asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether anything has arisen, either in the recent reply from the Soviet Government or from any other source, which throws any doubt on the accuracy of the conclusion to which His Majesty's Government came, as stated by him in the House of Commons on 15th December, 1924, that the Zinovieff letter was not a forgery?

No, Sir. After a careful examination of the evidence His Majesty's Government came to the definite conclusion in December, 1324, that the Zinovieff letter was not a forgery; and nothing has occurred since then to throw any doubt on the accuracy of that conclusion.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the original of the letter has ever been in the possession of the Cabinet?

No, Sir. Tim evidence as to the authenticity of the letter is conclusive.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the arrest by the Austrian Government of a person who has admitted forging that letter?

Is it not a fact that the Leader of the Opposition admitted the authenticity of the letter?

Is there any additional evidence before the present Government which was not before the last Government?

Yes, Sir. Two pieces of confirmatory evidence, as I have informed the House already, were available to the present Government which were not available to their predecessors.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to submit this evidence to some impartial inquiry for a decision?

No, Sir; I am not. It is quite evident that there are sources of information, thoroughly trustworthy, but which would not be available if they were made public.

Why do you refuse to submit the matter to arbitration?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the speech of M. Kamanev, referred to in the note to the Soviet Government of the 23rd February, in which M. Kamanev stated that the Soviet Government devoted undue attention to the internal welfare of the union instead of concentrating its efforts upon revolution in foreign countries, is the speech reported in "Tzvestia" of the 5th November, in which M. Kamanev expressed similar views in opposition to a resolution of M. Stalin?

No, Sir. The particular speech in question was made al the Conference of the Communist. International in December last.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that M. Kamanev expressed a similar view on 5th November, and that the resolution in support of it was entirely defeated?

Yes, I know that he has expressed these views more than once, but it is sufficient to cite the one occasion, which I did.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the reply to his note to the Russian Government, he is now prepared to cancel the trade agreement with Russia?

I understand that there is to be a debate on this subject to-morrow, and I trust that my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to reserve my explanations of the policy of His Majesty's Government for that occasion.

Is it in consequence of the trade agreement that Russian special stout is supplied in the bar?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is proposed to commission any additional men-of-war for service on stations other than China to replace the vessels sent to China recently; and which vessels is it proposed to commission or to bring up to full complement?

Although the temporary transfer of a number of His Majesty's ships to China from other stations has greatly interfered with training and other fleet work on those stations, I trust that the conditions which have caused the despatch to China of the vessels in question will not be so prolonged as to make it necessary to commission additional vessels to replace them, and that no new factors will arise which might necessitate a modification of Admiralty policy in this respect.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number in full commission, and with reduced crews, of capital ships and cruisers as compared with July, 1914; and whether the fully commissioned ships have suffered any reduction of complements as compared with 1914?

I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the Capital ships and cruisers in commission with full crews, reduced crews or reserve crews respectively in July, 1914 and February, 1927. As regards the second part of the question, only two ships—the cruisers "Lowestoft" and "Birmingham"—of the 1914 Fleet are now in full commission. Their complements are larger now than in 1914.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the reduction in the naval personnel from July, 1914, when it stood at 146,047; what is the corresponding reduction from 53,550 in the dockyard personnel: whether the latter figure has been reduced to the same extent as the former; and, if not, will he state the reason?

As was stated in the reply of the 16th February to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, the personnel of the Navy on the 15th July, 1914, numbered 146,047 and on the 15th January, 1927, 101,434. The personnel of the Dockyards (Vote 8) at borne and abroad numbered 48,415 on 1st January, 1927, the latest date for which figures are available. It is anticipated that within the next few months the figure will be reduced by about 3,000. For reasons which have often been stated, the number of civilian staff whether at headquarters or at the dockyards cannot be proportionately related with those of naval personnel.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of pending discharges from Chatham Dockyard, whether he will take steps to facilitate the reemployment of these men in civil life by bringing their experience and qualifications to the notice of likely firms, and especially those who are Government con- tractors; where such action results in men being obliged to move, with their families, to another part of the country, will he state if he is able to give any assistance to facilitate such moves; and, as regards any unskilled labour, will he notify any large local employers of these pending discharges and request that such men may be considered for any suitable vacancies?

It will be the duty of the dockyard officers to supply particulars concerning the workmen discharged to the officers of the Ministry of Labour Employment Exchanges, so that they may do what is possible to assist the men to obtain other employment; but it is not proposed that the Admiralty should attempt to duplicate the functions of the Employment Exchanges and the Local Employment Committees working in connection with the Exchanges.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that His Majesty's ship "Berwick" has been in the hands of a firm on the Tyne for repairs; that the ship has been sent to the Clyde to have the repairs effected; that the contractors have sent numbers of men from the Tyne to the Clyde to do the work, although there are 1,500 unemployed engineers in the latter area; whether the extra expenses which have been incurred in this transference of workmen from one area to another arc being met out of public funds; and, if so, what such expenses are?

I am unable to understand the hon. Member's question. His Majesty's ship "Berwick" is under construction at Govan, and is not yet in commission.

is it not the case that one of these cruisers was being repaired on the Tyne and then it was sent round to be finished on the Clyde, and that the contractors transferred a number of engineers from the Tyneside to the Clyde, where we have 1,500 engineers lying idle, but quite capable of doing that work? That was my question.

I should like to know to what cruiser the hon. Member refers.

The "Berwick."

I have told the hon. Member that the "Berwick" is already at Govan, being built.

asked the Minister el Labour the number of applications for extended benefit in the Middlesbrough area during the last three months; the number granted and refused; and similar figures for the corresponding period a year ago?

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed receiving standard benefit and the number receiving extended benefit at the present time, and the corresponding figures for a year ago?

Statistics giving the numbers of persons receiving standard benefit and extended benefit respectively are not regularly compiled. A special inquiry made in March, 1926, showed that at that date 54 per cent. of the claims on which unemployment benefit was payable, were authorised for standard benefit and 46 per cent. for extended benefit. No further inquiry on this subject has since been made.

Does the right hon. Gentleman include in the figures those cases where a man may have 30 stamps and may have been in work for 24 months, and yet may be denied benefit?

I am not quite certain what the hon. Member means. Standard benefit would be given in those cases in which the benefit paid had been covered by the contributions already made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are cases where no benefit has been paid, although over 30 stamps are shown? I got such a case this morning where a man has been cut off from the Exchange.

If the hon. Member will give me particulars of any case of that kind, I will consider it, and communicate with him.

Is it not the case that a man may have 38 stamps but if there are not 12 continuous weeks, he may get no benefit? Is not that the regulation?

If the hon. Member puts down a question of this kind on the Paper, I will consider it.

I would like to ask now if that is not the case under the regulations? I can furnish at least one instance where 38 stamps have been shown and benefit has been disallowed.

That does not arise out of the question.

asked the Minister or Labour the amounts or grants given out of Government funds to municipal or other public bodies in connection with unemployment schemes for each year since November, 1918?

I am having a statement prepared, and will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as practicable.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed on schemes assisted by the Unemployed Grants Committee on 31st December, 1926, as compared with 31st December, 1925, and the total expenditure involved?

The number of men employed on schemes assisted by the Unemployment Grants Committee on the 24th December, 1926, was 15,727, as compared with 33,280 men employed on the 28th December, 1925. The total estimated cost of schemes approved by the Committee during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1926, was £6,590,271, as compared with £20,969,436 during the year ended 31st December, 1925.

Is it the policy of the Government to reduce these schemes?

That does not arise out of the question.

asked the Minister of labour whether he propose to increase the number of training centres for the unemployed?

The question of the provision of further training facilities is at present under consideration.

asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of persons trained at the unemployed training centres during 1926 and the number absorbed in home industries and overseas, respectively?

The number of men who received a full course of training at these centres during 1926, or who left before completing the full course in order to take up employment, was 1,771. Of this number about 1,100 had by the end of 1926 obtained employment in this country, and 290 were placed on farms in the oversea Dominions.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that G. T. Crisp, of 16, Hyde Place, Llanhilleth, Monmouthshire was allowed unemployment benefit, dated 16th August, 1926, by the court of referees; that the case was appealed against by the local insurance officer and referred to the umpire, who disallowed benefit; that Crisp was never notified to attend before the umpire, and the case was heard and decided in his absence; and will he therefore have the case re-opened so that Crisp can defend his claim to benefit as awarded by the court of referees?

In the great majority of cases which come before the umpire the facts are estab- lished by the written and oral evidence-tendered at the court of referees which sits locally and to which the applicant is summoned. In such a case it is not the practice of the umpire to hear the applicant orally unless there is a question of principle which has not previously been settled. In the present case the facts were stated by the applicant in his written appeal, he was heard orally by the court of referees and I understand that the umpire held, on the admitted facts, that he was disqualified for benefit. I may add that the umpire has power to reconsider his decision if an applicant brings forward new facts, and he has always been ready to do so in proper cases.

Are we to understand that if a man has got a decision in his favour from the referees, his case can be re-tried by the umpire, and that he receives no notification and has no opportunity of making his case before the umpire?

I understand—but this is subject to verification —that the man in question knew that the case was being taken before the umpire, so that he had the right and the possibility of stating any further facts as he wished. As regards procedure, that is a matter for the umpire himself to determine and I understand that, up to now, the procedure which he has adopted for himself has been generally acquiesced in as being right and proper.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man was informed that his case was to come before the umpire and that he was waiting for notification of the hearing so that he could appear before the umpire himself and defend his claim, but no such notification was given?

That bears out what I said to the hon. Member—that the man was informed. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He was informed that his case was going to the umpire. As far as I know, the whole procedure up to now has been meeting, and, I believe, is still meeting, with general concurrence, and the umpire, when he has the full facts before him, does not necessarily require the attendance of the parties at the hearing. I understand that has been the case consistently during the past year. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In any case, it is a matter for the umpire himself to determine what are the proper rules to apply to the hearing of the cases.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the practice of the umpire to notify those who have presented claims to be heard and decided by him of the date of the hearing; and, as that is the case, why was this man not notified of the date and time of hearing?

The hon. Member has made a statement of fact. I think I am strictly correct in what I have said, but if the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) and the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) communicate with me, I will look into the matter again, to see if, by any chance, I have been inaccurate in any statement I have made. If I am, and if hon. Members wish to do so, they can raise the point again, but I do not think I have been inaccurate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in all the cases, amounting to some hundreds, which have been taken by the Workers' Union notification of time and place of hearing has been given in every instance?

This question had better had put down again, when the hon. Member has seen the Minister.

I will put the question down again.

asked the Minister of Labour who decided that the recommendation of the Committee to pay unemployment benefit to R. Thomson, 319, Main Street, Alexandria, Dumbartonshire, should be disallowed, and by what authority; whether this man has the right of appeal; arid by what method?

This case was decided by the Department (for which of course I take full responsibility) under the authority given to the Minister by Act of Parliament. There is no statutory right of appeal by claimants in these cases, but if Mr. Thomson can bring forward fresh evidence in support of his claim, arrangements will be made for his case to be considered.

Does the right hon. Gentleman want to put before this House such a statement as that a committee, having found in favour of a man and granted him his case, the manager of the Exchange or the insurance officer can rule out the committee's decision and disqualify the man from receiving the benefit granted him by the committee without that man having a right of appeal?

In all normal cases of extended benefit, the ultimate decision rests with the Minister, and in the vast majority of cases, as has been again and again stated in this House, I abide by the advice which is contained in the decisions and opinions at which the rota committees have arrived. In a certain number of cases, on review, that has not been done in a certain percentage of cases a decision that benefit should be granted has been disagreed with, as in other cases a decision not to give benefit has been disagreed with. That occurs only in a small number of cases, and this was one of them, but, as I say, at any time the anal decision lies with the Minister, and if a person thinks that injustice has been done and will communicate any facts to nee, I will see that they are carefully examined.

Is not this what is being done now? I am asking for a reply, which has not yet been given. Does the right hon. Gentleman defend the disqualification of benefit being given to a man who has been granted it by a committee, without giving that man a right of appeal?

I dissent absolutely. The whole of the action which is taken must have been taken only in the knowledge of facts which were either not apparent or not known to the hon. Member who puts the question.

I give notice that on an early evening I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unregistered trade unions which have had a ballot under the Trade Union Act, 1913: and the numbers voting for or against the political levy?

Forty unregistered trade unions have taken a ballot under the Trade Union Act, 1913; 478,828 members voted for and 305,804 members voted against a political levy.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered trade unions which have had a ballot under the Trade Union Act, 1913 the total number of members of such unions; the numbers voting for or against the political levy; and the number of exemptions claimed?

One hundred and forty-five registered trade unions have taken a ballot under the Trade Union Act, 1913. The total number of members of such unions at the end of the year in which the ballots were taken was 3,003,373, the number voting for was 683,272, and the number voting against was 272,394. The number of exemptions shown at 31st December, 1925, as having been claimed by members of registered trade unions was 104,797.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the exports and imports from and to Britain of Palestine for 1926 in sterling; and what are the principal goods or commodities, respectively?

The answer consists of a table of figures, and my hon. Friend will no doubt agree to my circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Secretary of State for Air, if the experiments that have taken place for short-wave wireless telephony between aircraft in flight and air stations have been successful; and whether this system of transmission will be shortly introduced into the Air Services?

The system of transmission referred to is already in use in the Royal Air Force and the possibilities of its extension are continually kept in view.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the experiments for short-wave length telephony have eliminated jamming?

No, I could not give that answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if the boats and steamers in connection with the Air Force, etc., in Iraq have been sold?

Negotiations are now in progress for the sale of the remaining vessels, with the exception of a limited number that are essential for defence purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of native encroachment holders in Iraq; what is the amount of rent and rebate they pay; whether the rent is credited to public funds and the rebate to the funds of the local unit of the Air Force; and whether arrangements will be made that all payments made by native traders in respect of land or premises on certain encroachments in Iraq shall be credited to public funds?

The answer to the first part of the question is, approximately, 160 encroachment holders. As regards the remainder of the question, under the arrangement now in force, as the result of full consideration of all the circumstanees, the encroachment holders pay no rebate direct to the units; they are charged a full commercial rental which covers not only the value of the encroachments and of any buildings used, but also the privilege of selling to the forces. Of this rental 50 per cent. is credited to public funds and 50 per cent. to unit fends. Payments made by the encroachment holders for water, light or other services rendered are separately credited, in full, to public funds. The new arrangement only came into force on 1st December last and no information is available in regard to the total amounts of the payments and receipts involved.

May I put a question down again in order to get the information asked for in the last part of the question?

Yes, but I would suggest to the hon. Member that it would not be worth his while to put it down for some months, as the present arrangement only began in December last.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is any balance due to the Palestine Government in respect of works that they executed on behalf of the Air Force; and what was the nature of these works?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part, the works were ordinary engineering services, such as construction and maintenance of buildings, required for the Royal Air Force pending the establishment by the Air Ministry in July, 1924, of its own works organisation in Palestine.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is aware of the rejection of a tender from Messrs. John Fowler and Company, of Leeds, to the Victorian Government for the, supply of four tank locomotives at £8,880 in favour of one from a local firm of 210,680; and whether, in the interests of British exporters of machinery, he will make representations in the matter?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if his attention has been called to the action of the Government of Victoria in accepting a local tender for the supply of four tank locomotives at the price of £10,680 when they had a tender before them from Messrs. John Fowler, Leeds, to supply them for £8,800; and whether he will make representations to the Australian Government against the exclusion of machinery manufactured in this country?

I have been informed by the firm referred to that the facts are as stated in the first part of the question. The matter is, however, one entirely for the Government of Victoria. It will interest the hon. Members to know that in the year ending 30th June, 1925, the imports of locomotives from the United Kingdom into Australia were 91 per cent of the total.

Does my hon. Friend not think it possible to do anything whatever to promote a better observance of the spirit of the Imperial Conference?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are large numbers of engineers out of work in Leeds to-day, and have been for years past, and does be believe that this is the way to develop Imperial trade, and may I ask if he has seen the correspondence with Messrs. Fowler, which states that there are enormous barriers erected in Australia against all tile goods which are made by Messrs. Fowler?

Yes, I am aware of that, and I have seen the correspondence to which the hon. Member refers. I regret that this firm has lost that particular order, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that of the total import into Australia of locomotives in 1925, 91 per cent. were British, and they were rather better than that in 1924. This is a special case, and I do not think we should lose sight of the general facts and figures.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of cutting down the £500,000 that we spend on popularising Australian products here?

Can the hon. Gentleman say if the Leeds tender included spot delivery and freightage?

I think the Leeds tender was an f. o. r. one.

Can the hon. Gentleman say—

This seems to be the business of a self-governing Dominion.

Is not this a matter which concerns the British taxpayer, as we quote very cheap rates to Australia; and are we not financing this higher contract price of Australia against Messrs. Fowlers by our cheap loans?

asked the Minister of Labour now the ratio of persons gainfully occupied to total population in Great Britain compares with the corresponding ratio in the United States of America, France, Germany and Italy?

According to the latest information in my possession, the percentages and the dates to which they relate are as follow:

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any value can be placed on these figures at all?

asked the Minister of Labour how many States have made their ratification of the Washington Hours Convention conditional on ratification by Great Britain and other Powers; and how many States have given the failure of Great Britain and the said Powers to ratify as a ground for refusing in their turn to ratify?

Three States, Austria, Italy and Latvia, have ratified the Convention conditionally. In the first two cases Great Britain along with other States is mentioned by name. In Latvia ratification is conditional on ratification by three of the countries of chief industrial importance under Article 393 of the Treaty Versailles. Statements have been made from time to time at Sessions of the International Labour Conference that certain Governments were affected in their attitude to ratification by inaction in that regard on the part of other States, but without examining detail the records it would not be possible to specify the Governments in question.

May I ask if the position of Belgium is known to the right hon. Gentleman?

Yes.

And have Belgium ratified the Convention?

So understand.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what grants, payments or allowances have been made or fixed in connection with the British Industries Fair for 1926 and 1927; whether any guarantee is required from exhibitors that all goods and material shown must be British made; and, if so, he will explain why certain toys marked as made in the United States of America are exhibited at this year's fair, and also German glass?

A grant of £25,000 was made from public funds for advertising the British Industries Fair of 1926 and 1927. With regard to the second part of the question, all goods exhibited at the fair must, have been manufactured or produced mainly within the British Empire, and an undertaking is required from each exhibitor to that effect. As regards the last part of the question, my hen. Friend, perhaps, has in mind shooting game, of which one of the parts is a toy gun of foreign manufacture. This gun is not sold separately, and I have ascertained that its cost represents only a small percentage of the cost of the complete game. I have been unable to trace any glassware of foreign manufacture at the fair, except in cases where the greater part of the cost of the article is attributable to the value of the mountings, which are made with British labour and of British material.

May I ask the hon. Member whether the article that he says was made overseas can be made in the British Empire; if so, what is he doing to find out whether British goods only are exhibited; and will any action be taken where he finds that things not British-made are exhibited?

We have to depend on the exhibitors, who sign an undertaking on their honour as follows:

"I (we) will not exhibit or solicit orders for goods other than those of our own manufacture," etc.

Has any action been taken where this particular article has been found, and will any action be taken if other evidence be brought to the notice of the Minister?

No, not in this particular case. The goods in question are mainly of British origin and manufacture, and I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to accept the assurance that this gun is a trivial thing, and that it bears a very small relation to the total value of the exhibit of which it is a part.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the Colwyn Report?

Hon. Members will no doubt take advantage of the many opportunities afforded by the Budget and Finance Bill Debates for the discussion of the mattere dealt with in this Report. That seems the most appropriate time for such discussion and the Prime Minister does not think any further facilities are necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the figures showing the total War Office personnel, service and civilian staff, for 31st March. 1913, and at the present date, as well as the total strength of the forces of the Army for the corresponding dates; and what is the cause of the present increase in the proportional strength of the War Office staff?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Robinson) on 22nd February. As regards the last part of the question, there is a very full explanation of the principal causes of the permanent increases of the work at the War Office in Appendix 32 of the First and Second Reports of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1926.

In view of the figures that have been given, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how it is that while the strength of the Army has been considerably reduced, the War Office strength is far above that of pre-War days, and is being increased; and how he settles this in connection with the economy that is proposed?

If my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, to which I have referred him, he will find two pages of detailed explanation.

I have, but that does not explain it.

Is it not a fact that the Geddes Committee indicated that a large volume of the correspondence dealt with by the War Office was largely created by that staff?

The recommendations of the Geddes Committee were very largely carried out at the War Office.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give an assurance that it is not intended to introduce into the Civil Service a large number of girls from outside the service by means of the forthcoming examinations for the writing assistant and clerical classes (women), and that there will be no repetition of the position arising during 1924 and 1925, when young girls were brought in on a wholesale scale and adult women with many years' service were dismissed?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Mansbury) on the 28th February.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of overseas representatives of the News Department of the Foreign Office; how many are employed full time and how many on part time; where the representatives are stationed; and what is the annual cost of the overseas service of the News Department?

The News Department expenses abroad for the current financial year are included in subhead L of the Diplomatic and Consular Vote for 1920–7, in which details are given. The amount provided for 1926–7 was £17,550, but the total for the next financial year will re reduced by approximately £1,380. Whole time representatives are maintained at Paris, Berlin, Rome and New York. The post at Brussels has recently been abolished, except for an assistant who will in future be attached to the Embassy. Part-time officials are employed at Sofia, Buenos Aires and Tokio, the assistant at The Hague having now been dispensed with.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision he has reached with regard to the proposal of the Kincardineshire education authority to reduce the age to 10 years at which school children may be employed in seasonal 3cetTations such as potato-lifting?

The bylaw submitted by the Kincardineshire education authority is still under my consideration. I am in correspondence with the education authority with regard to certain objections lodged in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that many of the approved societies have been unable to meet their liability for dental treatment under the National Health Insurance Act owing to increased charges; whether he is aware that such charges were negotiated with the dentists by the Scottish Board of Health without any consultation with any of the other interested parties; and whether, in view of the protests that are being made, he will reconsider the method of negotiation, and meantime suspend the present scale of charges?

Dental treatment is not a statutory benefit, and approved societies are under no obligation to provide it, but they may do so if they have surplus funds available for the purpose. It is not the ease that the charges re-erred to were negotiated by the Scottish Board of Health. The scale was agreed by a Joint Dental Committee consisting of representatives of dentists and approved societies' interests. I have accordingly no power to take any action such as is suggested in the last part of the question.

Is it not the case that under Section 75 of the Act of 1924, power lies with the societies to negotiate matters of this kind, and why did the Scottish Board of Health appoint two representatives notwithstanding the protest of the societies?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask whether the procedure in this connection which applies to England is followed in Scotland; and, if not, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the Scottish Board of Health takes the initiative in calling the parties together in order to clear up these difficulties?

I understand that the Scottish Board of Health took the proper procedure before this conference, and that it was on exactly the same footing as that adopted in England.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific question I have put?

I made very careful inquiries, and the Scottish Board of Health have no responsibility for the decision arrived at on this matter—no responsibility whatever.

Is it not the cases that under Section 75 of the Act of 1924, the societies have the power to negotiate these matters by themselves, and why, therefore, was any such step taken?

My information is that the proper procedure was followed, and if the hon. Gentleman has any further question to ask, perhaps he will put it down.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he has taken regarding the training and recruitment of officers for the agricultural departments of the non-self-governing dependencies?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden) on the 23rd February.

asked the Minister of Agriculture (1) the total amount of subsidy received by sugar-beet factories in the manufacturing season 1926–27; the total number of persons employed in these factories; and the length of the manufacturing season;

The total amount of subsidy on sugar and molasses received by the British beet sugar factories in the manufacturing season 1925–26 was £1,124,207, and in the season 1926–27 up to 28th February, 1927, was £3,041,083. The number of persons employed in the factories in the 1925–26 season was 4,613, and in the past season 7,194. The length of the manufacturing season is, approximately, 100 days.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, that works out at nearly £500 per man?

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the effluent from sugar-beet factories is polluting many streams in the eastern counties; and if he can state what action he is taking to deal with this evil?

I am aware of the pollution which has been caused by beet sugar factories in the eastern counties and elsewhere, and at my instigation the manufacturers appointed an expert to visit all the factories, to report upon the arrangements for disposal of effluents, and to indicate the lines of investigation along which it may be hoped that adequate methods of treatment may be discovered. I understand that he is at present engaged upon his report. In the meantime, arrangements have been made with the Department of Scientific and industrial Research for certain investigations to be set on foot at the Rothamsted Experimental Station, by means of which it is hoped that the solution of some of the fundamental problems underlying the difficult question of the treatment of beet sugar effluents may be advanced.

May I ask whether the River Lark is polluted?

Yes, I am afraid it is.