asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a system of profit-sharing has been put into operation by the Sudan Plantation Syndicate and whether the native share of such proceeds is paid to the chiefs or to the actual workers in connection with the cotton-growing farms?

Yes, Sir. Under the terms of the syndicate's concession, 40 per cent. of the proceeds realised by the sale of the cotton crop is paid to the actual tenant cultivators.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire what steps he is taking to improve the relations between this country and Russia; and whether he is now prepared to enter into negotiations with a view to the settlement of outstanding questions between Great Britain and Russia?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 9th December of last year, and to that given to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Bryant) on the 10th February, 1926.

Are we to understand the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing since previous questions on this subject?

I have done nothing since the date of those questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many concessions have been given by the Soviet Government to British companies that were in existence before 1920, beyond that granted to Lena Goldfields; and whether the giving of any such concessions involves any restitution of confiscated property to the original owners?

As far as I am aware, the only concessions granted to any British companies, which were in existence prior to 1920, other than the Lena Goldfields, are those given to the Ayan Corporation and the Priamur Syndicate. My information is that such concessions are granted for a term of years, at the end of which the enterprises must be handed over to the Soviet Government in working order.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the Report on Foreign Affairs, by M. Zinovieff, at the opening recently of the Communist International Conference, in which he urged the intensification of Communist activities in this country, with the object of promoting the revolutionary overthrow of the present constitutional system of government; whether the adoption of this attitude on the part of a leading representative of the Union of Soviet Republics is accepted by the Government as in accord with the obligation accepted by Russia in the Trading Agreement with this country; and, if not, whether it is intended to make official representations on the matter?

I have seen the report which has appeared in our own Press of M. Zinovieff's speech. I do not gather that his animosity to the existing organisation of society in this country is any stronger than his dislike of the conditions prevailing in all other civilised communities, nor can I bring myself readily to believe that our people afford a favourable field for propaganda of this character. I do not propose to make any representations to the Soviet Government on this speech. Any measures which are thought necessary for the protection of society here will, of course, be taken by the competent authorities.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman not been drawn to the fact that this country and China were singled out as the two countries in which the propaganda might be utilised for the benefit of Socialism and Communism?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, is it not the case that there are certain individuals in this House who fear that if anything is done in regard to Russia they will lose their hunters?

I think my hon. and gallant Friend has seen a briefer report than the one I have myself read. Although there was special attention drawn to them, this country and China were not the only countries mentioned in the report I saw. I think we can defend ourselves, and our own community, and we need not attach undue importance to utterances of this kind, though as a contributing factor in international relations they must be considered.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise the danger of the large credits which are available to the Soviet Government under the Trading Agreement, and which can be used for subversive propaganda in this country?

I do not know what large credits are available to the Soviet Government under the Trading Agreement.

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there is no ground in this country for the carrying on of this propaganda, will he make suitable representations to the Home Secretary?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the difficulty being experienced by British residents in France in procuring licences for wireless receiving sets; and, in view of the desire of many such residents to keep in touch with English events, will he make representation to the French Government in order to bring about some modification of their existing Regulations as affecting English residents desiring licences?

Having no information on the subject, I made inquiries of His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, who reports that, although no formal complaints have been received, the difficulties referred to by the hon. Member do in fact exist. I will see that the matter is taken up with the French Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what advantage there is to this country in retaining the British Embassy in Constantinople while the seat of government of the Turkish Republic is at Angora; and whether there is any intention of removing the British Embassy to Angora?

There is no present intention of abandoning the Embassy at Constantinople. The absence of accommodation and the general conditions of life at Angora make that at present impossible.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say if it is not a fact that Turkey is the only country in the world to keep an Ambassador in a town which is not the caiptal?

I do not think the circumstances are exactly reproduced anywhere else, but, as I stated the other day, the Ambassador makes frequent visits to Angora, and I think the First Secretary of the Embassy will shortly proceed there.

Have the Turkish Government made any request that the Ambassador should be at Angora?

I think before I answer a question of that kind I had better refresh my memory as to what has taken place.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the advisability of sending to Angora one of Lord Weir's houses?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware, in the case of an infringement of a trade mark in Turkey, that the British firm whose trade mark has been infringed has been condemned by the Turkish Courts on account of non-domicile in Turkey; that this decision is a breach of the Industrial Property Convention to which Turkey adhered as from 10th October, 1925; that the attention of the Foreign Office has been drawn to this matter at intervals spread over 12 months; that since this time the export of certain varieties of British cotton yarns to Turkey has been and continues to be seriously curtailed, with consequent financial loss to the country; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this injury to British commercial interests?

Yes, Sir. The statement of the case regarding the particular British firm to which I presume the question refers is, in the main, accurate. The decision in question was given by a Turkish Court of First Instance, and I understand that steps are being taken to appeal against it. In these circumstances diplomatic action would at present be premature, but His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople and His Majesty's Consul-General at Smyrna are in close touch with the local representative of the firm, and may be relied on to take any proper measures to safeguard its interests in this matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable losses have occurred, amounting to thousands of pounds, due to the infringement of this valuable safeguard; is he aware that these losses are occurring day by day, and have been continuing for the past 12 months; does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has now arrived that definite action should be taken; and is it not a fact that the matter is not only one of importance to the cotton trade, but to other trades as well?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been any conference by cable between London, Washington, Paris, Tokyo and Home with regard to a suggestion for armed intervention in China; and, if so, with what result?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the external loans placed in Britain of the Chinese Government that are in default?

The following are the loans in default: Canton-Kowloon Railway Loan, 1907. Tientsin-Pukow Railway Loan, 1908. Tientsin-Pukow Railway Supplementary Loan, 1910. Hukuang Railways Loan, 1911. Shanghai-Fengching Railway Mortgage Redemption Loan, 1914. 496 8 per Cent. Sterling Treasury Notes (Vickers Loan). 8 per Cent. Treasury Notes (Marconi Loan).

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received of the circumstances in which the British schooner "Eastwood" was bombarded off the New Jersey coast by the United States cutter "Seneca"; and whether he has taken, or will take, any action to ensure respect for British merchant shipping?

I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press, but I have requested His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to make inquiries of the United States Government and to furnish me with a Report.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's information in this matter point to the British vessel being engaged in any illicit trading?

I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the Press, from which it would appear that the vessel was engaged in rum running.

Would the right hon. Gentleman keep in recollection in these negotiations what the "Alabama" incident cost this country?

I cannot see any connection between the two.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in the proposals made by the Turkish Government to His Majesty's Government in March of last year for a peaceful settlement of the Mosul question, it was stated how much of the vilayet of Mosul would satisfy the Turkish demands; whether any particular British company was mentioned by the Turkish Government as being acceptable for the development of the oil resources of the territory in question or whether His Majesty's Government were offered a free hand in this matter; whether the Iraq Government was consulted with reference to these offers from the Turkish Government; and, if so, what was their reply?

Yes, Sir, approximately two-thirds of the Mosul Vilayet were to be returned to Turkey. I abstain from giving the actual geographical description of the proposed frontier as it consists of a long list of names only to be found on a large scale map. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is that the exploitation of oil was to be granted to an English group to be approved by the British Government. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the forgery of notes in Hungary has been the subject of communications between the Foreign Office and any foreign Government; and whether His Majesty's Government will consider the desirability of bringing, or agreeing to bring, the subject under the notice of the League of Nations on account of the bearing it has upon the financial relations between the Hungarian Government and the League?

As in the case of most questions affecting international relations, the matter has been the subject of discussions with the representatives of the countries directly concerned. At present I see no reason for action of the kind suggested in the latter part of the question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can yet inform this House of the attitude he has been instructed to adopt at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of the League of Nations on, the subject of a further increase of the permanent membership of the Council beyond the admission of Germany?

His Majesty's Government have not as yet decided their course of action.

Is it not the fact that the extraordinary Session of the Council of the League of Nations was called to deal exclusively with the question of the admission of Germany?

No, Sir; that is not the fact.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which foreign countries make a practice of charging British commercial travellers fees for doing business in their respective lands; what is the amount of the fees charged and how long they have been in operation; and, seeing that no fee is charged to foreign commercial travellers visiting Great Britain, will he cause representations to be made with a view of obtaining reciprocity in these matters?

I have been asked to reply. The first two parts of the question can hardly be dealt with within the scope of a Parliamentary answer; and, with my hon. Friend's permission, I will send him a statement giving him the desired information. With regard to the last part of the question, I do not think that representations by His Majesty's Government on the ground suggested would induce other Governments to forego taxes on British travellers, which are imposed on foreign travellers generally.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the annual cost of the Admiralty yacht "Enchantress" when paid off and in order to keep her efficient; what is her monthly cost when commissioned; whether it is proposed to commission her this year; and, if so, for what purpose?

The annual cost of upkeep of His Majesty's ship "Enchantress" on a care and maintenance basis is £6,493, but of this figure £4,833 represents expenditure on the pay, allowances, etc., of naval personnel provided for war services, who are made use of in peace to look after the vessel. The net ex- penditure directly due to the maintenance of this ship is therefore £1,660 per annum. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's ship "Enchantress" is now practically never commissioned for so long as a month at one time, and it is hardly feasible, therefore, to give the figures asked for. The extra cost involved in commissioning the ship amounts to the differences in allowances for certain officers, consumption of stores, electric light, etc., His Majesty's ship "Enchantress" was recently commissioned on the occasion of the Board inspection of the naval establishment at Portsmouth; she has since paid off, and nothing has as yet been arranged for her use during the rest of the year.

In view of the limited use made of this vessel, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of getting rid of it altogether as a matter of economy?

I am always ready to consider any offer that may be made.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any new and improved device whereby a submarine may make its position known in the event of its being sunk has been fitted to submarines since the loss of the M1; and whether experiments have been made with any new device?

The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. No device has yet been invented which improves upon the existing arrangements of which I gave some particulars to the hon. and gallant Member in my reply of 19th November last.

Since that date have no experiments whatever been made?

We have made our own experiments on suggestions made to us; other suggestions have either been considered before or are not considered of sufficient value to go to the expense of experiments.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the housing conditions in the town of Devonport; and whether his Department has any policy in contemplation for the proper accommodation of their own employes, particularly those who are arriving from Rosyth with furniture which, owing to the shortage of houses, they will be obliged to store?

The Admiralty are aware of the housing situation at Devonport. The men transferred from Rosyth and Pembroke to Devonport will have to make their own arrangements regarding accommodation, and if they are unable to obtain houses will, no doubt, go into lodgings and store their furniture. The Admiralty will, however, pay allowances on account of the additional expense to which such men are put.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on a previous occasion the First Lord stated that the Admiralty would have regard to the housing accommodation before sending the men there, and he appears to be going back on that? Consequently there is a great deal of misery being caused to the population?

I am afraid I cannot accept that.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the people being transferred from Rosyth find it impossible, because of the size of their families, to get proper lodgings; and what steps are the Admiralty taking in this matter of securing housing accommodation for the sake of the children?

Would the hon. Gentleman consider erecting some of the Weir houses down there?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of people employed by the Admiralty at Malta, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Simonstown, Bermuda, and Trincomali in January, 1924, January, 1925, and January, 1926?

I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May I ask whether there has been an increase or a decrease?

If the hon. Member were in any way influenced by the closing would like to know that examines the figures, he will see there has been both.

I now.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these figures

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the evidence taken by and the report of the court of inquiry into the loss of the "Hampshire" has been published?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the late Lord Long in 1920 invited Sir George Arthur to read a secret or unpublished report on the sinking of the "Hampshire" on the understanding that he would not divulge a word of it to anybody, and that under such conditions Sir George Arthur declined to accept Lord Long's invitation; whether the secret report referred to is now in the possession of the Admiralty; and whether there is any objection from the point of view of public interest to its publication?

I will, with the hon. Members' permission, answer these questions together.

As has been previously stated on many occasions in answer to similar questions in this House, there are valid objections to the publication of the reports of Naval Courts of Inquiry, which is the nature of the document in question. That the then First Lord offered in 1920 to show the report in confidence to Lord Kitchener's former secretary is, I believe, a fact, but it does not detract from the importance attached to the inviolability of such reports.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he has

were in any way influenced by the closing of the dockyards at Rosyth and Pembroke, and whether any men are being given offers of employment at these other places?

I should require notice of that.

Following are the figures promised:

given is directly contradictory to one which was given last week, in which it was said the Admiralty had published all the information at their disposal? Having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has now said, will he further consider the publication of the information at their disposal?

With regard to the publication of the report of the court of inquiry, I do not think I can do better than refer the hon. Gentleman to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 1st April, 1919, when Mr. Bottomley asked a similar question and it was answered by Dr. Macnamara, who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. I cannot improve upon the answer he gave as to the reasons for not publishing the report of the court of inquiry. With regard to the question of any discrepancy between this answer and one given previously, I am unable to see that there can be any. What was said before was that the information at our disposal, which arose partly from the report of the court of inquiry, had been given to the public. It was never stated that the evidence or the full report had been published.

Is not the evidence part of the information at the disposal of the Admiralty?

I have given the information at our disposal, but we did not publish the report of the court of inquiry.

Is it not the case, as stated explicitly by the writer of the articles that are causing these questions, that he has been approached in the House of Commons by an emissary of the Government, making the same offer of showing the document, but under the strict condition that he would not make it public, and that he has stated that he will certainly make public everything that he knows?

Well, Sir, I should be very sorry to be responsible for what the writer of those articles has stated, but I am not aware that he even said he had been offered that opportunity.

I will be able to show it to you.

I rather think the hon. Gentleman is confusing him with Sir George Arthur, who is quoted in the article in question, and who is the person referred to in this answer. I have not had any application from anybody to look at the report.

It is not a question of an application by the writer of the article. I am asking, is it not the case that an emissary of the Government approached the writer of the articles offering to show this document on the strict condition that publication would not be made?

Well, he certainly never had my permission to do so. If anybody did it, I never heard of it before, and I certainly should not have given my permission.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the economies which have been made in the strength of the Fleet, it is still proposed to continue the expenditure at Singapore?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any substantial expenditure falls upon the taxpayers in respect of the newly-formed Royal Naval Benevolent Trust?

No, Sir; but I may point out that the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust is only one of many items which have been added to the administrative work of the Admiralty in recent years.

Might I ask, in that case, whether there are no costs of administration?

My information is that there are practically none.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will confer with technical experts in his Department in regard to the existing 76,000 items of stores compared with the number of 33,000 items in 1914, with a view to the adoption of such an amount of standardisation as would reduce the present figure?

The question of standardisation is always borne in mind when considering the introduction of new patterns of stores into the Admiralty service, with a view to reducing as much as possible the number of different descriptions of stores maintained in stock. The increase in the number of items of stores as compared with that in 1914 is due to the development of additional technical and scientific equipment, and the manifold needs of the modern war vessel of every type in the present-day fleets.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why the salt pork and pea soup ration of naval ratings has been abolished; whether he is aware that on the occasions when this ration was issued to the men it was appreciated as a welcome change of diet; and, seeing that naval ratings do not wish the ration abolished or restricted, will he say on whose advice the rations are to be discontinued, and if the lower deck was consulted?

The removal of salt pork from Navy rations is a natural result of the increased facilities which exist, under present-day conditions, for the issue of fresh and frozen meat; and on the rare occasions on which recourse is necessary to substitutes, tinned meats, both on grounds of economy and palatability, are to be preferred. The opinions obtained from the Fleet, both at home and abroad, were overwhelmingly in favour of abolishing the salt pork ration.

Did those opinions come from the ower deck or from the officers? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the men prefer salt pork, and especially the pea-soup ration?

Our information is entirely in the contrary sense.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what economies have been effected by these changes in the diet?

It is not an economy, but it is a much pleasanter food for the sailors.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to state the number of naval ratings who were invalided during the period 1st January to 31st December, 1925, with tuberculosis; and how many of the cases were considered to be attributable to service?

The total number of ratings invalided for tuberculosis in 1925 was 217; of these, three were found to be attributable to the Service.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of engineer lieutenant-commanders and engineer lieutenants borne in His Majesty's Navy; and how many of these officers served as engine-room artificers before promotion to warrant or commissioned rank?

The numbers are: 55 engineer lieut.-commanders and 172 engineer-lieutenants, of whom 42 and 169, respectively, served as engine-room artificers before promotion to warrant or commissioned rank.

asked the Minister of Labour whether any Regulations have been issued prohibiting the payment of standard benefit to single men and women under 25 years of age living with their parents, and to men whose wives are working or to wives whose husbands are working; and, if so, whether he will have copies of the Regulations placed in the Library for the information of Members?

No such Regulations have been issued. The hon. Member, perhaps, has in mind the rules in L.E.C. 82/17 issued last August, but these apply only to extended benefit.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed on State-aided schemes of work during the week ending the 13th February, 1926; and the number so employed for the same period last year?

Returns of men engaged on State-aided schemes of work are received monthly. The number of men employed on the 30th January, 1926, was 104,953, and on the 31st January, 1925, was 109,399. These figures take no account of the employment provided indirectly, e.g., in the preparation and transport of materials.

asked the Minister of Labour how many applications for extended benefit have been made at the Lincoln Employment Exchange since the 1st October, 1925; the number of such claims that have been refused; the number that have been granted; and the number under consideration at the latest convenient date?

The total number of applications for extended benefit considered by the local employment committee at Lincoln between 13th October, 1925, and 8th February, 1926, was 2,070, of which 1,824 were allowed, 221 were recommended for disallowance, and 25 were postponed for a definite period. At 8th February 75 cases were awaiting consideration. Figures relating to the period 1st to 12th October are not available.

asked the Minister of Labour whether any encouragement, or otherwise, is given to agricultural workers to take employment in the subsidised sugar-beet factories?

I understand that in order to avoid dislocation of the farming industry, on which the supply of beet depends, certain of the factories do not engage for their seasonal work agricultural labourers who are in permanent employment. Otherwise I am not aware that there is any encouragement or discouragement of the engagement of agricultural workers at these factories.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has no influence at all with these employers who attempt to differentiate between two classes of workers in the country?

Is it not the case that certain Exchanges have had orders not to refer men who apply to the sugar factories?

I have given no instruction of that kind to the Exchanges. I cannot dictate to employers who they should employ or who they should not employ, and if an employer puts a request in a particular form the local Exchanges endeavour to comply with it, if it is a proper request, and it seems to me, on the whole, a proper request to make that they should not take people away from permanent agricultural employment in order that they should be drafted into seasonal work in a factory. The case is a very difficult one.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that it is absolutely a new departure in modern practice that a Minister of the Crown should agree to this differentiation? It is against the whole principle of free labour.

I am asked to supply a certain kind of labour if I have got it, and I do my best to supply it.

asked the Minister of Labour how the figure for the live register compares with last year, having regard to the effect, if any, upon it of the last Unemployment Act and of any administrative action or regulations subsequent to that Act?

The latest figure for the live register was that for 15th February, and amounted to 1,139,300 as compared with 1,239,796, which was the figure for 16th February, 1925. It is not possible to make a precise adjustment for the factors to which the hon. Member alludes, but as far as I can tell the reduction in the figures owing to these factors does not exceed 15,000 as a maximum, and probably is not more than 10,000, if as much.

Can the Minister of Labour give the figures for the same date in 1924, when the conditions were comparable?

I will give the right hon. Gentleman those figures if he will put down a question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the data on which he bases those figures?

I asked for an inquiry to assist me in reaching as accurate an estimate as the circumstances allow. The calculations are too lengthy to come within the scope of an ordinary answer to a question, but I shall be glad to circulate a memorandum on the subject to hon. Members, and also, if it is deemed desirable, I will put up a diagram in the Tea Room illustrating them.

Is it not a fact that in a reply to a question last December I was told that there were over 150,000 applicants for extended benefit, 100,000 of whom were rejected?

No, that is not my recollection of the answer I gave, but if the hon. Gentleman will refer me to it I will look it up, and he can put down another question.

Seeing that the Minister has admitted—

Order, order. We must get on.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will put in the Library copies of all circulars, rules and Regulations, secret and otherwise, that have been issued to Employment Exchange officials, committees, and others during the period the Minister has held office; will he inform the House whether any fresh instructions of any kind have been issued in respect of payment of standard or extended benefit to single or married women; whether he is aware that in East London a number of women of all sorts and conditions have been refused payment of benefit, and that in many cases the women have been contributors for many years to the fund; and what steps he proposes to take in order to secure that these women shall receive the benefits they are taxed to provide for?

It has been the practice hitherto not to publish the instructions issued to the staff of the Ministry. I think this practice is sound and do not see my way to depart from it. All administrative changes in the conditions for the receipt of benefit are made or announced in Orders. Regulations or Directions to Committees, copies of all of which are placed in the Library. With regard to the last two parts of the question, I have made inquiries into cases cited by the hon. Member. I have only just received the full report and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have been able to consider it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a very considerable number of women who have paid for standard benefit and who are not asking for extended benefit are not getting any unemployment pay at all from the Mansell Street Exchange?

I am going through the report with the greatest speed that I can, but I only got it at 11 o'clock this morning and it runs into about 12 pages of close typewriting with single spacing. I hope to deal with it before the day is out, but I cannot do so much quicker than that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these women have contracted for unemployment pay with the State under the Statute and for some reason they are not getting it, and this kind of thing has been going on since the beginning of January?

I am aware that they have, and I am aware that their claim was disallowed, and that the hon. Member questioned the disallowance. After that I had an inquiry made and that is the best I can possibly do subject to the fact that I will deal with any report with the utmost speed possible.

I want to ask what instructions have been given to this Exchange to prevent women getting even the first week's unemployment pay? How can you charge women with not having genuinely sought work when they have only been out of work a day or two? You are just starving them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]

asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the reason unemployment pay has been refused Elizabeth Grant by the Mansell Street Exchange; by whose authority this woman was served with a notice, dated 14th January, 1926, that she was not genuinely seeking work, during the time she was actually engaged in work; has any authority been given to the officials at this Employment Exchange to inform women that the law respecting payment of unemployment pay to married women has been changed, and that these are now to be refused; the reason Martha Jones, Annie Best, Esther Kerntiff, Marion Masters, and Mary MacDermott have been refused unemployment pay; how long a period these women have paid into the fund; and the sort of employment, if any, that has been offered them?

As regards Elizabeth Grant, I have had a report. The fact that she obtained temporary work after the disallowance dated 14th January was before the Court of Referees, to which she appealed against the disallowance. The court nevertheless upheld the disallowance, and I cannot intervene. I know of no ground for the suggestion in the second part of the question. As regards the last five cases mentioned, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question of 18th February.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the very time this woman was accused of not genuinely seeking work she was at work, and that those women whose names are given here were compelled by the State to pay contributions out of their weekly earnings and now through some secret instruction to the Employment Exchange officials—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—it is a question of starvation—some secret instructions to the Exchange officials, these women are denied what the State contracted to pay them?

The facts are not as stated by the hon. Member.

They are.

The case in question came up, first of all, on the 3rd December. It came up again, and the disallowance dated from the 14th January. The disallowance was appealed against to the Court of Referees. The Court of Referees sat later, when the woman was in employment; they had all the facts in front of them, as well as the disallowance, and they held to their opinion. I ought to let the hon. Member know that in this particular case, where the woman had employment, it was found for her by the Exchange after two disallowances. I do not draw any inference from that, but the Court of Referees had the whole case in front of them, and were perfectly able to judge.

The statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the statement I previously made was inaccurate, is untrue. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the time this woman's case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—it is not a speech—was being investigated, and when she was charged with not being genuinely seeking work, she was at work; and, further—[ Interruption ."]

We cannot continue this discussion.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that workpeople employed by the British Celanese Company, Limited, Spondon, who work six and seven shifts weekly when working ordinary time, are being debarred from signing at the Exchange for the sixth shift, thus losing a day's benefit when unemployed through short time: and will he cause inquiry to be made with a view to remedying this disability?

I am not aware of what is suggested. My information is that employés of this firm, who normally work more than five shifts in the week, are permitted to count as a day of unemployment the sixth day in any week in which they only perform five shifts. The decision whether the sixth day is to be allowed in any individual case rests, not with me, but with the insurance officer, and any men who are dissatisfied with his decision can appeal to the Court of Referees.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men employed by this company are being denied the right of signing for the sixth shift at the Derby and Long Eaton Exchanges, and that, in consequence, these men are being penalised to the extent of one day per week when they are unemployed; and will he make inquiries as to the Exchanges mentioned?

I have not the same information, but if the hon. Member will speak to me afterwards I will gladly go into any point.

asked the Minister of Labour whether insured persons ordinarily and mainly dependent on their insurable employment for a livelihood, who are denied covenanted benefit on the grounds of possessing very small cottage businesses, will be permitted to claim exemption from contributions under the Unemployment Insurance Act?

As I explained to the hon. Member on the 10th February last, persons who desire to claim exemption under Section 3 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, must prove that they are ordinarily and mainly dependent for their livelihood on earnings derived from uninsurable employment. If, in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member, the insured persons are ordinarily and mainly dependent on their insurable employment, and not on their cottage businesses, it would not be possible to grant them certificates of exemption.

Do I understand from the Minister that the Ministry are prepared to take contributions from workpeople and, when they are unemployed, to deny them the right of drawing benefit because they happen to possess some small business, which may be run by a wife or other relative?

This, like the point in the next question, is one of those extraordinarily difficult compromises which are incidental to the Act. I will gladly communicate with the hon. Member afterwards about this also, if he will allow me.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a man in an insured trade, having also a spare-time job bringing him over 3s. 4d. a day, is in the position of having to pay regular contributions to unemployment insurance, while, if out of work, he is unable to obtain any benefit; and whether he contemplates any change in the regulations to alleviate this case?

The position is substantially as stated, and is one of the difficult compromises which are inseparable from a system of this kind. It cannot be altered without legislation, and, I understand, is one of the points which Lord Blanesburgh's Committee will consider.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing legislation to obviate this?

Yes; after the Committee has reported, I have not the least doubt that legislation will be necessary, and it may be possible to deal with difficult points of this kind.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that women having standard benefit qualifications who after applying at Employment Exchanges have accepted uninsurable employment, and who have when again unemployed through no fault of their own made application at the Exchange, are informed that because they accepted uninsurable employment they have no right to any benefit for which they have paid; and will he investigate such cases with a view to reconsideration?

I am not aware of what is suggested, and I will gladly inquire into any case of which full particulars are furnished.

We are asking the Minister to publish this information. The Department itself has had this information, and I want to know what is meant by their asking for information which they have already got?

asked the Minister of Labour the amounts contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, respectively, by employers, workpeople and the State for the years 1922–23, 1923–24 and 1924–25; and the amounts received in benefit by unemployed persons and the cost of administration for the same years?

As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, in dealing with these figures, take into account the fact that money was voted last week in this House for the purpose of an exhibition, and that articles are being sold in that exhibition this morning marked "Made in Germany"? I have one in my possession.

That does not arise on this question.

Following is the reply:

The amounts contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund by employers, workpeople and the State, respectively, the amount received in benefit by unemployed persons, and the cost of administration (including the cost of Employment Exchanges so far as insurance work is concerned) for the years 1922–23, 1923–24 and 1924–25 are approximately as follow: CONTRIBUTIONS. Insurance Year. Employers. Work people. Exchequer. £ £ £ 1922–23 … 18,110,000 15,900,000 12,170,000 1923–24 … 19,560,000 17,360,000 13,180,000 1924–25 … 19,580,000 17,340,000 13,150,000 Insurance Year. Benefit. Cost of Administration. £ £ 1922–23 … 41,880,000 4,450,000 1923–24 … 35,970,000 4,090,000 1924–25 … 44,570,000 4,600,000

asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to report that he has arranged for the provision of adequate accommodation for the work of the Rochdale Employment Exchange?

As I indicated to the hon. Member in reply to a question on the 10th February, a scheme for re-housing this Exchange is under consideration. I am afraid I cannot say when a decision will be reached.

Surely, the difficulties of the people concerned ought to have some consideration in connection with the question of providing proper accommodation?

They have, indeed, but the question of accommodation is extraordinarily difficult.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is a danger that the Sheffield school for juvenile unemployed may be closed owing to the decision of the Ministry of Labour not to pay the whole cost of maintenance; and, if so, whether he will reconsider this decision?

Scales of grant for the year 1926–27 in respect of juvenile unemployment centres were notified to local education authorities on 25th January last. The scale applicable to Sheffield is a per capita grant equal to three-quarters of approved expenditure of the authority during the year to 30th September, 1925, or 75 per cent. of the actual approved expenditure during the coming financial year, whichever the authority may prefer. These scales of grant are of general application and cannot, I am afraid, be modified; I trust, however, the Sheffield authority will see their way to continue their centres on the terms offered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures take no account of the large number of juveniles unemployed who are not registered at the Exchanges?

The grant is made on the number of people who actually attend the centres. There is always a grant towards the centres.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information as to the number of men who have returned from Markham No. 2 Pit, Chesterfield, to Bishop Auckland, alleging that the conditions under which they were engaged were not observed by the management; and whether these men will receive unemployment benefit until such time as work under recognised trade union conditions can be secured by them?

I understand that some 100 men have returned. The question whether they will be entitled to unemployment benefit must be determined by the statutory authorities in the usual way, and this is in course of being done.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over 100 men out of 120 returned, and having regard to the somewhat peculiar circumstances of the case, will evidence be obtained?

I will see that all proper evidence is obtained. I have heard so many conflicting accounts about it that I cannot give an opinion upon it, but I will try to see that all proper evidence is obtained.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the results of his inquiry into the grocery and provision trade were such as to lead him to the conclusion that sweating conditions do not exist in this trade?

asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds he declines to establish minimum rates of wages and apply the Trade Boards Act in the grocery trade?

I will, if I may, answer these questions together. I cannot add to the statement on the points raised contained in the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh Central (Mr. W. Graham) on the 11th February.