asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of land are now under beet cultivation in this country; how many factories are in operation for the manufacture of beet sugar; and what is the estimated output of beet sugar in Britain for the year 1925?

I have been asked to reply. On the 4th June last, 56,200 acres were returned as under sugar beet cultivation in Great Britain; 10 factories are expected to manufacture sugar during the 1925–26 season; and in that period the output of refined beet sugar is estimated to be 57,000 tons.

Would the hon. Baronet say how many of these factories are owned by foreign capital?

Obviously, I could not answer that question without notice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the increase of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and the imposition of the Stand Still Order on movements of store cattle, he will state what further outbreaks have occurred during the weekend and make a full statement of number of outbreaks and the localities.

I have been asked to reply. Ten outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred during the week-end from 9 p.m. on Friday to 12 noon to-day. One of these (at Liddington, near Swindon) was in a free area and the remainder are in existing infected areas. Full particulars of the above cases, and a statement of the present infected areas with the number of outbreaks in each, are being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are now registered as unemployed, and how many as working consistently short time?

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed for the latest available date and the number for the corresponding period of last year?

I will, if I may, answer these questions together. At 2nd November the number of persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was l,207,612 as compared with 1,228,023 at 3rd November, 1924. Figures for persons on short time are not at present available, but I am considering whether arrangements can be made to obtain such figures without undue cost.

Does that figure include young persons who are not entitled to any benefit, although they may be registered at the Exchanges?

Yes, Sir.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is on chose figures that the Chancellor of the Exchequer bases his estimate that there are 200,000 more people in industry to-day?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Have these figures been arrived at after the numbers have been deducted of man excluded from unemployment insurance under the last Act?

These are the live register figures and they include all persons registered at the Employment Exchanges, whether in receipt of benefit or not.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain of his officers are telling people who are being refused benefit that it is no use registering?

I am not aware of it at all.

It is so.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the figures he has given indicate the success of a Tory Government in dealing with unemployment?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the state of unemployment needs further outlay by the State on assistance to relief works; and if the Government proposes to take such action and to what extent?

This is a matter to which the Government have given much attention, and I will have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary statement of measures approved under the various headings.

asked the Postmaster-General whether the negotiations for a site for the proposed new post office for Tottenham have been completed; and if ho can give an approximate date upon which building will be commenced?

The purchase of the site has been completed, and it is hoped that it may be practicable to commence the building during the next-financial year.

asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been sanctioned, are being built, and have been completed under the Housing Acts of 1923 and of 1924, respectively?

On the 1st instant the position under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 was as follows:—

Will the hon. Gentleman provide us with the figures of the houses to be let and to be sold?

Yea If the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, I will answer it.

I know you will.

asked the Minister of Health the total number of houses erected to date, with State assistance, under the various Housing Acts, showing separate totals for those built by local authorities and those by private enterprise.

With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table, giving the full information he requires, but I may say that the total number of houses erected with State assistance since the War is 344,274, of which 212,458 have been built by local authorities and 131,816 by private enterprise.

Is the Minister satisfied with the rate of progress and the augmentation of labour in the building trade?

I do not express complete satisfaction, but certainly very considerable progress has been made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the latest information as to the progress of the negotiations in the matter of the security pact?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the negotiations for a mutual guarantee pact with France, Belgium, and Germany; and if he is in a position to make any statement as to the intentions and views of the Dominions and India?

I will, with the hon. Members' permission, answer these questions together. Since notice was given of these questions, the treaties themselves have been circulated as a Command Paper. It will, I hope, be accepted as convenient that I should reserve my explanations for Wednesday's Debate.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say in the meantime whether the Dominions have decided to become parties to the Pact?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of Stale for Foreign Affairs whether any communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Dominions and of foreign countries regarding the extent and possible effect of the exemption of the Dominions and India from obligations under the Locarno Pact, and whether copies of any such communications will be in the hands of Members of this House before the discussion of Wednesday next.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave this afternoon to Questions 18 and 20, and ask him to be good enough to await Wednesday's Debate.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if those communications have passed, we shall not be discussing the matter in ignorance of a vital point?

I do not think any communications have passed which are of importance to the discussion by the House which are not already in the hands of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as regards the Shanghai disturbances last May?

As regards the facts, I cannot add anything to the statements already made in the House until the report of the International Judicial Commission appointed by the Ministers of the Treaty Powers at Peking has been received and considered. That Commission, composed of an American Judge who acts as Chairman, a British and a Japanese Judge, opened a public inquiry at Shanghai on the 7th October. Having concluded the taking of evidence, the Commission adjourned sine die on the 27th October, in order to prepare its report.

Why were not the people principally interested—the Chinese —themselves represented on the Court?

Because the Chinese Government did not choose to nominate a representative.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the work of the Reparation Committee has now been concluded; whether further moneys can be obtained in connection with ex-enemy war payments; and whether he can hold out hope of further grants being made cither to the most deserving cases or to those who have received nothing?

I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Royal Commission for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action. The Royal Commission issued its Final Report in February, 1924, but the payment of the awards it recommended is not yet completed, owing to delay in tracing claimants and securing from them the detailed particulars required. As has been frequently stated, the Government, after the fullest and most careful consideration, has decided that the amounts (totalling £5,300,000) already allocated to grants in respect of compensation must be regarded as final, and I can hold out no hope of this decision being reconsidered.

Have all the monies granted been paid out?

No, not yet.

In coming to this decision, had the Government in mind the definite pledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when Prime Minister, made to the merchant service, that their claims were a first charge upon any sums recovered from Germany?

I can only give the time honoured reply, that all the relevant factors are being considered.

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can make a statement regarding the working of the subvention scheme in aid of profits and wages in the coal industry, and, in particular, regarding its cost during the months of August. September, and, if possible, October?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the liability of the State to date in respect of the coal subsidy; and whether he can give any estimate of the total amount now anticipated as likely to be payable by the taxpayer?

The cost of the subvention to the end of October is estimated to amount to about £6,000,000. A Supplementary Estimate will shortly be before the House and a full statement will then be made.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say for what amount the Supplementary Estimate will be?

No, Sir. Obviously it will have to be left until the Supplementary Estimate is presented.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Civil Research Committee has completed its inquiries into the iron and steel industry; and what action the Government intends to take in connection with this?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, no action is possible until the views of the Committee of Civil Research have been communicated to the Cabinet.

Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate when it is expected to reach a decision?

I do not think it will be very long now.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give a day for a discussion on the position of the iron and steel trade?

I cannot make any statement on this subject until the Government have received the views of the Committee of Civil Research.

asked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, what recommendations in reference to next year's Estimates are under consideration by the Cabinet?

asked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to effect economies in national expenditure?

The Estimates for 1926–27 are under consideration by His Majesty's Government with a view to effecting all possible economies, but I must ask hon. Members to await the publication of the Estimates, as it is not possible at the present stage to make any announcement.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount and nature of the extra charges on the National Revenue which have been incurred to date since the presentation of his Budget statement last spring, and which were not provided for in that Estimate?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Supplementary Estimates laid before Parliament last Session to the total of £10,615,000 (House of Commons Papers 145. 150, 151 and 159 of 1925).

asked the Prime Minister when he will be in a position to inform the House of the decision of the Government in regard to the electricity scheme?

Although the examination of this intricate subject is proceeding, it has not yet reached such a stage as to enable me to announce the Government's proposals.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that some statement on the matter will be made before the House rises at the end of the year?

I hope it may be possible. I will not go beyond that at the moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the cause of this extraordinary delay, seeing that months ago he said he felt almost sure that he would be in a position to make a statement before the House rose for the last Recess?

The extraordinary delay is due to the extraordinary complexity of the subject.

asked the Prime Minister what measures mentioned in the King's Speech it is not intended to proceed with.

The only Measures in the Speech from the Throne which it will be impossible, owing to the pressure on Parliamentary time, to carry through during the present Session are the following:

Does that answer mean that the Factory Acts Amendment Bill is dropped?

It is dropped for this Session.

Oh!

asked the Prime Minister what decision has been arrived at as to payment of the new entrants to the Army, Navy and Air Force?

The new rates of pay for new entrants to the Army, Navy and Air Force have already been published. They are to be found in Army Orders 366 and 367, Admiralty Fleet Orders 2858 and 2859 and Air Ministry Weekly Orders 604 and 605, respectively, copies of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this new system initiated by the Government of paying men who are working side by side different rates of pay is bound to produce most harmful results and would not be tolerated by any trade union?.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government is prepared to reopen the consideration of the claim of naval officers for marriage allowances?

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great hardship existing in the families of naval officers; and can he hold out any hope that this question will be reconsidered in the lifetime of the present Government?

The matter was considered with very great care.

Is this final?

Yes.

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to grant, at an early date, time for a discussion on their decision to discontinue the use of Pembroke as an active Naval dockyard and to reduce it to a care and maintenance basis.

It is too early at the moment to say whether an opportunity can be found for this discussion.

Can the Prime Minister say whether discharges will be discontinued until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the matter?

My hon. Friend must see that on the first day of the meeting of Parliament the answer I have given is the only one possible. There will be a number of subjects which can be debated, and a few days must elapse before the Government have had time to see how far they will be able to gratify the wishes of Members.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say now exactly what the position of the Government is, seeing that it has been varied once or twice during the Recess?

I am afraid that would lead to a speech. The matter has been published very fully, and if the hon. Member desires any further information, I would suggest that he put down a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Is it a fact that the Government have come to a definite decision?

Could the Prime Minister not arrange to hold up these discharges for a few days, until he is able to make a definite decision. Cannot I have an answer to my question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"]

The hon. Member, when he has been longer in the House, will realise that it is not unusual to wait for two or three questions on the same subject in order that a Minister may reply to them together and save time. My answer to the question he has just asked has been made.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he considers is the value of our principle of representative government if a decision may be reached on such an important subject—

Mr. Hurd. [See col. 11—Locarno Pact—Mr. Hurd's private notice. Question.]

asked the Prime Minister whether the Economy Committee presided over by Lord Chalmers has yet made any recommenda- tions; and, if not, whether he can state what progress has been made in their inquiries?

I have received a communication from Lord Colwyn's Committee on the reduction of expenditure in the fighting services, which indicates that the Committee are actively engaged on their task. I am unable to make any further statement for the moment.

Will the full report of this Committee be published?

I do not think so. It is a report to the Government.

Is this Committee empowered to propose any further reduction in the pay of the fighting services?

I think that has been settled.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he contemplates taking any action following the recent decision of the Bootle Education Committee, who have decided to make regulations that will not allow teachers any latitude in so far as religious teaching is concerned; and whether the printed regulations of the Bootle Council will be subject to his revision before such instruction operates?

The decision referred to by the hon. and gallant Member has not been communicated by the Authority to my Department, nor is my right hon. Friend aware of any reason why it should have been. He does not propose to take any action.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make a statement as to the claim of the British Government under Article 5 of the Irish Treaty?

I am not in a position at present to add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 6th July last.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make any statement as to the present position of the Mosul frontier dispute?

The question of the northern frontier of Iraq has been before the Council of the League of Nations, which, as the hon. Member is probably aware, referred certain judicial points to the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. The Permanent Court has not yet given a decision on the points referred to it, but it is hoped that the decision will he given before the end of the present month so that the Council of the League of Nations may resume its consideration of the question early in December.

Have the Government abandoned the intention of giving up this country by 1928?

We are not abandoning anything.

asked the Prime Minister if he will state what is the earliest date at which it is open to Great Britain to divest itself of responsibility for the Government of Iraq under the terms of the mandate it holds from the League of Nations?

The terms governing the responsibility of Great Britain in respect of Iraq were defined by the Decision of the Council of the League of Nations of the 27th September, 1924, the text of which was presented to Parliament as Command Paper 2317 in January last. Article 6 of that Decision provides that, in the event of Iraq being admitted to the League of Nations, the obligations assumed by His Majesty's Government will terminate. That is the juridical position as it stands to-day. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, important questions relating to Iraq, the decision of which must necessarily influence the policy of the Government, are now before the Council of the League of Nations. In the circumstances, I am unable to make any precise statement as to the date upon which Article 6 will become operative.

Then may I ask whether we are to understand that this country is not to be committed to a policy of practically policing, and being responsible for Iraq for 25 years after the completion of the present undertaking?

That matter has been considered, and will be considered by the Government, and, of course, this House will have an opportunity of expressing its views on the matter.

Are there any new circumstances arising in connection with Iraq that would warrant a departure from the Prime Minister's previously expressed views as to the evacuation of Iraq in three years?

No, I should say not, but, at the same time, it must be obvious, I think, to the House, that it is not very convenient to have leading questions on this matter put when the matter is sub judice, and upon the result we shall have to form our policy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those considerations did not preclude the Colonial Secretary from expressing his opinion?

Is this House to understand, that while the League of Nations is discussing any question in which this country is interested, we in this House are precluded from expressing a protest or any opinion on the matter?

If we are going to be muzzled, he has got to be muzzled, too.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts of arrears of Corporation Profits Tax now outstanding?

The approximate amount of Corporation Profits Tax in assessment (less arrears shown due to be remitted) at 31st October, 1925, was £13,500,000. The sum ultimately to be received by the Exchequer is. however, likely to fall substantially short of this figure.

What means is the right hon. Gentleman taking to obtain this money?

Every means which can suggest itself to the ingenuity of the Department, which is not usually accused of lacking in that respect.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend taking any legal action to enforce these payments?

The rights of the Crown will be enforced, so far as practicable, by whatever procedure may be necessary.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount, since 1st April, 1925, paid by Germany for Reparations; and what amount Great Britain has received?

The total amounts received during the seven months from 1st April, 1925, by the Agent-General for Reparation Payments in respect of the Dawes annuities (which cover all Allied claims against Germany arising out of the Peace Treaty, whether for reparations of otherwise) was 575,006,857 gold marks (£28,750,000). Of this, the total net amount paid by the Agent-General to or for the account of the British Empire was 95,919,201 gold marks (£4,796,000). Out of this amount about £3,000,000 represents receipts by the United Kingdom on account of reparation, the balance representing receipts on account of the Army of Occupation and Belgian war debt.

Could the right hon. Gentleman state what the expenses were in regard to collecting this money?

I should require notice of that question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied now that the statements he made in Dundee at the election in 1918 were absolutely false as to the amount that would be obtained from reparation?

The statements which I made in Dundee at that election have been singularly vindicated by the facts. The figure which I took it we should press for was £2,000,000,000 sterling.

What proportion, if any, of this money has been set aside to compensate the seamen for their sufferings in the War?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act; and what is the loss to date?

The total amount covered by the guarantees which the Treasury has expressed its willingness to give stood on the 30th September, allowing for schemes withdrawn, at £53,827,241, and the loss at £13,803.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of civil servants who joined the Forces during the War without permission, and who are now excluded from the provisions of the Sutton judgment?

I assume the hon. Member intends to refer to the Pidduck and other judgments of the Court of Appeal following the Sutton judgment. I am afraid that at this distance of time it is impossible to ascertain how many civil servants joined the Forces during the War without permission and are outside the provisions of those judgments, but the number would doubtless run into several hundreds.

Will the light hon. Gentleman undertake to consider any claims that men within this category have to make and be just enough to bring them within the scope of the judgments?

I have said that I could not ascertain how many there are.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to introduce legislation to give him further powers to enable him to deal more strictly with Communist propaganda?

The question is under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself, standing at that Box, stated last year, or last Session, that Communist propaganda was not illegal in this country?

It depends entirely on how it is carried out.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that I put a specific question to him, and he answered it quite specifically that it was not illegal to propagate Communism?

Could not the right hon. Gentleman revert to about 1697 to find another Act instead of introducing anything new?

So far as the first question is concerned, it entirely depends upon what particular Communist doctrines are propagated. I have often heard the hon. Member say he was not a Communist, but at times I think he is.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the question: "Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the advocacy of Communism is illegal," replied: "Obviously, if it had been, the hon. Member might find himself in custody"? This is a matter of very great importance, [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the very great importance of this question, whether he considers it quite fair to give a specific answer in that manner and then to prosecute people because they have been propagating Socialism?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies—

This is leading to an argument, which we cannot pursue at this stage.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the existence of certain Fascist and other organisations and societies organised as military armed forces similar to that known as the Ulster Volunteer Army which was established in Ireland during the years 1913–14 and supported by leading statesmen in this country; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Fascist and quasi-military bodies meet regularly for drill and other military exercise; that they inarch through the streets armed, attend meetings armed, and in a general manner act provocatively toward all who hold opinions different from their own; and has his attention been called to the fact that on 17th October a van carrying parcels of that day's issue of the "Daily Herald" was held up in the City of London by armed men, members of the British Fascisti, and that on the occasion when these men were before the City Justices, the learned Counsel, acting on behalf of the Public Prosecutor, withdrew the serious charges against the defendants and proceeded only to charge them with committing a breach of the peace; and will he inform the House on whose instructions the learned Counsel or Public Prosecutor acted; and, further, will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether instructions have been issued to the police that they may permit, without interference, the drilling and aiming of citizens by any groups of individuals or organisations who may deem it right to organise themselves into a volunteer army?

I am aware of the existence of certain Fascist and similar organisations, and of the fact that certain members have, from time to time, engaged in activities which everyone must deplore, but I have no information that they meet regularly for drill and other military exercises, or that they march through the streets or attend meetings bearing arms. Unauthorised meetings of persons for the purpose of being trained or of practising military exercises are prohibted by law, and no instructions have been issued to the police of the nature suggested in the last part of the question. The police are aware of their duty, and the law will be enforced without discrimination against any persons who infringe it.

May we ask when the law is going to be enforced?

I gave instructions some three or four weeks ago that equal justice should be meted out to all parties, and, on a suitable case being found, prosecution will be taken at once.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what kind of justice was being administered before three or four weeks ago?

Justice was being administered in the ordinary way.

Why did you send out the instructions, then?

May I ask if the same steps are being taken to find out what the Fascisti are doing as to find out what the Communists are doing?

My attention was called to the action of some of the Fascisti, and my instructions were that the same proceedings should be taken against them as against anybody else who broke the peace.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a young man about 18 years of age was carried out of a Conservative Club in the North of London, wounded during revolver practice? Evidently he had not been properly taught.

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the wide dissatisfaction amongst the public with the action taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions in connection with the case of the four National Fascists who admitted taking possession by force of a "Daily Herald" motor van and further with damaging the van; and whether in view of the serious danger that such action may destroy public confidence in the impartial administration of Justice he can give the House any explanation regarding the action of the Director of Public Prosecutions in this case?

Notice of this question was only received by me about noon to-day, and as my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General is engaged on public duties elsewhere, I have not had an opportunity of discussing the matter with him. I should be much obliged, therefore, if my right hon. Friend would be good enough to postpone his question until to-morrow.

Obviously, one must accede to such a request, which I quite appreciate, but I would ask in advance whether, in the absence of the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister will keep in mind, that whatever may be the answer conveyed by the Attorney-General, the feeling—and in my opinion the right feeling—of indignation in the country is such— Interruption]—because nothing would be so dangerous as the people of this country losing confidence in justice —he will give an opportunity for a full discussion of this question in this House?

May I ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the Magistrate in this case when he appeared to recommend that the prisoners should join the police force?

That had better follow the main question to-morrow.

May I ask you, Sir, on a matter of ruling, supposing we desire to take any action on account of the nature of the answer to be given to my right hon. Friend's question, will you then rule that by raising it in this way to-day, our rights have not been forfeited of asking you to give us, say, the Adjournment of the House?

In view of the Prime Minister's answer deferring the question, until to-morrow, I think any rights there may be should be equally good to-morrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any account from His Britannic Majesty's Consul in Syria as to the recent affairs in Damascus, and can he give the House any information as to the casualties due to the bombardment, losses suffered by British subjects, and the allegation that the panic among the Europeans was due to the action or inaction of the Consul?

I am in communication with the French Government on this subject, and trust that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to defer an answer to his question until I have received their reply.

I take it that the right hon. Gentleman has received no report from the Consul whom we have there?

I am in frequent communication with the Consul.

(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give a list of industries which have applied for import duties under the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, indicating applications successful, unsuccessful, and still under consideration?

I presume the hon. Member is referring to the new safeguarding of industries procedure which has been in operation since the early part of this year. Ten applications have been referred by the Board of Trade for enquiry by a committee. The reports of the inquiries in regard to lace and embroidery and to superphosphates were published some time ago, and a duty was imposed upon lace and embroidery in the last Finance Act. Inquiries are proceeding in regard to wrapping and packing paper, brooms and brushes, enamelled hollow-ware, cutlery, and worsted tissues. The committees on leather and fabric gloves and glove fabric, on gas mantles and on aluminium hollow-ware, have reported, but, as I stated on the 28th July, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), the Government do not consider that it would be in the public interest to publish the results of inquiries, whether in favour of a duty or not, until such time as they are prepared to introduce legislation in any case where it is decided to propose a duty to Parliament.