asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that thousands of ex-service men who are still suffering from war service have for various reasons had their pensions cut off, the same applying to dependants of soldiers lost in the War, and whether he will consider appointing a Committee to hear complaints and with full powers to deal with them?

I fear that I should have no authority to adopt this suggestion. I would remind my hon. Friend that independent appeal tribunals have been constituted by Parliament to deal with Questions, both of disputed title to pension and of the amount of pension where a final award is made, and this provision, coupled with the powers possessed by the Minister for dealing with cases in which resort to the statutory appeal tribunal is not available, should, in my opinion, prove adequate to deal with cases of the kind contemplated by my hon. Friend. With regard to dependants, facilities have been given for complaints against reduction of pensions to be entertained, and, in addition, I may perhaps remind my hon. Friend that the scheme of pensions for parents based on need has been substantially improved.

Is the Minister aware that the present machinery is totally unsatisfactory, and that there is need for the setting up of new machinery?

Arising out of that part of the answer which deals with dependants' pensions, is the Minister aware that the parent or dependant gets no chance to appear and state the case; that the evidence on which a pension has been reduced is never produced at the hearing, and that the pension is reduced without the parent or dependant having any say in the matter?

No, Sir. I am not aware of it, but I will look into the facts as stated by my hon. Friends.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will cause inquiries to be made into the case of an ex-soldier, named Carr, who was evicted from a house in Back Grafton Street, Liverpool, on the 18th September, as a result of unemployment due to the loss of a hand in the War, for which disability ho receives no pension; and will he explain why no pension is paid to this man for the loss of his hand?

I regret that this case cannot be traced from the information given. Perhaps the hon. Member can supply me with further particulars, when I will have immediate inquiry made.

asked the Minister of Pension,: whether, in view of the hardships frequently occurring through the operation of the time limit with regard to appeals against final awards, he will appoint a Committee to reconsider the whole matter, particularly the effect the present system has on cases where an ex-service man's condition becomes materially worse or a second disability arises and an Article 9 claim is ruled out because it is alleged that the second disability was considered in the original award?

Cases of the type referred to in which it is found that an award has erroneously been declared final can ordinarily be dealt with under the arrangements for the correction of such errors to which I have referred in previous answers in the House. The operation of final awards, both in regard to this and to other aspects of the system, are being carefully watched, but further experience must be gained of the existing arrangements before it can, in my judgment, be determined whether any further modification of them or any special inquiry is called for.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the revised arrangement to which he refers still prevents 75 per cent. of the appeals being reheard; and will he reconsider the matter as early as possible to avoid hardship?

I shall be very glad if my hon. Friend will give me the information on which that statement is based and I will certainly look into it.

Is ii not 95 per cent. instead of 75 per cent? I have never known of a pensions appeal case being reheard and I am sure I have sent up hundreds.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the hardship which exists in many cases where appeal tribunals have rejected claims, he will allow cases to be reopened when new evidence is available or the disability has increased since the appeal was heard?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that there is dissatisfaction owing to appeal tribunal decisions unfavourable to the claims of those making the appeal, especially in the cases of men who are still suffering seriously from their wounds; and when he proposes to introduce legislation to afford an opportunity for such claimants to have a revision of such decisions?

As regards cases of disputed title to pension, I have (as I intimated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) on 29th May last), been enabled to make arrangements whereby all cases in which additional evidence is furnished should be fully considered and a suitable grant made with the assistance of the Treasury if the disability or death is now found, in the light of all the evidence available, to be due to service in the late War. With regard to cases of assessment, arrangements have been made (as I have indicated in the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Rugby on the 8th May last) whereby cases in which an award is found to have been erroneously declared final owing to a serious error of medical fact or judgment can be amended. These arrangements are now in effective operation. I am sending my hon. Friends copies of the answers in both cases.

Is there, in the new provision to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, adequate treatment for these very hard cases?

All the evidence which we can gather has been very carefully scrutinised. As to the result of the inquiries, I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend any additional information at a later stage.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when cases go before the appeal tribunal, very often that tribunal refuses to go into new evidence at all on the ground that the appeals are out of date, thus vitiating the new regulation?

I think the hon. Member is referring to cases of a type rather different from those indicated in the question, but I will look into the point which he has raised.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when, for example, a deaf man has gone to the tribunal with no one to assist him in presenting his case, it is impossible to get that case reheard, under this arrangement?

No, Sir, no such type of case has yet been brought to my notice. If it were I should certainly take steps to put it right.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the opinion expressed by many advisory councils that the expenses of a relation or friend accompanying pensioners before the appeal tribunal should be allowed, he will reconsider this matter as, in the absence of such assistance, the appellant is often unable to do justice to his claim?

Any representations made to me on this matter by advisory councils will be most carefully considered, but I fear I am not in a position at the present moment to add anything to the answers which I have previously given in the House on this subject.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Evans, of No. 7, The Close, Elmers End, Beckenham, forwarded a claim under Article 9, and was assessed at 50 per cent. liability in September, 1923; whether the pension was actually granted to this man as from 10th March, 1924, and not from the date of the claim; and whether he will take steps to see that in this case, and in others of a similar character, awards are paid as from the date of the claim and not from the date of the final confirmation by the Minister?

I will have inquiries made into the facts of this case and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Is it a fact that applicants for pensions in cases similar to this are paid from the date of the award rather than from the date of the claim?

The cases would have to be considered on the merits when they were presented. In this particular case there has not been time to make inquiries; it only reached me yesterday.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he proposes to revise the whole of the Royal Pensions Warrant, 1921, in view of the large number of amendments and changes of entitlement which have been issued recently?

Yes, Sir. It is intended at a convenient opportunity to issue an up-to-date version of the Royal Warrant of December, 1919 (to which I presume the hon. Member refers), and of the concurrent Orders in Council, embodying the various amendments that have been made since their issue.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, despite paragraph 12 of the second Interim Report of the Southborough Committee, which has been adopted by the Government, ex-service men are at the present moment being dismissed from the Ministry of Pensions?

The continued reduction in the work of the Ministry renders the discharge from time to time of some members of the temporary staff inevitable. In deciding upon the persons to be discharged, full regard is paid to the recommendation of the. Southborough Committee, to which the hon. Member refers, and every effort is made to provide alternative employment for efficient ex-service men. I am glad to say that our efforts in this direction have not been without success, as is evidenced by the fact that out of 246 ex-service men declared redundant since 1st July, alternative employment has up to date been found in the Department for 128, and particulars of the remainder are furnished to the Joint Substitution Board for consideration in filling vacancies in other Departments.

Have the remainder found work in other Departments?

No, Sir, not at present. Of the remainder, outside the figure which I have just given, I understand that seven of them resigned on receiving notice warning them of redundancy, 41 were discharged, and 70 are still under notice.

None of them received work in other Departments?

I have no information on that point.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction which is felt regarding the financial report of the Southborough Committee, he will undertake to allocate a day for the full discussion of the claims of the ex-service men in the Civil Service?

The whole question of the arrangement of business after the re-assembly of Parliament on the 28th instant is at present under consideration. I cannot at the moment say whether it will be possible to find a day for such a discussion, but we are anxious to do so if possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that petrol is now cheaper than in pre-War days, that tyres last four times longer than in pre-War days, he can see his way to reduce the price of taxi-cab fares to pre-War prices?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the replies given on the 28th February and the 6th and 27th March. The general position has not changed materially since then.

Is it the policy of the hon. Gentleman's Department to encourage profiteering at the public expense, or is it done at the dictate of the trade unions?

asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to an article headed, "Working women murdered by Imperialism, British rule in India," which appeared in the Communist organ the "Workers' Weekly," on the 12th September, 1924 and whether he has instructed the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute proceedings against this journal?

The article referred to had not previously been brought to my notice, but I am making inquiries.

Has the hon. Gentleman realised that British rule in India has nothing whatever to do with this case, and that the article in question is simply an incentive to people in this country?

I hope the hon. arid gallant Member will allow me to see the article in the first place.

I will put down another question.

asked the Home Secretary whether official daily bulletins are issued as to the physical, mental and spiritual condition of convicted murderers awaiting execution; and, if not, whether he has taken any steps to ascertain the source of such bulletins that have recently been published?

My attention has been called to bulletins or reports of this kind which have recently appeared in news papers. They certainly have not been communicated by the prison authorities. The reports themselves have been utterly devoid of truth, and seem either to have been invented by the writers, or to have been based upon false statements made to them by discharged prisoners or others professing to be able to supply information.

Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that a repetition does not take place of the unfortunate reports which were issued only recently?

I have already said it is very difficult to control the imagination of journalists.

Will my hon. Friend consider a test prosecution of one of these journals, instead of prosecuting journals for their political opinions?

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will take steps to provide for the parents of children who are compelled to attend central schools at some distance from their homes allowances sufficient to make up for the extra cost of food and clothing that is necessitated by such attendances?

I hope that the arrangements which I have now been able to make for encouraging the grant of maintenance allowances to children who remain at school after the compulsory age will much facilitate attendance at central schools, but I do not see my way to extend those arrangements in the manner suggested.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Leicestershire, in three places, the parents are now on strike, and refusing to send their children to the central school, simply on account of the extra charge of 2s. a week which they have to pay?

Is the Minister prepared to see to it that the children, for instance, in the Island of Lewis, where they are going to school for the day on nothing but potatoes, practically starving—

The Minister does not control education in Scotland.

We have made representations to the Secretary for Scotland on this matter, and he states that he can do nothing because of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Education.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will lay a White Paper showing, for the last four years, the proportion which pupils attending grant-earning secondary schools bear to the population in England and Wales as a whole, and also in the area of each local education authority separately?

I shall be glad to lay a White Paper on the subject.

asked the President of the Board of Education how many local education authorities in England and Wales have appointed organisers of physical instruction, and how many have failed to appoint them; and what steps in this connection are being taken by the Board?

Out of 318 local education authorities in England and Wales, 82 at present employ organisers of physical instruction. The Board have on several recent occasions, notably by means of Circular 1291 (of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy), urged authorities to appoint such officers, and will continue to do so.

Can the right hon. Gentleman do something to increase the number of these organisers?

I have just said that the Board are doing everything they can.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Departmental Committee which was appointed in August, 1913, by the President of the Board to report as to the steps to be taken to give effect to the scheme of the. Report of the Haldane Commission on London University and to recommend the provisions which might be immediately adopted for that purpose as the basis for legislation, has yet presented its Report; and, if not, whether the Committee is still pursuing its investigations, and when the publication of its Report may be expected?

The Committee presented a first Report in April, 1914. Its work was suspended during the War and has not been resumed. I have already announced my intention of setting up a new Departmental Committee, and published the terms of reference.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if that first Report was circulated?

I imagine so, but it was before my time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea to the House when we may expect the Report of this Committee?

I do not know.

asked the President of the Board of Educations whether his Department has made a proposal to the Soviet Government of Russia that Bolshevist teachers should be brought to Great Britain; and whether he can state what subjects these Bolshevists are to teach?

In anticipation of an increase in trade with Russia and of a demand for greater facilities for learning the Russian language, I have been having enquiries made to see whether it is possible to promote the study of the Russian language in this country by means of an interchange of teachers and students between the two countries, but I have not yet received any report.

Is it not a fact that during the years 1914 to 1916 we were urged to advocate the teaching of Russian in our schools in Great Britain?

Would these students and teachers receive diplomatic immunity?

Is it not a fact that there are at the present moment thousands of people in this country who are capable of teaching the Russian language?

Will the reply of the right hon. Gentleman be forwarded to the Horse Marines?

Will murder be taught in the schools?

The Minister tells us that there is no definite proposal. We canot pursue the matter at this stage.

asked the Prime Minister what safeguards are given under the Treaty with the Soviet Government to British subjects living in Russia?

Under Articles 1, 5, 6 and 10 of the Anglo-Soviet Commercial Treaty British subjects in the Soviet Union will enjoy general most-favoured-nation treatment, and for further details I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to these articles.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that at the present time non-Russian subjects enjoy no safety in Russia, and will the Foreign Office take steps to see that if the Treaty is ratified, British subjects, at all events, have that safety?

Have any British subjects been arrested in Russia during the last two years with the exception of fishermen who landed without passports?

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that those who go to the British Legation to seek for safeguards have been, and are, watched, and arrested, and deported to Siberia, has that fact been reported to the Foreign Office, and what action does His Majesty's Government propose to take to guarantee protection to those who visit our Legation?

No such reports have been received.

Is the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary aware that a large number of Glasgow citizens are not safe in Glasgow?

rose—

He is getting up for the second time!

May I ask the Under-Secretary if he can deny the statement which I have made that it is reported—he cannot deny the fact of his own knowledge—that persons who go to our Legation in Moscow are watched and imprisoned in consequence thereof?

A great many things are reported from Russia which are entirely devoid of truth.

May I ask the Under-Secretary—[Interruption]. Is it true, or is it not, does he definitely say it is not true that persons who go to our Legation are watched and arrested as a consequence of so going?

Before that question is asked—[Interruption.]

I must hear what the Minister says.

I have already told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely) that no such reports have been received.

Is it a fact?

Ministers can only give the House official information.

On a point of Order. Will the Under-Secretary be so good as to note the form of the last question put to him by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway. In the original Supplementary Question he asked if it was a fact that certain people who have gone to the Legation were arrested and sent to Siberia. In the later Supplementary Question he asked is it true that it has been reported?

Ministers are concerned only- with official information.

asked the Prime Minister whether, under the terms of the Treaty with the Soviet Government, the balance of the sums lent to Russia during the War, which still remains lying in banks in that country, will be paid over to the Soviet authorities; and what is the total of such balance?

I presume that the hon. and gallant Member means banks in this country. The disposal of this money is governed by Article 10 of the Trade Agreement which, by Article 14 of the General Anglo-Soviet Treaty, is maintained in force until the coming into force of the second Treaty referred to in Article 11. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) on the 7th of July last.

Can the Under-Secretary tell us what is the amount?

In the answer to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Erdington, the Prime Minister mentioned the amount at approximately £4,000,000.

Was any part of that amount gold taken by Germany from Russia at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk?

No, Sir.

Can the Under-Secretary inform the House of the amount of money that has been lodged in British banks by the late Tsarist Government, and whether any of that money still remains to be used on behalf of British creditors of Russia?

The hon. Gentleman had better put that question down.

May I point Out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order! Order!"] I am putting a point of Order. I understand that you, Sir, have said that I should put that question down. May I point out to you, Sir—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order! Order!"]—I am speaking on a point. of Order, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know the procedure of their House, they ought to learn it, or stay away. May I point out to you, Sir, that. I asked your advice upon this same question, and I put it down two days ago to be answered to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Clerk at the Table declined to pass it. I tried to convince him last night, and I thought I had convinced him, because he accepted the question from me. It does not, however, appear upon the Paper, and I want to know, since you yourself had told me to put it upon the Paper, whether we are strictly in order according to the procedure of the House?

I should like to see the question in writing before I give my opinion upon it.

asked the Prime Minister on what day and, approximately, at what hour the two recent so-called Russian Treaties were signed and sealed?

On a point of Order. May I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that this question and the following one contain the adjective "so-called," as I have always understood that such adjectives were not permitted in a question, especially when they contain an innuendo, as I think you will agree is the case in this use of the word?

My attention had not been drawn to those words. I understand, however, that there is some question as to whether certain documents which have already been presented to the House are draft treaties or signed treaties, and that, I suppose, is the reason for the use of the words here.

The two treaties were signed and sealed shortly after 6 p.m. on the 8th August.

Was it an incorrect statement, then, when the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said to the House, on the 6th August—

"There is a commercial treaty, which is a separate document, and there is a general treaty, which has also been agreed upon."

Is that incorrect?

Not at all.

asked the Prime Minister what was the form and content of the full powers found in due and good form according to the recitals of the so-called Russian Treaties, in virtue of which the British signatures were attached; particularly whether the said powers were under the sign manual of the King; and, if they were, under what law of the Constitution, and/or precedents of diplomatic usage, as recently stated by him, the said treaties were made in the name of Great Britain and Northern Ireland instead of His Majesty the King, and, conversely, if the said powers were not under the sign manual, under what rule of constitutional law the British signatories had any right to sign?

The British signatories signed in virtue of full powers given under the sign manual in the usual form. There are numerous precedents for omitting the name of the Sovereign in international engagements concluded under full powers and requiring ratification. I might mention the Convention between Great Britain and France regarding Tunis of the 18th September, 1897; the Convention between Great Britain and Germany for the settlement of the Samoan question of the 14th November, 1899: and the Treaty between the principal Allied and Associated Powers and Poland, Rumania, and other States, relative to the frontiers of those States, signed on the 10th August, 1920. The last part of the question does not arise.

May I ask why those precedents were followed in this case?

I do not see that there is any reason in this case why those precedents should not have been followed more especially as in this case it was more convenient to make it between the Governments, because in the Soviet Union there is no individual head of the State.

According to the Constitution of this country, is not the King the treaty-making power, and is it not the ordinary practice, in making a treaty, that the treaty should be made in the name of the King?

I have already explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are many instances in which treaties are not made in the name of the Sovereign.

Is it not the fact that His Majesty has frequently signed treaties with the Swiss Federation, with the United States and with many Republics, in which the name of the head of the State has not been mentioned?

Is it a good thing for hon. Members opposite to bring the King into the Debate here?

This is with regard to a matter of procedure.

asked the Prime Minister why, in the Command Papers 2215 and 2216, the Russian Treaties were described as drafts of proposed treaties; and whether the Russian signatories were informed before signature that the documents were treaties or that they were drafts of proposed treaties?

The documents issued on the 7th August as Command Papers Nos. 2215 and 2216 are described as drafts of proposed treaties, because they were in fact on that date drafts only and not signed treaties, as was explained to the House at the time. The documents became actual treaties when signed on the following day. The signed treaties have been laid as Command Papers Nos. 2260 and 2261.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the growing criticisms of medical officers as to the evil effect of the smoke nuisance; and, seeing that the law is not sufficient to deal with this growing menace to the public health and that the police statistics show a serious increase in the number of private chimneys which take fire as the result of carelessness in respect of sweeping, will he inquire into the matter?

A Bill dealing with the smoke nuisance has been introduced in another place, and has been read a Second time and passed through Committee. My right hon. Friend is advised that powers already exist for dealing with the nuisance arising from private chimneys which take fire.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in the new form of death certificate to be issued, he will make it compulsory for doctors to inspect the body of the deceased before signing, so as to safeguard, as far as possible, against the chance of live burial?

No powers are available which would enable such an obligation to be imposed upon medical practitioners, and legislation would be necessary to give effect to the hon. Member's suggestion.

Will the Government, if they remain in office, take steps to bring in legislation to secure these safeguards?

asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the loss suffered by those called upon to serve on juries in criminal trials, steps will be taken to secure for them remuneration suitable for their services?

I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given by the Home Secretary on the 27th March last to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple (Captain Tudor Rees), in which he said that, while he sympathised with the suggestion made, he did not feel able at present to recommend legislation for placing this fresh charge on public funds.

Can the hon. Member state any case of compulsory service which involved considerable loss of time where those who rendered that service did not receive remuneration?

I think my reply indicates that my right hon. Friend has every sympathy with the point of view expressed, but it is a question which would involve legislation.

Is there any possibility of a jury being paid out-of-pocket expenses for travelling from their homes to the place where they serve, which may be many miles distant?

I should like notice of that question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any information as to the putting into force by the Brazilian Government of financial reforms recommended by the British commission which recently visited Brazil?

The answer is in the negative.

Does my right hon. Friend mean that it is difficult to make inquiries on this matter, but that he anticipates being in a position to get the information shortly?

No. The hon. Member's question is as to whether I have received any information, and I have received no such information. That is the extent of my information.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal depends on the information as to whether we manufacturers and industrialists can safely trade with and give greater credit to Brazil?

That may be so, but I have no information on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman seek the information, and endeavour to obtain it?

I have no objection at all to trying to get what information may be available. I will do that with pleasure.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now prepared to recommend the House to supply an official with financial experience to assist the Estimates Committee in the examination of the Estimates?

The Government's conclusions in this matter were explained by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 5th March last in an answer to the right hon. Member for Cam-borne (Mr. Leif Jones), to which I would refer the hon. Member.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider strengthening the terms of reference of the Estimates Committee?

I have no objection to considering the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange that agricultural workers who have been in regular employ for three years shall have facilities for free education in agricultural colleges, and that those showing special knowledge and proficiency shall have such credit facilities as will enable them to start as small-holders?

Considerable provision has already been made for scholarships for agricultural workers and children of agricultural workers under the Corn Production (Repeal) Act, 1921. This year 622 applications were received, and 152 scholarships have been awarded, either for degree courses at universities or shorter courses at farm institutes and similar institutions. With regard to the second part, the machinery of the Agricultural Credits Act is available, and can be utilised in a way which would afford considerable assistance to small-holders.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate any cases in which the Agricultural Credits Act has been used to benefit the agricultural workers?

The machinery has hardly yet been put in operation. It is now being brought clearly to their notice.

Were the 600 odd applicants referred to the children of agricultural labourers, or all persons who applied?

All persons, but in most cases agricultural workers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as agricultural labourers cannot draw unemployment pay, he will introduce legislation to enable compensation to be given to them when they are thrown out of employment by a Government Department requiring the sheep or cattle which they attend to be slaughtered?

This question has been carefully considered, but the amount of unemployment arising from the compulsory slaughter of animals under the Diseases of Animals Acts would hardly seem sufficient to justify the introduction of special legislation. From inquiries made in areas where extensive slaughtering occurred last spring, it appeared that in most cases the workers were found other employment by their employers, or were provided with employment in connection with the outbreaks.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered those cases, though few in number, in which the hardship is very real, and if the amount in question is so small, could he not see his way to give some compensation to these people?

I have made very careful inquiries from our inspectors, and I think the number of cases of hardship is infinitesimal.

Has the right hon. Gentleman never considered the possibility of bringing in a Measure to take over all the land of the country and all the cattle and nationalising them? Then we could deal with the question of unemployment?

I think the Minister would require some time to consider that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease during the month of September; the districts where these outbreaks occurred; if the causes have been traced; and the number of districts where restrictions are still in force?

Nine outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease were confirmed during September, and restrictions are still in force in six districts. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of these cases, and of the causes were ascertained.

Is the right hon. Gentleman taking special steps, or continuing special steps to disinfect railway trucks, even although the outbreaks are getting less?

Yes, and the special measures with regard to cleansing railway trucks have been very successful.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it essential for the protection of cattle to continue a policy of destroying animals that have not been infected?

asked the Minister of Agriculture the counties in England in which there are restrictions in force owing to outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease; the number of areas still under restrictions; and whether he has received any representations as to altering or narrowing the radii of the restricted areas?

Six areas are still under restrictions, and include the counties of Nottingham, Kesteven, Northampton, Warwick, Oxford, Buckingham, Wiltshire, Essex, Middlesex, and Hertford. The answer to the last part is in the affirmative. Representations have been received, and are being considered by the Pretyman Committee.

I am afraid that until evidence is produced to show any better system exists, it will be dangerous not to destroy the contacts, as is done at present.

Would human beings tolerate for one moment such a system for themselvees?

Has the right hon. Gentleman any further information to give to the House as to the report of the bacillus having been found?

May I ask whether, in view of the insistent claim made by certain gentlemen, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to allow them to make, say, a ten days' trial of their alleged remedy?

That does not arise out of the question.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the American naval budget has been reduced by the Legislature by, approximately, £11,200,100; and whether it would be possible to make any corresponding reduction in British naval expenditure in consequence?

I have been asked to reply. The reduction of £11,200,000 referred to in the hon. and gallant Member's question appears to represent a reduction made by the budget officer in the naval appropriations, asked for by the United States naval authorities for 1925–26. These estimates have not yet been presented to Congress, but on the assumption that the reported reduction is finally accepted and passed into law, the total naval appropriations for 1925–26 will be approximately the same as in 1924–25. In these circumstances, the second part of the question does not arise.

asked the Prime Minister whether the occupation of Georgia by the Union of Soviet Republics is recognised by His Majesty's Government or the League of Nations; and whether the right to occupy this country was acquired by treaty or as a mandate from the League of Nations?

As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) was informed on the 18th February last, His Majesty's Government recognise the authority of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as extending to Georgia. I naturally cannot speak for the League of Nations, nor do His Majesty's Government feel entitled to pronounce on the derivation of that authority, but the Government of the Union certainly hold no mandate from he League.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Treaty of 7th May, 1920, is still in force by which Russia recognised the independence of Georgia; whether it is still the policy of His Majesty's Government that the recognition of the Soviet Government implied also the recognition of the independence of Georgia; and whether, in view of the reprisals and massacres that are now taking place in the Caucasus, he will take steps to prevent the extermination of this race by insisting that the safety and independence of Georgia must be a condition of his support of the Russian Treaty?

The juridical position of the Treaty of 1920 is a matter primarily for the two parties concerned, who, it is understood, hold divergent views on the subject. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to-day to the Noble Lord the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley). As regards the third part, I have already stated in the House that the position of Georgia is essentially a question of the internal politics of the Soviet Union; and, as His Majesty's Government have thus no locus standi, the action here suggested might, I regret to say, aggravate rather than improve that position.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that no fewer than 9,000 Georgians have already been executed—[HON. MEMBERS: "HOW do you know?"]—and will not the Prime Minister carry out the promise made by him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Labour party last year to the Georgian Republic?

Before the Under-Secretary replies, may I ask him if his attention has been called to a statement by the Italian Consul at Tiflis to the effect that the reported outbreak was put down by the local people without the aid of troops, that order has been restored since 1st September, that there have been no massacres, and that the 9,000 is merely imagination? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer! answer!"]

We cannot debate the matter at Question Time.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of duty collected during 1923–24 at the general rate and the preferential rate, respectively, in respect of each of the commodities to which Imperial Preference applies?

As the reply is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any information with regard to the report that the French Government have taken the initiative for a funding arrangement. as regards their debt to the United States; whether the French Government have approached His Majesty's Government on a similar subject: and whether he will see that this country obtains as good terms from France as are agreed to between France and the United States?

The answer to the first. two parts of the question is in the negative, and the third part, therefore, does not at present arise.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Belgian Government has made any payments on account of war or relief debts to the United States?

As the answer contains several figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee on Civil Rights has reported; whether, in that case, he will lay the document before the House; and whether, if it has not reported, he can state when the Report is expected?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise. As regards the third part, I understand that the sittings of the Committee which were suspended during the holidays are about to be resumed.

May the Report be expected at a fairly early date, in view of the possibility of an early General Election?

As this Committee is, of course, a non-political body, they are not likely to be influenced by the possibility of a General Election.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the feeling in the Civil Service regarding the absence of equality of pay; and whether he will consider the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry to inquire provisionally into the principle of such equality of pay?

I presume that the hon. Member in speaking of equality of pay is referring to equality as between men and women. This question was fully considered by the Government in July last, when they decided that the state of the country's finances was such as to make it impossible to justify the enormous increase of expenditure that would be involved, and, in the circumstances, I am not prepared to agree to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry as suggested.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of gold held abroad on account of the Bank of Germany?

I have no special information with, regard to the accounts of the Reichsbank, which is a private German institution. The bank's weekly return for the week ended 22nd September, which has appeared in the Press, states that the amount of gold deposited with foreign central note banks, and not pledged as cover for advances, was 119 million gold marks (say, £6 million sterling).

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have been paid up to date, both gross and nett, by Northern and Southern Ireland, respectively, under the Treaty?

As regards the liability of the Irish Free State under Article 5 of the Treaty, I beg to refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on the 13th May last. Detailed information as to payments made by the Free State otherwise than under Article 5 is contained in Command Paper 2160, recently presented to Parliament. As regards payments made by Northern Ireland, which are governed by the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone on the 6th May last.

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether it is proposed to make a statement to Parliament upon the work accomplished at the Council and Assembly meetings of the League of Nations, in circumstances which will give Members an opportunity of discussing the work of the British delegation;

(2) whether the Lord President of the Council informed the League of Nations that Great Britain would at the right time produce a specific scheme upon disarmament; and whether, seeing the great public interest which is universally felt upon the obligations of the covenant to limit armaments, he will lay this, specific scheme of His Majesty's Government before Parliament at an early date?

asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the extent to which this country is committed to use coercive methods against nations refusing to arbitrate their differences; and whether the use of coercive methods is contemplated against nations who are not members of the League of Nations, if they refuse arbitration?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will inform the House what British naval and military commitments, if any, are contemplated for the' League of Nations in view of his statement that he would not pledge Britain to, intervene on behalf of the League in Europe by force of arms; and is he aware of what the Lord President of the Council has stated as principal British delegate to the Assembly?

It is quite impossible to deal piecemeal, by way of question and answer, with a subject of such magnitude as the work accomplished by the present Assembly of the League. All I can say at present is that the protocol embodying the arrangements which are the issue of that work is not binding on any Government until its formal approval has been given. Our representatives at Geneva have made it clear repeatedly that such approval will only be given after full consideration by Parliament. An opportunity for discussion will be found as soon as possible.

With particular reference to Question No. 56, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have made any conditional promises with regard to the use of the British Navy?