asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any and, if so, what decision has been reached in regard to the proposed sale of the League of Nations' secretariat premises?

The Secretary-General of the League was prepared to receive offers for the purchase of the site and buildings of the Secretariat up to the 15th of December last. No offer fulfilling the prescribed conditions was received up to that date, and the proposal to sell has lapsed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total expenditure which has been incurred by Great Britain, France and Italy, respectively, in connection with the maintenance of the League of Nations since its inception; what is the estimated annual cost of the International Court of Justice; whether any and, if so, what proportion of such cost will be borne by the United States of America; and what will be the share to be carried by this country?

The approximate totals of the contributions paid by Great Britain, France and Italy, respectively, towards the expenses of the League of Nations, since its inception, are as follows:

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United States are going to pay a proportion of that amount?

I do not know, Sir.

May I ask what proportion, or what sums, are to be contributed by the other members of the League?

Does The hon. Gentleman really expect I can answer that question without notice? He wants a whole series of figures relating to, I think, some 45 States.

May I be permitted to ask the Foreign Secretary this question, arising out of the answer—seeing that we are such good contributors to the League of Nations, from a monetary point of view, and that the Foreign Secretary, our representative there, is a very powerful inditidual—through us, not, through himself—has he yet made up his mind to extend the right hand of fellowship to the Soviet of Russia to line up with us and other nations?

That question does not arise out of the answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire if any communication has been received from Japan regarding the renewal of the present quadruple pact, dealing with the seal fishing areas, which terminates next December; and whether America is prepared to negotiate with the Soviet on this question?

The Japanese Government have expressed a desire to call a conference, to meet at a place to be agreed upon, to discuss the extension and modification of the Convention. The Convention does not necessarily terminate in December next, but it may then be terminated on 12 months' written notice being given by one of the contracting parties, which notice may be given at any time subsequent to the 15th December last. Further, it is agreed in the Convention that at any time prior to the termination of the Convention, upon the request of any one of the contracting parties, a conference will be held between representatives of all the parties to consider the question of a further extension of the instrument and any modification found desirable. I have no information on the point raised in the second part of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to secure payment of their claims for War damage on the part of British traders in Turkey; and when the distribution of dividend on such claims may be expected?

Claims for War damage suffered in Turkey are being dealt with by the Inter-Allied Commission appointed in accordance with the Convention of 23rd November, 1923 (Command Paper 2028). The Inter-Allied Commission have recently taken steps to accelerate their work, but I fear I cannot say when the Commission will be in a position to distribute a dividend, as this must depend on the progrese made in dealing with the large mass of claims.

Is it not the case that the Inter-Allied Commission have issued a Report on this matter, and, as a matter of fact, does not that put the possibility of payment very much nearer?

I think The hon. Member is mistaken.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the British Embassy in Turkey is to be transferred from Constantinople to Angora?

No, Sir. I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) on 22nd December last.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of a member of the Embassy staff being stationed at Angola?

The Ambassador himself has made frequent visits to Angora, and one of the high members of his staff is, I think, at this moment there, or about to proceed there, and at present that is as far as I am prepared to go.

Is the Embassy establishment at Therapia still being maintained?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of the Christian population in the vicinity but north of the Brussels line?

I regret that I am unable to furnish the information desired by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the approximate number of those Christians who have crossed into Iraq?

My memory is not of the kind that enables me ever to give figures without notice, but that is a question, I may add, which would be better addressed to the Colonial Secretary, as the Minister responsible for Iraq. Within Iraq, where we are the mandatory authority, we may have the figures, or be able to get them—I think we have them—but as to Turkish territory, I have not got the figures, and cannot get them.

Would it be right to assume that there is any considerable number of Christians immediately on the Turkish side of the border?

There certainly were. I do not know what it is proper to assume at this time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether agreement has been reached for the reduction of the numbers of the Allied troops in the occupied areas of Germany; and when a reduction may be expected?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present size of the armies of occupation in the Rhineland; to what figure are they to be reduced; and what will be the proportion of British, French and Belgian troops, respectively?

I will answer these questions together. The numbers of the armies of occupation are actually 74,500, or very close to that figure, but it is not the case, as stated in some newspapers a little time ago, that the Governments of the occupying Powers had decided to fix at or about this figure the total of the effectives in the second and third zones. In the note of the Conference of Ambassadors of the 14th November it was stated that the effectives would be considerably reduced, and that the reduction would be to a figure approaching the normal. This remains the policy of the occupying Powers, who are giving their attention to the various problems involved in it, with a view to giving effect to it by an appreciable reduction of the actual numbers when the Treaties of Locarno are ratified and the measures of amelioration already introduced into the régime of occupation have had their natural pacifying effect on the situation in the occupied territory.

I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but can I have an answer to the second part of my question—can he state when this reduction will begin?

I cannot more exactly define the time than I have already done in the insw er which I have just read.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question—as to the proportion of the troops?

I am very sorry that I overlooked that, and I am afraid I have not the figures with me, but roughly there are 60,00 French, 8,000 British, and the remainder Belgian.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in the negotiations as to the righ; of civil flying over German territory?

The German Government have agreed to continue the present system up to 31st March. What is to happen after that date is under consideration.

Will negotiations as to the air clauses of the Treaty continue to be carried on by the Conference of Ambassadors, or will it pass under the competence of the League of Nations?

I think that, until they have been carried further than at present, they cannot possibly pass to the League of Nations.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the two block ships sunk at the western entrance of Dover harbour during the War are to be removed in order to enable vessels, under all conditions, to enter the harbour with safety; whether a promise was made when the ships were sunk that on the conclusion of hostilities they would be removed; and what has been the reason for allowing this danger to shipping to remain until now?

The naval harbour at Dover, including the two ships sunk adjoining the western entrance, was transferred by the Dover Harbour Act, 1923, to the local Harbour Board. These ships are considered to be more of an assistance to navigation than a danger, and no suggestion that their removal is advisable has been received from the Dover Harbour Board. No promise was made that these ships would be removed at the conclusion of hostilities.

If representations are made with regard to the danger to navigation, will the Admiralty assist in removing those ships?

I should like to consider any suggestions of that kind which my hon. and gallant Friend has to make.

Is not the question of filling up the gap by the Dover Harbour Board now under discussion?

First of all, it is a matter for the Dover Harbour Board, and until they make representations to us, I do not think I can take any action.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much gold was recovered from the wreck of the "Laurentic" through the agency of Admiralty divers; what was the total period occupied in these operations and at what cost; and what payment was made to the officers and men concerned other than their ordinary pay for having carried out this task without loss of life or material?

The total value of the gold recovered was £4,958,708 13s. 9d. The operations were carried out during the spring and summer months of the years 1917 and 1919 to 1924, and cost approximately £128,000, including a bonus to the officers and men concerned. The total amount of the bonus, which was paid in addition to ordinary pay, extra pay for diving, etc., was £6,739 3s. 4d.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what steps have been taken to secure work other than armament work for the shops and yards at Rosyth and Pembroke in order to make use of the machinery and plant in those places, and so prevent the men and women now in the service of the Admiralty being thrown out of work?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any scheme was submitted to him for utilisation on other work of the dockyards proposed to be closed; if so, whether he can state the nature of the scheme or schemes considered, and the reason why it was not accepted; and, if no scheme has been considered, whether he will suspend the closing of those yards until every avenue of alternate use has been explored?

The Admiralty are willing to consider suitable proposals for the use of the two yards for private enterprise. The conditions on which Pembroke Yard can be leased were given in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke on 4th February, and similar conditions for Rosyth Dockyard will be arranged if any substantial proposals for its use are received. I may add that no proposals for utilising either of the two yards have been declined by the Admiralty.

Will the hon. Gentleman reply to my question as to whether any steps have been taken to provide work for these yards?

I think that is answered by the reply I have given. We are willing to assist private enterprise which is willing to use the yards.

I have not asked about private enterprise, but I asked if the Admiralty took any steps to find work for this valuable machinery and plant to be engaged upon work other than armament work.

No, Sir.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, if public enterprise is the best thing to provide battleships, it is a bad thing to provide other things?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the small boat in which the late Lord Kitchener and the late Colonel Fitzgerald left the "Hampshire" on 5th June, 1916, has been purchased by a private individual; and whether this boat can be acquired by the Admiralty as a national relic?

I should be obliged if The hon. and gallant Member would repeat his question in a week's time, when I hope the inquiries I am making will be completed.

Is this a part of the Government's economy scheme?

I have not given any answer as to what the Government propose to do.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will inquire into the case of Chief Cook J. Young, who served 23 years' continuous service, including the War, and was discharged to shore without pension on the grounds that he was an alien, his place of birth having been put down by the recruiting officer as Mobile, United States of America, while J. Young claims he was born in Nassau, Bahamas?

I note that James Young now claims to have been born at Nassau, Bahamas. According to his declaration on entry into the Naval Service he was born in Alabama, U.S.A. He later submitted a sworn statement that he was born near Montreal, Canada, but was a subject of the United States of America and the son of subjects of the United States.

Was this man informed that he would have to be naturalised in 1904?

I cannot say.

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is rather late, after a long service of 23 years, and all through the War, that a man should be refused a pension.

This man must have known in 1904 that, unless he was a British subject, he could not have a pension.

Having regard to the very arduous and important duties that this particular man has performed, could the hon. Gentleman not give consideration to this as a special case?

We have asked him to prove his British birth.

How can he, if he cannot?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Interport Naval Welfare Conference will be held at Plymouth this year; and, if so, when an announcement can be expected?

The Welfare Conferences will be held this year, and the Central Port meetings will take place at Plymouth. The orders will probably be issued within the next few weeks.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the total number of naval ratings invalided between the 1st January, 1925, and 31st December, 1925.; the number whose disability was considered by the surveying boards to be not attributable to service; the number of men whose disability was not considered to be due to service, and who have questioned this decision and appealed to the Admiralty; and the percentage of these appellants who have derived benefit from such appeal?

The total number of naval ratings invalided between 1st January, 1925, and 31st December, 1925, was 1,474, and the number whose disability was considered by the surveying boards to be not attributable to the service was 1,397. I regret that particulars as to the number of men who appeal are not recorded.

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons are unemployed in the steel industry of the United Kingdom?

The number of insured persons recorded as unemployed in Great Britain on 25th January, classified as belonging to the industrial group "steel melting and iron puddling furnaces, iron and steel rolling mills and forges," was 44,137.

Is the Minister aware that, although he finds so many unemployed in the iron and steel trade, the production is greater to-day than it was in 1913?

Yes, Sir, I am quite well aware of the capacity of the industry.

Does the answer mean that there are 44,000 victims of Free Trade?

asked the Minister of Labour the amount of relief work at present in course of construction under schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee; and the amount of grants towards the same, and similar figures, for a year ago?

I regret that information precisely in the form asked for in this question is not available. The number of men employed on schemes assisted through the Unemployment Grants Committee was 33,280 on 31st December, 1925, as compared with 38,605 a year previously. The gross estimated cost of schemes sanctioned during the four months 1st October to 31st January was £7,250,000 in 1925–6, as compared with £4,269,000 in 1924–5.

Arising out of those reduced figures, may I ask the Minister if he will authorise the Unemployment Grants Committee to make grants not less than those of last year in those districts where unemployment has increased.

I do not think that this question can really be dealt with, if I may say so, in the form of question and answer. There is a Supplementary Estimate coming on, on which I imagine it could be raised, but, broadly speaking, the position is that the Unemployment Grants Committee can consider two cases namely, where the application is a definite anticipation of work for the future, and also where unemployment is excessive.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the recent Regulations governing the administration of extended benefit have operated so as to throw a large number of the unemployed on to Poor Law relief and thus increased the local rates; and can he see his way to modify these Regulations in view of the already heavy burden of local rates?

I presume the hon. Member refers to the rules made under Section 1 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1925. I am not aware that these rules have resulted in throwing a large number of persons on to the Poor Law, and I do not see how that could happen, since cases of hardship are expressly excluded from the operation of the rules.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for the quarter ending in September, as compared with the quarter ending in March, the amount paid to unemployed persons by way of Poor Law relief increased by well over £100,000?

I am quite well aware of the increase in the amount spent on Poor Law relief, and, as a matter of fact, I am at this moment trying to analyse the causes, in order to get as near accuracy as I can as to the different reasons which probably contribute. I have only said in my answer that I do not think the Regulations about which the hon. Member asks have in themselves much bearing on the matter. It is due, I think, principally to other causes, but I do not like to say anything about it until the inquiries we are making at, this moment are complete.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one district alone in East London the effect of these Regulations has been to put £2,000 a week on to the expenditure of one board of guardians?

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement made by the chairman of the board of guardians of Sunderland, in which he said that the action of the Ministry will make their Poor Rate five times as much as it was before?

I cannot call to mind that particular statement; if the hon. Member will give me the figures for any particular case, I will gladly go into them. I do not want to mislead hon. Members opposite, and, therefore, I would ask them just to concentrate upon what the question really was. It was with regard to the rules made under my discretion, and my answer only referred to those rules. As regards those rules, I feel fairly clear in my own mind; I do not think that those rules and regulations have had a great deal to do with the matter.

Will the Minister, in attempting to analyse these figures, carefully pay attention to the fact that when these Regulations were abolished Poor Law relief went down, and when they were re-introduced it went up?

I am perfectly well aware of the statement that my right hon. Friend has made, and, if he will inquire into it, he will find that, while there was quite undoubtedly a fall in the amount of Poor Law relief owing to the changes in 1924, it is far more probable that that was due to the actual amount of the relief given per head, which has not been changed. Anyone who is really conversant with this very difficult question knows that a change of a, shilling or two in the amount of the rate causes a transference from unemployment benefit to Poor Law relief, and vice versa. It is difficult to deal with the matter by supplementary questions; it is really a matter for a Debate.

rose—

I think it would be better to deal with this matter in Debate.

May I ask you a question, Sir? Would it be in order, seeing the urgency of this question, for any Member to move the Adjournment of the House upon it, seeing that it is a question of very urgent public importance?

This is a matter which, unfortunately, has been before the House for three years at least.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the six months course of training for young unemployed men at Claydon and other centres has so far proved a success; what is the number of candidates selected for the course; how many applications have been received; and whether he intends to increase the number of such training centres?

I am glad to be able to say that excellent progress is being made with the training of young unemployed men at the training centres. The total number of men selected as suitable for training is 2,013, and the number of applications received exceeds 5,000. The scheme is in the nature of an experiment, and, at present, it is not proposed to increase the number of centres.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say by what process candidates are selected for these courses?

Applications are made, and the cases are reviewed by officials of the Exchanges; and, in the case of residential centres where training is given for possible work overseas, the cases are again examined by the Dominion authorities, in order to make quite sure that they will be allowed to go there, before they go to the centres for training.

Can the Minister say how many of these young men have been found work after their training?

The training as yet has only proceeded for half its time, but in regard to Birmingham, I may say—I am speaking from memory, and, therefore, my figures may not be exact—that, roughly speaking, out of about 400 in the Birmingham training centre, although the training was originally intended to be for six months, about 150 have found work already.