asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, as a result of the Jerram Committee, the Royal Fleet Reserve retiring gratuity was increased by 100 per cent. in view of the depreciation of the pound sterling; whether he is aware that a corresponding adjustment was refused in the case of the Royal Naval Reserve gratuity; and whether he will take steps to increase the gratuity of the Royal Naval Reserve in the same proportion as that of the Royal Fleet Reserve?

This suggestion cannot be adopted as the circumstances of the two Forces are entirely different. The Royal Fleet Reserve retiring gratuity was increased from £50 to £100, but the annual retainer was not increased at all, whereas a substantial increase was made in the annual retainer of the Royal Naval Reserve.

Having regard to the many anomalies which exist in regard to retiring allowances and superannuation, will a Committee of Inquiry be appointed to go into the whole of these questions?

I cannot give any undertaking, but I will consider it.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the high percentage of ex-service men employed in the shipbuilding yards of the Hartlepools, and of the large number of unemployed shipyard workers there, he will give facilities for repairs or building of vessels of suitable types required and to be included in the building programme of his Department?

The claims of shipbuilding and repairing firms in the Hartlepool district will receive full consideration if and when opportunity arises to allocate repair work or new construction within the capacity of Admiralty contractors in that area.

Is it not a fact that at the present time there is certain work that can be done by our people in the Hartlepools more efficiently than in any other section of the East Coast shipbuilding yards?

Will the hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that there are other yards with an equal percentage of unemployment; and may I take it that there will be no unfair discrimination in allocating orders?

Certainly.

Is it not a fact that there is no lack of ship repairing work, but that ships are going from this country to the Continent for repair, owing to the prices being so much lower and owing to lack of organisation on this side?

That is not a question for the Admiralty.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether recommendations which are made by the Fleet representatives at the quarterly meetings of the headquarters' naval canteen committees possess any executive power; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to ensure that due attention is paid to recommendations carried by a majority of the representatives, in order that much desired and necessary improvements may be effected?

The Admiralty has no reason to doubt that the recommendations do receive the full and sympathetic consideration of the authorities of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, and that they are given effect to, whenever practicable.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction at the recent management of this committee, and will he inquire into it?

also asked whether the Naval Administrative Committee of the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes is still responsible for the administration of the naval canteen service or whether responsibility is now vested in the office of commercial manager under direction of the general manager; and, if so, whether such change was made with Admiralty approval?

The Naval Administrative Committee automatically ceased to function as the canteen service developed on normal peace lines, and at the present time the naval section of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes is in charge of a naval accountant officer acting under the general manager. The arrangement has the full approval of the Admiralty.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it causes very considerable dissatisfaction, and is not well received by the men?

further asked whether the absence of advisory officers from the 22nd meeting of the headquarters naval canteen committee is an indication that in the future the various commanders-in-chief will not be represented; and whether, in view of the acknowledged success of the system of close co-operation between officers and men in all matters affecting the welfare of the lower deck, orders will be issued to ensure that these officers shall attend in the future?

In response to a resolution passed by the Fleet representatives at the meeting referred to, the Admiralty have now arranged for the attendance, in future, of an officer from each of the three home ports. I may add that the attendance of these officers, who did not act in any advisory capacity, as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, was made optional, as verbatim reports of the proceedings at the meetings are now circulated.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with regard to the projected visit of a British squadron to the Baltic during the present summer, he will say how many ships the squadron will consist of and what is the object of their visit; and, in view of the fact that the reported visit of a British squadron to the Baltic has caused great uneasiness among the population of Russia, will he reconsider the question?

The British ships now visiting the Baltic comprise the Second Cruiser Squadron of five ships and the Fifth Destroyer Flotilla of nine ships. The squadron arrived at Helsingfors on the 15th June, and will remain in the Baltic until the 3rd July. It is customary for a British squadron to visit the Baltic during the summer months, and I see no reason why any uneasiness should be caused by the cruise.

Can the House be informed what is the authority of the hon. Gentleman for saying that this visit of the British ships will cause uneasiness in Russia?

Am I allowed to answer that question?

Seeing that you will not trade with Russia, why pay them friendly visits?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the reason for the increase of the civil staff by 35 as on the 1st May, 1925, and by what date it is expected that the staff will be reduced to normal proportions?

This unusual increase is due to the temporary loan of a number of second-class draughtsmen from the dockyards to the Admiralty to deal with some design work. The rules at present governing the preparation of the staff returns are such that draughtsmen of this grade are classified as industrial staff when at the dockyards, but as headquarters, that is, non-industrial staff, when employed at the Admiralty. The staff will be reduced to normal proportions when these men return to the dockyards on the completion of this particular work.

Can the hon. Gentleman say if any definite steps are being taken to reduce this large staff at the Admiralty at the present time?

Steps are taken whenever an opportunity presents itself.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two years ago I was informed, in an answer in this House by his predecessor at the Admiralty, it was expected that the staff would be reduced to normal proportions at the end of 1923?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if a reduction of staff takes place, it will bring about tremendous hardship, and before any reduction takes place, will the Government see that there are jobs for the men, or else retain them where they are?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet Committee appointed to consider the possibility of granting marriage allowances to naval officers has yet reported?

This matter is at present under consideration.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet Committee appointed to consider the question of new naval construction has yet reported; if so, whether it has reported in favour of new construction; and whether he can state the amount of the supplementary Estimate involved.

The Cabinet Committee in question have not yet completed their investigations, and I am therefore not in a position to make any statement on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the reason for the British proposal at the second Committee of Arms Conference at Geneva to remove Soviet Russia from the list of those countries whose adherence to the proposed convention is necessary; and whether the British delegates at this conference supported and voted in favour of the French delegation's proposal for the suspension of the provisions of Article 3, relating to the publication of details of the importation of arms in the case of countries bordering Russia?

The reason is that, Russia having declined to take part in the conference, her retention among the list of countries referred to by the hon. and gallant Member would have involved the indefinite postponement of the entry into force of the Convention. The amendment to Article 3, which was moved by the Rumanian, not the French, delegation, was supported by the British delegate.

Can the hon. Gentleman state whether the proposal made by the British delegation was inspired by any other country?

I could not give an answer to that question offhand, but if the hon. and gallant Member will put it down on the Paper, I will make it my business to look into it.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to consider the compensation claims of Russian nationals for the damage inflicted on Russian property and nationals in the years 1918, 1919 and 1920, when Great Britain was engaged in Blockading Russia, when British troops were on Russian territory, and when Great Britain was supporting the armies led by Generals Koltchak, Denekin, and Wrangel?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 27th May.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the provisions of the Russian-Italian Treaty of Commerce and Navigation which was approved of by the Italian Chamber on 4th June, 1925?

The full text of this Treaty was published in the "Board of Trade Journal" of the 3rd April, 1924.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the extent of the control now being exercised by the Allies to secure the carrying out by Germany of the provisions of the Versailles Treaty as to disarmament; and whether, seeing that from the moment the Allied control is withdrawn it would take the German authorities only about one year to attain their maximum production in 1918 of guns and munitions, the Allies will continue for the present their hold of the occupied German territories along the Rhine?

The Inter-Allied Military Commission of Control will remain in Germany to supervise the execution of the demands contained in the Allied Note of the 2nd of June. As regards the second part of the question, the policy of His Majesty's Government is that the Articles of the Treaty dealing with the occupation of German territory shall be strictly observed.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that Germany is, to all intents and purposes, disarmed, and has been for a very considerable time, and does he not consider that any further occupation of German territory will only lead to irritation and possible disturbance?

May I ask the hon. Gentleman, as representing the Government, whether we can be satisfied that the terms with regard to disarmament will be carried out?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what special regulations have been issued by the Inter-Allied High Commission at Coblenz with regard to the millenary celebrations in the Rhineland, and whether any protest has been made that these regulations are an infringement of the civic and constitutional rights of the Rhineland?

Special powers have been conferred on the chief representatives of the Inter-Allied Rhineland High Commission enabling them to prohibit any meeting, gathering, or assembly likely to prejudice the security of the armies of occupation. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in any negotiations with Germany, the Government have proposed among their terms that the German Government should by legislation raise the industrial standard of the German workman to a level not inferior to that prevailing in British industry?

I have nothing to add to the answer returned on the 27th May to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be better if, in exercising pressure on Germany, we attempted to get labour conditions improved rather than insisting on details of military armaments?

I can add nothing to what has been said by my right hon. Friend. I express no opinions beyond the answer which he gave.

But the answer said that the question was not opportune.

I must refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to that answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the signatory Powers to the convention and protocols resulting from the opium conferences at Geneva have ratified the same?

I have no information that any ratifications have yet been deposited.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that soldiers from the Spanish army again operated within the Tangier zone by way of ambush of a defenceless caravan; that five women were left wounded by the river bed; that women and flocks and herds are being carried off from the international zone by Spanish forces; and what action he is taking in the matter?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 15th June to the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby).

Have the Government made any protest against what impartial observers have stated is a barbarous outrage?

asked the Minister of Labour the cost to the British Government of the International Labour Organisation at Geneva?

The amount of the Estimate for the current financial year for the British Government contribution to the International Labour Organisation is £30,000.

Is it not a fact that Britain's share is out of all proportion to her representation?

The representation is not based in any way on the measure of contribution.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the annual cost is not likely to be much increased in the near future?

It was due largely to the exertions of the British representative there that very considerable economy was secured in the present year, and that without affecting the efficiency of the organisation in any respect, and the House may rest assured that the whole policy of the Government is to be as economical as possible there, as in any other matters, without in any way decreasing efficiency.

Is it not a fact that the existence of the Labour Organisation at Geneva is a great advantage to the right hon. Gentleman's own Department here?

asked the Minister of Labour what schemes the Government are prepared to put in hand during the forthcoming autumn and winter in order to afford additional opportunities of employment to the increasing numbers who are out of work?

This is not a matter which can be dealt with adequately by way of question and answer. I propose later in the Session to make a full statement.

In view of the appalling increase in the number of unemployed, is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make some statement at a very early date?

I understand that a further discussion is likely to be proposed, but I have only heard it so far quite informally and unofficially. An early date, however, has been asked for, for further discussion on the Vote of the Labour Ministry, and doubtless an opportunity will be given for going into it.

Can the right hon. Gentlemen tell us whether or not all of the 28 ships due for reconditioning when the Navy Estimates went through have been allocated up to the present?

The hon. Member should put that question to the Admiralty.

asked the Minister of Labour if, before presenting his proposed Unemployment Act Amendment Bill, he will follow the example of the Minister of Health with regard to the Government's Rating and Valuation Bill, and consult the local committees and authorities concerned, so as to secure the benefit of their knowledge and experience when drafting his proposals?

I do not think the two Measures are comparable. In any event, for reasons of which the hon. Member is no doubt fully aware, it is important that the Unemployment Insurance Bill should be passed before next October. I am afraid this would become impossible if I followed the course he suggests.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has ascertained, or will ascertain, from local authorities what will be the effect of leaving the present Act unamended?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, has he taken into consideration the fact that, owing to the new Rating and Valuation Bill, in certain parts of the country they are going to be considerably handicapped by the increase of local rates? In our own district at least sixpence in the £ will have to be found as a result.

I have always got the question of local rates also in my mind, and I am in constant touch with the Minister of Health in that connection.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has already announced that, even should he get his new Unemployment Bill, he is not going to change his present policy?

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Golborne Collieries, Lancashire, made application to St. Helens Labour Exchange for colliers; that a number were sent and one of them, Edward Baines, was refused work, though a fully qualified collier living less than three miles away, while others were taken on who lived over six miles away but, owing to the distance and there being no travelling facilities, could not go; and will he inquire why Baines was refused work?

I am making inquiries into the circumstances of this case, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the fact that nearly 800 men of the Lady Lewis pits, South Wales, who refused to accept employment such as is customary in many other pits, have been granted unemployment benefit; and why it has been granted in these circumstances?

These claims to benefit were referred on appeal to the Umpire, who decided in favour of the claimants. I am sending a copy of his decision to the hon. Member. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the Umpire is the final authority in such cases.

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons ordinarily employed in the mining industry in Yorkshire were unemployed at the end of the first week of June, 1925; and how many were unemployed in the same week in 1924?

At 25th May, 1925, the latest date for which industrial statistics are available, there were 9,931 persons recorded at Employment Exchanges in Yorkshire as unemployed in the coal mining industry, as compared with 2,343 at 26th May, 1924.

Is this the most favoured county in the whole of the British coalfields, so far as unemployment is concerned?

I could not say if actually it is the most favoured, but it is one of the most favoured, in any case. I should have to get the exact figures to be able to say whether it is the most favoured, but, undoubtedly, it is in one of the most favoured positions.

Is it not a fact that this number is increasing every day?

I think, broadly speaking, it is true to say that unemployment in the coalfields has been considerably on the increase, and is still so to-day.

Is the right hon. Gentleman making any special arrangements or efforts to get from the Ministry of Mines some new policy which will meet this situation?

I am quite sure the House will agree with me it is not possible to give a reply to that in the form of an answer to a question. The whole question, as every mining Member, or anybody who has to do with mines, knows, is an extraordinarily difficult problem. It might come out in discussion, but it could not conceivably be condensed in the form of an answer.

The Prime Minister, I think, is due to say something. He has admitted that Capitalism is breaking up. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time? Is he not going to say something. We have had Debate after Debate on the Adjournment Motions on this subject, but we have had absolutely nothing from the Secretary for Mines, and matters are going from bad to worse, and this is the best county. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order! Order!"] May I press my point, Mr. Speaker? Surely I am in order? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order! Order!"]

The Speaker will tell him if he is in order or not.

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to debate the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I am putting a question to the Prime Minister.

I think the hon. Member was making a statement.

No, Sir.

May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he can say that the condition of the coal trade in the particular part of Yorkshire mentioned is due to the higher efficiency in the coal getting, or to the higher quality of the coal?

Is the Minister of Labour not aware that in Yorkshire at this moment there are many collieries paying from 10 to 20 per cent. dividends, while other collieries are going out of employment; and does he think that until all the mines are taken as one unit there is any possibility of matters becoming better?

May I—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I want to ask a supplementary question.

Do not let hon. Members think they are going to browbeat us.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour whether he does not think that his Department ought to ask the Prime Minister to give this House the time now, at once, to discuss this question of unemployment; and is it not a fact that not only in the mining industry but right throughout the East End of London and South-East of London unemployment is increasing by leaps and bounds, and does he think, as Minister of Labour, that we ought to sit here day after day like dumb dogs doing nothing?

That matter has been dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, we have had no opportunity, no chance to deal with it.

Will the hon. Gentleman listen to me? What hon. Members have to do is to ask for the Ministry of Labour Vote to be put down; they have the matter under their own control.

May I ask this question, Sir? Whether we Members on this side can ask you to give us the Adjournment Motion? This is a matter of bread and butter to hundreds of thousands of people, and we do not feel we should sit here and kill time like this by doing nothing?

I am sorry to say it is not by any means a new matter.

It is getting worse!

That is a reason for asking for a day to discuss the matter in Committee of Supply.

On a point of Order. I put a question to the Prime Minister, who has eluded all questions on this subject, whether in Debate or anywhere else. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] This is not a matter for the Minister of Labour but for the Prime Minister, who refuses to answer. I think he ought to give an answer to the question.

The hon. Gentleman must hand in his question. I should like to see it.

May I—

This is unfair to other questioners.

The matter is a most important one!

asked the Minister of Labour what results have obtained in respect to the conferences between employers and employés in respect to the shipbuilding industry and the engineering trades?

The conferences in the shipbuilding industry are still in progress. With regard to engineering, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given on 11th June to the hon. Member for Lambeth, North (Mr. Briant). I can tell the hon. Gentleman the substance of that reply, if he wishes. The substance was, that a letter from the Engineering Employers' Federation of the 2nd June was, apparently, misunderstood by the unions, and that the further letter from the employers would be considered by the unions on the 19th June.

Is there any chance of this Conference coming to an end at some future date?

I trust so, because I am quite certain that the more quickly both sides in this Conference will get down to the actual facts, the better it will be for everybody.

Does it not follow that the facts will be these—that Capitalism is breaking up?

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were convicted of fraud in connection with the application for receipt of unemployment benefit during the years 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924?

May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you are aware that words have been left out of the question which are the important part. I want to know whether these persons, by reason of their conviction, have become ineligible for any further unemployment pay?

It has not been brought to my notice before.

On a point of Order. That is the information I wanted, and that has been specially left out of the question. May I ask on whose authority?

I was not aware of the point. Perhaps the hon. Member had better put another question down covering the query.

The number of persons convicted, bound over or admonished on charges of knowingly making false representations for the purpose of obtaining unemployment benefit was 746 in 1921, 1,570 in 1922, 2,326 in 1923 and 1,779 in 1924.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell me whether these people who have been convicted of these offences are precluded from obtaining unemployment donations in future?

I find that the reason why that part of the question was disallowed was because it was purely a legal question, and such questions are not allowed. They are matters for the Courts.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the percentages of these persons, apart from the total number?

I could give the figures of the percentages calculated out, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us just roughly?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better put a question down. I could not give him a rough calculation without it possibly being inaccurate so that he might afterwards complain of it, but, if need be, I can get the percentages with the least possible delay.

The master is not a joke.

On a point of Order. May I say that I am not asking a legal question; I am only asking whether the Regulations laid down by Parliament to preclude those who have been convicted of receiving unemployment donation are being carried out; whether under the law as laid down they can or cannot continue to receive it? I venture to suggest that I am entitled to a reply to that question.

The hon. Member must let me see that question.

Arising out of the previous answer, can the Minister of Labour tell us how many bankruptcies there have been in the same period?

That is a question that should be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the figures that he has given bear out the allegation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is growing up a habit of learning to qualify for the dole?

Am I in order, Mr. Speaker, in asking a question as to which of these points have been legally decided, and in how many cases, and, further, since legal decisions have been given, whether further relief has been given to the people?

I think that would be in order, but I would like to see the question in writing.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the figures that have been given by him justify the aspersions cast upon the working classes by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I have already said that is a matter of opinion, and for debate.

asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of men, women, boys and girls living and registering on the Employment Exchanges in the Poplar district during the month of March, 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925, respectively?

I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the numbers of men, women, boys and girls registered at the Poplar Employment Exchange at the end of March in each of the years mentioned. It may be assumed that practically all these persons were resident in the area of the Exchange, which includes the Limehouse area and portions of Hackney. Stratford and Canning Town.

And Greenwich?

I think not.

Yes, I think so. Will the Minister consider the number of our people who are living on the Island who have to go to Greenwich or Deptford to sign on?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question of detail like that.

I want those residing in the Poplar district, wherever they may be registered.

Will the hon. Member communicate with me, or put a question down on that additional point, which is rather one of detail?

Will the Minister consider the fact that in one of the biggest industrial centres in the East End of London, the Silvertown district, which I represent, the people have to go to Poplar to sign on, and they are all included in the Poplar area when it comes to a question of administration? I say it is a disgrace.

Following is the table: Persons on Registers of Poplar Employment Exchange. End of March. Men. Boys. Women. Girls. Total 1922 8,214 339 1,620 252 10,425 1923 7,682 388 1,304 201 9,575 1924 7,864 310 996 205 9,381 1925 8,145 236 1,139 81 9,601

asked the Secretary of State for Air the losses on the railway between Cranwell and Sleaford for the years ending 31st March, 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1925; and what are the passenger fares per mile charged?

As the reply involves statements of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May I ask the Minister what the passenger fares are now, and why they do not bear some relation to the cost of working the line?

My hon. and gallant Friend, when he sees the answer, will find that I am giving him information on that point.

Following is the reply:

As regards the first part of the question the difference between expenditure and receipts (including in the latter a credit for the conveyance of Government traffic) was approximately as follows: For year ending 31st March: £ 1922 5,800 1923 4,000 1924 3,570 1925 (estimated) 4,600 Receipts cannot be expected to balance expenditure on a line of this nature, but any alternative means of transporting the large volume of Government stores at present carried by this railway—approximately 15,000 tons last year—would involve considerably greater expenditure.

As regards the second part of the question, the passenger fares are: s. d. First class return 1 0 Second class return 0 9 Third class return 0 6

Full return fare is charged for single journeys. Monthly tickets are issued to Royal Air Force personnel residing out of the station and to civilians in Air Ministry employ at the following rates: s. d. First class 18 8 Second class 14 0 Third class 9 4 Monthly tickets are also issued at the special reduced charge of 3s. 6d. a month to airmen on the married establishment for whom quarters are not provided.

asked the Secretary of State for Air what action was taken respecting the accountants' officer who embezzled £735 10s. 3d. between February and May, 1922, from the Royal Air Force; and has any disciplinary action been taken against the officer who was responsible for the gazettement of this accountant without verifying his official reference with the Admiralty, who, in February, 1922, notified the Air Ministry of his unsatisfactory conduct?

As regards the first part of the question, the accountant officer referred to was apprehended, convicted of embezzlement, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude. As regards the second part, this accountant officer had appeared before a selection board, and had produced testimonials which appeared eminently satisfactory from officers under whom he had served. This was early in 1922, at a time when the new station accounting system had only just been introduced, and a considerable number of accountant officers was therefore urgently required. In order to avoid delay, the officer in question was gazetted before the usual inquiry had been addressed to the Admiralty to verify his previous service under that Department. The present practice is to verify previous service in all cases before gazettement, and a case of this kind should not occur again. I do not think that disciplinary action against any individual is called for in the circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give the results of the trading accounts of Cranwell farm for the periods ending 31st March, 1924, and 31st March, 1925; whether an officer of the Royal Air Force is still responsible for the farming operations; and, if so, what is his rank?

As regards the first part of the question, the farm was let to a tenant as from 3rd November, 1923, and the trading account for the farming operations carried on under Air Ministry direction ceased, therefore, from that date. The trading account from 1st April, 1923, to 2nd November, 1923, is shown in the Air Services Appropriation Account, 1923–24, pages 82–85. In view of the change of system in November, 1923, the other parts of my hon. and gallant Friend's question do not arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much per acre this farm is now let at?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question on that point I will give him the information.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Royal Air Force is engaging in the transport of passengers, on payment of fares, between Cairo and Bagdad; and, if not, when he will be able to organise a passenger service, either by the Royal Air Force or by Imperial Airways, between these two towns?

Since my hon. and gallant Friend's question was put down I have made a statement in regard to the Cairo-Bagdad air route, in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Major-General Sir F. Sykes) on 11th June, and I think that statement will give him the information which he desires.

asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) the precise object of the trial descent in the new parachute on 26th May last, when Corporal Wilson was killed; if Corporal Wilson was ordered to make a trial descent; and, if so, by whom;

(2) if the parachute used on 26th May last by Corporal Wilson was an Irving free-type; if he was told of the danger of pulling the rip-cord before the parachute was clear of the aeroplane; and if he was told that the pilot would open out his engine as he stepped off the ladder, so as to avoid fouling the parachute;

(3) if, for the parachute trial on 26th May last, the automatic arrangement was installed whereby the hand rip-cord could not become effective until after the automatic line had exerted its pull and the parachutist was clear of the machine?

I will answer the hon. Member's three questions together. As regards the first, Corporal Wilson was an aerial gunner, and the object of the descent was to practise him in a mode of escape which may at any time be necessary for life-saving. As stated in my reply on 15th June to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), these trial descents are purely voluntary, and no pressure of any kind is brought to bear on any officer or airman to induce him to take part in them. As regards the second question, the answer to all three parts of the question is in the affirmative, except that the object of the opening out of the engine is to give the jumper a greater forward movement, rather than to prevent fouling the parachute. As regards the third question, the hon. Member would appear to be confusing the static type of parachute with the free type, which was used in this case. In the latter there is no automatic arrangement for pulling the rip-cord; its operation depends entirely on the pulling of the rip-cord by the jumper himself after a period of at least a second has elapsed from the time of the jumping.

asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that a Dominion branch in the Colonial Office charged with dealing with communications and questions affecting the self-governing Dominions was established during the Government of 1906–10, and that it was agreed at the time of the Imperial Conference of 1918 that communication and consultation of the Prime Ministers of the Dominions and of Great Britain should be direct with the Prime Minister of Great Britain, he will say if that arrangement has been discontinued; if so, why; and if the announcement made of the intended appointment of a Secretary of State for the Dominions in any way modifies or is in conflict with the desire of the Prime Ministers of the Empire expressed in 1918 for direct communication without the intermediary of a Secretary of State?

Before I put this question, may I say that it is not quite in the form in which I drafted it, but it is, in substance, the question that I desire to ask.

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. The circumstances in which direct communications between Prime Ministers take place are clearly set out in the Resolution of the Imperial War Cabinet of 1918, printed on p. 165 of the Proceedings of the Imperial War Conference of that year (Cmd. 9177). This Resolution was confirmed at the Conference of 1921, and remains in force.

Has my right hon. Friend looked up the private records of the Imperial Conference, or the minutes of the Imperial Cabinet, in regard to the answers he has just given me?

I have looked at the minutes, but I have not looked at the other.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will do so, and reconsider the matter?

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government still considers itself bound by the terms of the White Paper in granting inquiries and imposing duties in favour of industries which make application?

I have been asked to reply. There has been no change in the policy of the Government in regard to the safeguarding of industries.

May I ask the Prime Minister if he will kindly answer the question? Is the policy of the Government as laid down by him in debate in this House, that the only avenue is through the procedure laid down in the White Paper?

As far as I remember, that is so; but I have not myself investigated the matter with reference to this question, I asked the Board of Trade to look after it.

May we take it that industries which cannot satisfy the conditions of the White Paper will be eligible for a duty?

I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend means every condition in the White Paper. That question was raised on the Lace Duties. It is perfectly obvious that the ultimate decision rests with the Cabinet as to whether or not the recommendations made by the Committee shall be put in force.

But if the Committee report that the conditions of the White Paper are not fulfilled, will the industry still, under the Government policy, be eligible?

I should like to wait until the circumstances arise.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not the fact that almost every industry in the country is now making application?

Not that I am aware of.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the general dissatisfaction at the large amount of foreign goods received into this country from abroad which are manufactured under sweated conditions; and will he consider introducing legislation to prevent such articles being sold in this country?

I have been asked to reply. As my hon. Friend is aware, provision is already made for safeguarding particular British industries which are seriously affected by imports of goods manufactured under inferior conditions of employment of labour.

Does not the hon. Member think that all goods made in this and all other countries are made under sweated conditions?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether representatives of the iron and steel trade, or of any section thereof, have applied, or have signified their intention to apply, for safeguarding of their industry; and, if so, whether an inquiry will be granted?

As has been stated in reply to similar questions, the Government, following previous practice under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, will make a public announcement when an inquiry is granted in respect of any industry. For the reasons already given, I do not think it is desirable to make announcements in regard to applications which are or may be pending or under consideration.

Under the regulations will it be impossible to impose any duty, should favourable recommendations be made in these reports under the Finance Act, and, if so, will it be done once a year?

I do not find that point raised in the question.

As the reply makes it perfectly obvious that such an application has been made, will the Parliamentary Secretary advise the Government to have some consideration for the trades which will have inflicted upon them insufferable burdens by the granting of that application?

Is there any legal disability which will prevent any body of traders applying to the Board of Trade, if they think it worth their while, and in the interests of their business?

Not that I know of.

Does the hon. Gentleman not think it wise, in the interests of all concerned, that we should have a list of the firms which have applied for the safeguarding of their industry?