minister whether it was on his instructions, and, if not, on whose instructions, that representations were made on behalf of the Foreign Office to the occupiers of Chesham House that these premises should be given up to the Russian Soviet delegation at present in this country; and whether, in view of the fact that the ownership of property in this country is a matter to be decided in case of dispute by the Courts of Law, he will state why the Executive Government interfered in this question?

In reply to the first part of this question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea on the 12th May. In their communication to the occupiers of Chesham House, His Majesty's Government expressed no opinion whether these premises were or were not the property of the late Tsarist Government; and their action has not therefore prejudiced the right of the parties to obtain a decision on this point from the Courts of Law.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated on Monday that His Majesty's Government had informed the occupants of Chesham House that all property belonging to the late Russian Government should be handed over to the Soviet Delegation. If he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that that is so.

Yes, but may I suggest that the hon. Member is mixing up two things. There is undoubtedly property that belonged to the late Tsarist Government; there is also property that is alleged to have belonged to the late Tsarist Government. On the first point I think that the interest of everybody concerned is involved in a recognition of the continuity of responsibility. The second point, on which we express no opinion whatever, is one that must be decided by the Courts of Law.

Surely all questions of ownership of property must be decided by the Courts of Law, and not by the Executive Government.

asked the Prime Minister what are the special expenses incurred in connection with the Anglo-Soviet Conference; how many temporary appointments have been made for the duration of the Conference; and what are the salaries of the persons so employed?

Two temporary appointments have been made for the duration of the Conference. The salary in one case is at the rate of £400 a year plus bonus (approximately £568 in all), and in the other case £12 a week. Both of the officers appointed have a fluent knowledge of Russian, which is required for the purposes of the Conference business, and are well acquainted with the questions under discussion. In addition, some small expenses, not exceeding £15, were incurred in connection with the preparation of verbatim reports of the first plenary meeting of the Conference.

When does the right hon. Gentleman think the results of the Conference will be published?

I have questions covering that point later on.

asked the Prime Minister if the negotiations with the representatives of the Russian Government have made any progress; and if he will make a statement on the present position?

Progress is being made with the negotiations, but I cannot yet foresee when I shall be able to make an announcement to the House.

Are we to understand from the reply that the negotiations are to be kept secret until a later stage?

No, the negotiations are to go on as negotiations until we are in a position to state something of substance.

Are we to understand from that reply that no progress of substance has been made?

No, I hope that the House will understand that these negotiations must be conducted in exactly the same way as any other negotiations.

Are we to understand from that that the Government still believe in secret diplomacy?

asked the Prime Minister whether the issue of grants by the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee in respect of trade negotiations with Russia is one of the subjects engaging the attention of the Anglo-Soviet Conference; and when it is expected that an announcement will be made on this subject?

The answer I to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich on the 8th May.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to publish the official account of the battle of Jutland?

The answer is in the affirmative.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any idea when it is intended to publish this account?

I am afraid that it is not possible to give the exact date, but it is the intention to publish it.

At an early date?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the stock of torpedoes numbering 8,507, valued by the Admiralty in 1921 at £14,500,000, is still maintained; and if the recommendation of the Geddes Committee that the rate of manufacture of new torpedoes should be reduced has been carried into effect?

The figures as to numbers and value of torpedoes which the hon. Member quotes from the Geddes Committee's Report were arrived at by adding together torpedoes of all sorts of different types, old and new, and treating them as all being equally available for the use of ships of the post-War Fleet. This was an entire fallacy, which was exposed at the time in the Admiralty reply. The stock of torpedoes maintained for the Naval Service is that which is regarded as sufficient for present practice and future needs, and the rate of manufacture since the War has been carefully regulated to what is necessary to meet these requirements.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the amount of ammunition reported to the Geddes Committee as being equivalent to 20 years' consumption on the basis of the late War has been reduced; and what is the amount of expenditure to be incurred for this purpose in the current financial year?

The statement by the Geddes Committee that ammunition equivalent to 20 years' consumption on the basis of the late War was being retained by the Admiralty, was not taken from reports made to them by the Admiralty. It was merely a conclusion drawn by the Committee from certain data supplied to them, and did not accurately represent the position. As the Geddes Committee was clearly informed, the ammunition held at that time in excess of the approved reserves was, generally speaking, of obsolete types, which could not be used in the guns with which the ships of the post-War Fleet are armed. It has since been either utilised, as far as possible, in aid of other requirements, or disposed of to the best advantage. No special expenditure has been included in the Estimates for the current financial year in respect of the disposal of surplus ammunition. The sum included in the Navy Estimates, 1924–5, for purchase of ammunition is £943,600, but this is mainly for ammunition for new ships and for types of ammunition not available for ships in the post-War Fleet.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that election literature for a Labour candidate at the recent election of guardians for the Medway Union was printed at the Royal Marine barracks at Chatham; whether any payment was made in respect of this work; and whether disciplinary action has been taken against the Government servants responsible for this irregularity?

I was not aware of the facts stated, and I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for calling attention to the matter. The Regulations do not permit of such work being performed in the Royal Marine Printing Office, and the officer in charge has been cautioned to be more careful in future. The wording of the Regulations has also been altered so as to make it quite clear that private printing for persons or purposes not connected with the Service is not to be undertaken. The particular work referred to was paid for.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty printing works at Cricklewood, on which large sums of public money have been expended, is producing work solely for Admiralty use; whether any portion of the work producer has been sold for use in the mercantile marine; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps to prevent such competition with private enterprise in the printing trade?

The Admiralty Chart Establishment, Cricklewood, produces Admiralty Charts both for His Majesty's ships and sale to the mercantile marine and public generally. A very small quantity of other lithographic printing is produced for other Government Departments where this can be economically undertaken without prejudice to Admiralty requirements. With regard to the last part of the question, I fail to see how the sale of Admiralty charts to the mercantile marine involves competition with private enterprise, since these charts are based on the results of surveys by His Majesty's ships and other hydrographic material accumulated by the Admiralty, and no private firm has the data from which to produce similar charts. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member is alluding to the general policy of the Government establishing its own factories for carrying out printing and other kindred processes, I would remind him that this question is at present under the consideration of a Committee presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for the Burton Division.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in the reduction of 5½ per cent. in the pensions of naval officers, consideration has been given to the extra cost of rents, rates, education fees, etc., which are now entailed upon officers but to whom the Ministry of Labour index figure is not applicable, especially in regard to education?

In accordance with a Government decision of 1919, the revision of the retired pay of naval officers is based entirely upon the cost of living, as indicated by the Ministry of Labour index figure. That figure, as the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, is used in dealing with the bonus of the Civil Service, whatever the rate of their salary, and is also extensively used by municipal bodies, railway companies, banks, etc., for dealing with their salaried staffs.

Is it fair to deal with the officers of the Navy who have to pay for the education of their children in this way, when the index figure includes free education?

I fail to see why officers of the Navy should be treated any differently from other salaried people.

Is it not a fact that increases in the bonus have been paid to civil servants recently?

That does not arise here.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a fishing boat having been lost owing to striking in the dark the wreck of a block-ship in Weddel Sound, Scapa Flow, the Admiralty has refused to consider the payment of compensation to the owner; whether he is prepared to reconsider that decision; and whether he can state what steps the Admiralty intend to take to guard against such occurrences in the future?

The question of liability for any damage which may arise from the presence of the block-ships has already been fully considered, and the Admiralty have been advised that no responsibility can attach to them in the matter of such damage. I regret, therefore, that the Admiralty are unable to reconsider the decision in regard to the alleged loss of the fishing boat.

Is it the intention of the Admiralty to maintain this blockade of wrecks round the island and not pay compensation to those who suffer damage from them?

I have answered many questions put by the hon. Member on this subject, and I have pointed out that we are advised that the waterways and the channel are well open and suitable for the navigation of the district.

Have steps been taken to buoy the channel, so as to indicate to fishermen where they can safely go?

Every step has been taken to make navigation quite safe.

In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to hold an inquiry or Commission into the number and suitability of the existing Royal Dockyards and the uses to which they can be put in the event of further reduction in naval armaments; and, if so, what will be the nature of the inquiry or Commission?

The matter is already the subject of investigation by the Board of Admiralty, and no need is seen for any formal inquiry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present situation has arisen owing to the matter having only been under the consideration of the Admiralty officials, and that, in the Debate on Thursday last, there was agreement in all parts of the House as to the necessity for setting up a Commission to look into the whole question?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety that is felt in the dockyards in view of that Debate, and the prophecies that were then made?

There is no need for anxiety, except such as might be raised by hon. Members themselves. As the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will see, inquiry by the Admiralty must precede anything else.

Is it not the case that the Admiralty wish to cut down these dockyards but are overridden by political considerations, and would it not be advisable to get some independent committee to inquire into the matter?

May I ask when some of our Front Bench men are going to get cut of the hands of the officials?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the low pay of officers in the Royal Navy as compared with comparative ranks in the other fighting services and of the high technical skill demanded of our naval officers, he can see his way to propose increases in naval officers' pay to bring them on a level with their equivalent ranks in the Army and Air Force?

Such inequalities as exist in the pay and emoluments of officers of the Navy, Army and Air Force are now under consideration.

Will it be sympathetic consideration from the point of view of naval officers?

Is it consideration with a view to reduction?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to the reduction of naval officers' pay, if he will state exactly what reduction is proposed, and whether the reduction will affect the whole pay and pension, and, if not, what percentage of it; if he will state whether his attention has been called to A.F.O. 752 of 28th March, 1924, which indicated that 20 per cent. only of the increases given in 1919 would be subject to variation in accordance with the rise or fall in the cost of living; and whether, if he has irrevocably determined on the reductions, he will see that they do not affect more than 20 per cent. of the pay and pensions, in accordance with the official pronouncement quoted?

The answer to the first part of the question is that the reduction is approximately 5½ per cent., and will apply to the whole of the pay and retired pay of officers. As regards the second part of the question, the Admiralty Fleet Order quoted definitely states that 20 per cent. of the new rates of pay and retired pay are subject to revision in accordance with the rise or fall in the cost of living, and there is no reference to increases given in 1919 as the hon. Member suggests. I am happy to be able to give the assurance desired in the concluding part of the question, that in no case will more than 20 per cent. of the pay and retired pay be affected.

Will the hon. Gentleman, instead of naming this 5½ per cent. on the whole, give us the percentage on the 20 per cent. that he has now mentioned?

The hon. Baronet should put that question down.

Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the meaning of the 20 per cent.?

The meaning is that 20 per cent. is the maximum reduction that can be made, and 5½ per cent. of that 20 per cent. is now made.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much of the 20 per cent. is reduced?

In the event of the cost of living going up, will the 5½ per cent. be modified?

I have already indicated that this is a matter which rises and falls with the cost of living.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has been reached in regard to marriage allowance for officers in the Royal Navy?

The answer is in the negative.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to tie Admiralty if the Committee set up to inquire into the treatment of retired naval officers will have power to call witnesses; how such witnesses will be selected and called, or to whom gentemen wishing to be called should apply; if travelling expenses will be granted; if the Committee will have power to examine on oath; if counsel will be permitted to be present; and when and where the Committee will sit?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The points raised in the second and sixth parts are matters of procedure which will be left to the Committee to decide. I am, therefore, not in a position to give information on these beyond stating that it is hoped that the Committee's meetings will commence at an early date, and that if applications to appear as witnesses are addressed to the Admiralty, they will be transmitted to the Committee. As regards the fourth and fifth parts of the question, the Admiralty do not consider it necessary that the Committee should have power to examine on oath, or that counsel should be present at the meetings. Travelling expenses will be refunded in accordance with the Regulations to all witnesses who may be called upon by the Committee to give evidence.

Could the hon. Gentleman say where the Committee is to sit, as asked in the last part of the question?

That is a matter that comes within the authority of the Committee.

In view of the statement of the Secretary for the Colonies, will the retired naval officers be directly represented on this Committee?

The hon. and gallant Member evidently, did not give attention when the names were read out. There was such a name among them.

I asked that question, and the right hon. Gentleman said he did not know.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that an award of the Naval General Service Medal with clasps for Iraq, 1919–20, and North-West Persia, 1919–20, has been approved for the Naval personnel engaged in the operations; whether he can state if it is intended to issue the clasps; and, if so, whether it is intended to do so before awarding the clasps authorised for the late War?

The answer is in the affirmative. The Naval General Service Medal with clasps, "Iraq, 1919–1920" and "North-West Persia, 1919–1920" has been approved for the Naval personnel engaged in the operations for which the General Service Medal with clasps is being issued to the Army. The number entitled is only about 100, and the awards can be made without difficulty.

Are we to understand that clasps are being awarded for operations subsequent to the great War, but not for the great War itself?

This matter is largely one of staff and expense, and we are able to deal with this with our present staff without any difficulty.

Will any medals be issued to Members of Parliament who are convicted in connection with motor driving?

Like the Mayor of West Ham.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if, without detriment to naval wireless signalling, it is possible to curtail wireless exercises and the sending of wireless messages between the hours of 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.; and will he confer a boon on thousands of wireless licence-holders in this country by taking steps to reduce to a minimum the messages sent during these hours in order that people listening-in to the British Broadcasting Company concerts may have as little interference as possible?

No wireless exercises are laid down in Admiralty orders to be carried out between the hours mentioned. The attention of the commanders-in-chief concerned is being drawn to the desirability of reducing naval W/T signalling during these hours to a minimum, consistent with service requirements.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the new naval plans of the United States of America in respect of warship construction this year; and whether he can give any details as to the similar plans of the Italian Admiralty?

Proposals are now before the United States Congress to build eight 10,000-ton light cruisers, six river gunboats and one submarine. According to our present information, two 10,000-ton light cruisers, four destroyers and four submarines are to be laid down by Italy shortly.

Does the hon. Gentleman now deny that the Government's cruiser programme has stimulated a competition in international armaments?

Is it not the fact that these proposals were under consideration before we passed our own naval programme?

That is a matter for argument.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the entire number of skilled and unskilled workers employed in all the industries which enjoy the benefit of the McKenna Duties; and whether he will give the number of unemployed in the same trades?

As was stated in a reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury on 12th May, it has been estimated that the number of workpeople engaged in the branches of trade affected directly or indirectly by these duties would not exceed 200,000, and may be considerably less. As the classification of trades for which the statistics of unemployment are compiled does not show separately the branches of trade affected by the duties, I regret that it is not possible to give any reliable figure for the numbers unemployed.

Is it not a fact that a large number of these men and their wives are wearing mourning to-day?

Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to make provision now for the men who will be thrown out of work in these trades during the next three months? He will want it.

Yes, if any.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed in the motor industry in this country in 1914; and what is the number employed at the present time?

There are no statistics showing separately the number of persons employed in motor car construction either now or in 1914. I gave the hon. and gallant Member on 7th May the available figures for July, 1923, which is that in respect of a group of trades covering the construction and repair of motor cars, motor lorries, motor omnibuses, motor cycles, pedal cycles and aircraft, but there are no comparable statistics for a pre-War date.

If there are no comparable statistics of pre-War date, how is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to deny the correctness of the figures given by hon. Members on this side yesterday?

That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get these statistics, because they may be rather illuminating in the next few months?

The Geddes axe was applied very violently to the statistical branch of my Department, and that so-called economy, I regret to say, is the cause of my not being able to give the answer desired.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not hiding himself under that, and has he not found it convenient—

Order, order!

asked the Minister of Labour the nature of the scheme to absorb the workmen in Long Eaton and district who will be rendered out of work by the abolition of the McKenna Duties?

This is a purely hypothetic question, and I am not prepared to admit the premise which it contains. The matter was dealt with fully in the course of the Debate yesterday.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, had I been allowed to take part in the Debate yesterday, I should have dealt with the points raised in the question, but that there was no time because the Debate was prolonged by the interminable length of the speech of his right hon. Friend?

I have not the slightest doubt that, if the hon. Member had made his speech, the result would have been altogether different.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken by his Department to deal with, or collect information as to, men who have been or are being discharged, or put on short time, by manufacturers of motor cars in view of the lapsing of the McKenna Duties; whether any instructions have been issued to Employment Exchanges by circular letter or otherwise instructing them to obtain data, or to approach the manufacturers with reference to this matter; and, if so, what are the exact terms of the instructions?

In connection with the usual monthly meeting of the Divisional Controllers of the Department held last week, the Controllers were asked to bring with them any information they might have on this matter, and in consequence some inquiries were made locally at certain Exchanges. Beyond this, no special instructions have been issued for the collection of information. The Department will watch carefully the developments which will take place.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so as to receive the necessary money for the doles which will ensue?

In view of the importance of these statistics, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to what exactly the cost will be for obtaining the information in full?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is estimated that, as a result of yesterday's vote, the cost will be an additional £7,000,000?

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the very large number of young men having no trade experience, he can state the number and character of trades which have an apprenticeship system; whether, where apprenticeship systems are in vogue, there are any vacancies which might still be filled by candidates were they forthcoming; and whether there are any trades, skilled or otherwise, closed to further applications should these be forthcoming?

An apprenticeship system of one kind or another is operative in a large number of trades, but the information available is insufficient to enable the particulars asked for to be given. In general, the number of youths desiring apprenticeships is believed to exceed the number of vacancies available for them, and in certain trades there are waiting lists of boys. With regard to the last part of the question, I am not aware of any trade of importance which is closed to new entrants.

Would it not be possible to extend the apprenticeship system where there are waiting boys, in view of the enormous number of lads who are at present out of work?

That is quite a different question from the one on the Paper.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say who fixes the number of years during which these boys have to be apprenticed? [HON. MEMBERS: "The bosses!"] If the number of years could be shortened, naturally we could get more into the trades.

I think the provisions are generally fixed by the employers, sometimes in consultation with the trade unions.

In view of the Report issued in the building trade relating to the admission of boys to trades, is there going to be any alignment in the system of apprenticeship on the basis of what is contained in the Report with regard to building houses?

That question should be put on the Paper.

asked the Minister of Labour if an arrangement has been arrived at between himself and the Minister of Labour in France for 500 French citizens to come annually to England to learn the English language; if he will state the reason for such an agreement; and whether he has information as to the number of English citizens who have been in the habit of visiting France annually for the purpose of learning the French language?

Under an arrangement concluded about the middle of January as the result of negotiations carried on last year, a maximum annually of 500 French subjects may come to this country for employment in order to perfect their knowledge of the English language and English commercial methods, subject to a permit being granted in each individual case by my Department and the application being endorsed by the French Ministry of Labour. The arrangement will enable my Department to exercise more effectively its powers with regard to the issue of permits, and I have reserved the right to restrict the number of applications granted either generally or in respect of any particular occupation, in the light of the volume of unemployment which may prevail. I have no information as to the last part of the question.

Is there any limit to the number of British subjects who can go to France to learn the language under this arrangement?

Not that I am aware of.

How long will these 500 applicants be allowed to remain in the country under these permits?

It depends on the circumstances of the case. The ordinary policy of the Department is a continuation of the policy of the last Government, which is not to allow any alien to come into the country if there is a danger of other people being thrown out of work.

How many have availed themselves of this advantage?

I am afraid I do not carry the statistics of my Department in my head.

How does the right hon. Gentleman draw a distinction between those who may come in and those who may not?

asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he is aware that three married miners living in the county of Durham were ordered to leave their wives and families and go to work in Nottingham, and because they refused to do so their unemployment benefit was stopped; and if he knows that, owing to the low wages in the mining industry, it is impossible for a miner to pay for lodgings in one county and keep his wife and family in another; and will he inquire into the matter;

(2) if he is aware that a number of young miners living in the county of Durham, during the first week of their unemployment, were ordered by the Employment Exchange to leave home and go to work in the county of Northumberland; and whether he will inform Employment Exchanges in the county of Durham to cease giving such orders;

(3) if he is aware that a miner, in the county of Durham, whose wife had died and left him with three children, had his unemployed benefit stopped because he refused to leave his children in the county of Durham and go to work at Doncaster, and that the miners' secretary at the colliery at Doncaster says there was no work for the man if he had gone there; and whether this man's unemployed benefit can be paid up?

I regret I cannot undertake to deal with points of this kind unless particulars sufficient to identify the cases are given. If my hon. Friend will give me the necessary particulars I will look into the cases at once.

Should not I have an answer to these three cases separately? They have already been before the Minister privately, and we have not been able to get any satisfaction.

I can only say again, that if these three questions are read it will be noted that there is no name by which I can identify the case or cases. If the names are given me I will make inquiries.

The Minister is under a misapprehension. He has had the cases before him privately. In the first case he does not need the name. The point raised is whether a married miner at present can afford to keep a wife and family and pay for lodgings with the present wages in the coal trade.

Has my right hon. Friend satisfied himself that there are not sufficient men in Nottingham to fill all the positions in the mining industry?

Is the system referred to in Question 28 that which obtains in Communist Russia?

Am I not entitled to put numbers 29 and 30?

The hon. Member has put his questions, and the Minister has chosen to answer them together.

Does that mean that the Minister can refuse to answer them?

I advise the hon. Member to repeat his questions with the details asked for.

I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment to-morrow.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of persons employed on schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee on 21st January and 21st April, respectively, of this year;

(2) the number of men employed on road schemes for the relief of unemployment on 21st January and 21st April, respectively, of this year;

(3) the number of persons employed on Government schemes for the relief of unemployment, other than road schemes and schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee, on 21st January and 21st April, respectively, of this year?

I propose, as the answer involves a table of figures, to circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Do these schemes include any schemes for which provision was not made prior to January this year?

I understand that a discussion on this matter will take place on the Vote for the Minister's salary, and I think hon. Members may restrain their belligerent ardour till then.

Knowing our grave anxiety on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman promise in that Debate to give us the figures for which we have repeatedly asked?

I will, in that Debate, give all the figures I know, including the number of men employed now more than under the late Government, the steps that have been taken throughout and every other piece of information I can get.

In view of the fact that I put three questions down and that each only requires two figures, could not the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures now?

Do we understand that, in this Debate, the Minister is going to release this secret of how unemployment is going to be cured?

On a point of Order. Is it in order for a Minister, when three simple questions are put, which can be answered very shortly, to lump them together, so as to make a long answer, and thereby suggest that it should be circulated?

I have enough to do without controlling Ministers. If hon. Members wish to have a long answer read at the expense of later questions I do not doubt the Minister will give the figures.

You have laid down regulations as to the number of questions which a Member may put. If he uses his right to break up a question into three separate parts so as to get an oral answer is it in order for the Minister further to restrict the rights of the Member to get an oral answer by putting three questions together?

I have said it is not a question of order, but of the convenience of the House. I do not doubt that the Minister will meet the desire of the House.

read the answer prepared, as follows: So far as Returns have been received by my Department, the numbers of men directly employed on the 25th January, 1924 and the 25 April, 1924 (or nearest available dates), are:

Item I does not include the number of men employed on works of road maintenance or ordinary road improvement, but includes (as does also Item 2) men temporarily "stood off." All the above figures are exclusive of men who are employed indirectly, for example, in the preparation and transport of materials.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to consider an amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act under which no return of premiums is made to the widow of a man dying at the age of 56, although he has never received a penny of benefit during his life?

The Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill now before Parliament contains in Clause 9 a proposal to abolish these refunds altogether for the future, subject to certain arrangements for compensation for the loss of existing rights. I regret therefore that I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that his predecessor allowed payment of unemployment insurance to be made at cotton mills, for the convenience of the employés at such mills; is he aware that this concession has now been withdrawn and is causing serious hardship, by compelling a considerable number of persons to stand in the street in consequence of the lack of accommodation at the Labour Exchange where the unemployment insurance is now paid; and will he again allow payment to be made at the mills?

Arrangements for paying unemployment benefit at cotton mills are made only when the pressure of work at the local office is such as to prevent the adoption of the ordinary procedure. A number of such arrangements are still in force in the cotton districts. I am not aware of any cases in which considerable numbers of persons are compelled to stand in the street in consequence of the lack of accommodation at the local office, but if my hon. Friend can furnish particulars I will have inquiry made, and will endeavour to remove the grievance if such exists.

The right hon. Gentleman had these particulars given on the 5th April, and he replied that he could not make the concession then. This deals with more than 200 people, and where more than 200 people are employed will he allow them to be paid at the mills instead of having to go to the Employment Exchanges?

I think the hon. Member will see from the last part of my answer that, where a case can be shown in which hardship exists, I am willing to go into the matter and to try to remedy the grievance.

asked the Minister of Labour the conditions that must be satisfied by a person who leaves his or her work voluntarily without just cause to entitle them to make a claim for unemployment benefit after the expiration of six weeks?

It is impossible to state within the limits of an answer to a question all the conditions which an applicant in the circumstances mentioned would be required to fulfil. These conditions are set out in a leaflet of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the conditions, whatever they are, are properly enforced?

As far as I can, that is my intention.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of young persons between the ages of 16 and 18 in England and Wales; the number of such young persons registered at the Unemployment Exchanges; and the number under instruction at the education centres for unemployed juveniles?

As the reply is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The 1921 census shows 697,219 boys and 711,001 girls between 16 and 18 years of age in England and Wales. The number of persons between 14 and 18 years of age registered on 28th April, 1924, at Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in England and Wales was 29,720 boys and 28,118 girls. I cannot give separate figures for those between 14 and 16 years of age The average daily number of boys and girls in attendance at juvenile unemployment centres during the week ended 30th April, 1924, was 4,849 (3,137 boys and 1,712 girls), of whom about 4,000 (2,600 boys and 1,400 girls) were between 16 and 18 years of age. A total of 53,520 boys and girls have passed through the juvenile unemployment centres between 17th September, 1923, and 30th April, 1924.

asked the Minister of Labour if he can give the figures for unemployment in Bradford in December last, about the date of the General Election, and those of the 28th April; and whether he can give the House any reasons for the very great improvement in the condition of employment during the last five months?

On 28th April the number of insured workpeople in Bradford registered as unemployed or working systematic short-time was 6,265, as compared with 12,882 at 21st December, 1923. About two-thirds of this decrease is attributable to the woollen and worsted industry, in which there has been a continuous improvement since December. There has also been an improvement in the last three months in the Bradford engineering and ironfounding trades. I could not undertake to specify the reasons for the improvement in trade which has taken place.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that just before the General Election there was a demand by a section of the manufacturers of Bradford to get 33⅓ per cent. under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and that it was refused and we have done without it?

I am quite aware of that.

Is it not a fact that the Minister of Labour could answer that the state of trade has improved ever since the Labour Government came into office?

Can the right hon. Gentleman supply figures for Bradford as to how much drink is consumed by the unemployed in Bradford as compared with Glasgow?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of working hours lost through unemployment and under-employment in 1913, 1922 and 1923?

The information in my possession does not enable me to state the total number of hours lost through unemployment and under-employment. I may say, however, that an examination of a representative number of claims to benefit made by insured workpeople during the period 2nd November, 1922, to 17th October, 1923, leads me to conclude that during this period of 11½ months the amount of unemployment ranking for benefit or "waiting periods" among the 11½ million insured workpeople in Great Britain was, approximately, 300 million days. No comparable information exists for earlier periods nor is it possible to measure the time lost by those who, though employed, were not working full time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many hours have been lost by strikes?

If the Noble Lord will put a question on the Paper I will try to answer it.

Am I to understand that the Government is to confer a Barony upon me?

From his appearance the hon. Member, I thought, was a junior member of the Peerage.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a man who refused to work overtime and was in consequence discharged from his employment was suspended from unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks, on the ground that he had refused work; and on what ground does his Department take such action?

My hon. Friend does not give the name of the man or his employer, or even the town where the man was suspended. If he will let me have particulars of the case to which he refers, I will have inquiries made and write to him on the matter.

asked the Minister of Labour what are the total number of persons of all ages employed in all branches of the lace industry in Nottingham, together with the number unemployed or working short time?

The estimated number of insured workpeople, 16 years of age and over, engaged in the lace industry in the area of the Nottingham Employment Exchange is 9,370, and on 28th April the number of such persons registered as unemployed was 1,322, or 14.1 per cent. of the total. This number includes those on short time and not working at the date of the return

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures do not include large numbers of men and women formerly in the lace trade who are now unemployed?

I cannot tell that.

asked the Minister of Labour if, when the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on the lace industry was turned down, the Government took into consideration the shorter hours worked, and the superior conditions under which the British worker labours, as against his foreign competitor?