asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Portugal is seeking for a loan through the League of Nations; and, whether His Majesty's Government will assure the House that it will not be a party to any such loan unless and until Portugal has abandoned all flag discrimination contrary to the principles laid down by the League of Nations in the Maritime Ports Convention?

His Majesty's Government have for some time past been making representations to the Portuguese Government on the subject of flag discrimination, and I understand that a decree will shortly appear abolishing all flag discrimination of any kind in Portugal and the Portuguese Dominions. The question of a loan must be dealt with on its own merits.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions and Restrictions, recently signed at Geneva, has yet been ratified by any other country; and whether this House will have an opportunity of discussing the Convention before ratification by this country?

The Convention has not yet been ratified by any country. As explained by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a question on 15th November last, the Convention provides for a further Conference to be held in the Summer to determine the conditions required for the coming into force of the Convention, and it will not be possible to advise ratification before the results of that Conference are known.

Does the signature on behalf of the British Government involve any reason why that treaty should be taken into consideration in connection with matters of internal policy in our own country?

I did not catch the middle part of the question.

As I understand it, the Convention has been signed. Does the signature of our representative mean that we will have to take it as ratified, as far as we are concerned, internally?

No, Sir. Since the Convention was signed some reservations have been handed in by other Powers. That is one reason why there should be a new Conference. It will probably be in June. Nothing is binding at all, as far as the present signature is concerned. Ratification is necessary before anything is binding.

Does that answer mean that, while the question is pending, no more import restrictions will be imposed or introduced by the present Government?

No, Sir. It has not that meaning.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the banishment of the Zinovieff left wing element from the Government of Russia, His Majesty's Government will now reconsider the question of the recognition of the Soviet. Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Nothing has occurred since the incident referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman which would justify His Majesty's Government in considering the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government.

Has the right hon. Gentleman, by any chance, seen the speech of M. Rykoff recently, saying that the Russian Government were prepared to give guarantees, if the British Government required them, as to non-interference in domestic affairs?

No, I have not seen that speech, as far as I can trust my memory; but if the Soviet Government wish to give assurances of that kind, or are prepared to give assurances of that kind, they can give them in the proper manner, and they will be considered.

What is the proper manner?

Through diplomatic channels.

But there is no communication?

Yes, Sir. They can make their representations through the diplomatic representative who is in chargo of Russian interests in this country.

Have the Soviet Government given any assurances in regard to the repayment of their debt?

Is that a new condition?

Have the British trade unions resumed relations with the Russian trade unions?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect to the interest on the Ottoman Loan of 1855, guaranteed by Great Britain and France and costing British taxpayers £72,000 a year and French taxpayers nothing, approximately what proportion of bonds are held in this country and what proportion on the Continent; and why we continue to pay French bondholders interest which their own Government does not?

I have no information as to the proportion of these bonds held in this country and on the Continent respectively. With regard to the latter part of the question, payments are made in accordance with the guarantee of the interest on the loan entered into by His Majesty's Government with the French Government, jointly and severally, at the time of the loan's flotation. With regard to the French Government's obligations, I would refer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the reply returned to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the 23rd instant.

In view of the fact that the French Government are not paying any interest on that loan and the British taxpayers are paying the whole of this £72,000 a year, would it not be possible to differentiate between the recipients of the money paid, so that we might pay the British bondholders, and the French Government might pay or not pay, as they chose, the French bondholders?

Have representations been made to France on this matter?

Is it not a fact that as soon as this Government took possession of the island, the French said their duties lapsed?

Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to put these various questions on the Paper.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the cruisers "Dunedin" and "Diomede" are still on the strength of the British Navy; and, if so, whether they have recently been sent to Samoa after consultation with the Admiralty?

These two vessels are in the New Zealand Division of the Royal Navy, which is under the orders of and maintained by His Majesty's Government in New Zealand. No question of consultation with the Admiralty arose, therefore, in connection with the sending of the vessels to Samoa.

Are the New Zealand Government entitled to conduct warlike operations without consulting the British Government?

The New Zealand Government are entitled to send these vessels to Samoa.

Are not questions of war and peace decided in London?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there have recently been any outbreaks of piracy in the China seas; and how many and what vessels of His Majesty's Fleet are now stationed in those waters?

There have been no reported cases of piracy on the high sea since the case of the "Irene" in October, which was widely reported in the Press. In the same period, however, there have been six cases of piracy in the Yangtse and West River, and in the Canton Delta, of which four were frustrated—one by the armed guard carried in the ship and the others by naval action.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of persons under 18 years of age serving in the Navy in any capacity and the number between 18 and 21?

The following naval ratings and Royal Marines (other than officers) were serving on 1st January, 1928:

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will extend representation on the welfare conference to all men in home service and not confine it to those serving for the time being at the home ports?

I am afraid the practical difficulties in extending the elections to include all ratings in home waters are insuperable. The ratings at the home ports are, however, representative of all branches and grades of the lower deck and are numerous enough to justify the view that an extension of the system as proposed, even if this were feasible, would not result in any material improvement.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the proportionate figures involved?

Not with out notice.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what contracts have been placed for new constructions with private firms during the last three months, giving particulars including the names of the firms concerned; what orders have been placed with His Majesty's dockyards, giving particulars and stating which dockyard, during a similar period; and whether His Majesty's dockyards were given the opportunity of tendering for those contracts placed with private firms?

The answer to the first part of the question is:

Can the Admiralty hold out any hope that this policy of sending work to private firms while simultaneously discharging dockyard employés will be abandoned; and has it not hitherto been the practice to give the dockyards an opportunity of tendering for work before it is placed with private firms?

We are giving the dockyards as large a share in our building programme as we possibly can.

You are discharging men.

Obviously, however, the Government have to consider the interests of the whole country, as I have often told the hon. Member, and we cannot give any kind of guarantee as he suggests.

Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman also consider the interests of economy, and has it not been proved that the dockyards can build these ships more cheaply than private firms? Why, therefore, is the taxpayers' money being squandered?

Is it not true that the Government are really not responsible for the work of these other places, but that they are responsible for the men in His Majesty's dockyards?

I do not quite understand the Noble Lady's question, but, with regard to the interests of economy, we certainly are studying them, and that is one of the main reasons why we allocate ships in the way that we do.

Is it not true that the Government train them, pay them, and pension them, and does that not show that they are more responsible for the men in the dockyards than for the men in any private yard?

Does my hon. and gallant Friend assert that it is less economical to build ships in His Majesty's dockyards than in private yards?

Obviously, I cannot lay down any general rule on the subject. All that I said was that we are studying the interests of economy in every possible way.

Would it not be as objectionable for a man to be discharged from the Clyde as from a dockyard?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has considered the desirability of abolishing the submarine if all other countries agreed to adopt this course?

The attitude of His Majesty's Government on this subject remains the same as originally enunciated by Lord Lee of Fareham at the Washington Conference in 1921 when he urged the abolition of the submarine. This attitude was re-affirmed by me in Plenary Session at the recent Naval Conference at Geneva.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has further considered the prohibitions on the political activities of naval officers on half-pay contained in the recent Fleet Order, with particular reference to the cases of those officers who are peers; and whether these prohibitions apply to such officers?

The answers to both parts of the question are in the affirmative.

What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take in that case with regard to the Admirals who have recently made speeches—or one Admiral in particular—in the House of Lords?

There is another question on the Paper on that subject in the name of the hon. and gallant Member himself.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether Admirals of the Fleet when unemployed are considered as being on full pay or on half-pay; whether the recent Fleet Order regarding political activities applies to these officers; and, if so, to some extent?

Admirals of the Fleet when unemployed are officers on half-pay, but since there is no option of retirement in this rank and no full pay employment except in very special circumstances, it has been decided that except when employed they should be on the same footing, in this matter, as retired officers.

Would that mean, therefore, that an Admiral of the Fleet who is a Peer has certain privileges which an Admiral or a Vice-Admiral or a Rear-Admiral does not have; and does not the right hon. Gentleman see how objectionable that is?

He is in a different position from other Admirals, who might have a much better chance of going back into active service.

Why does the right hon. Gentleman make class distinctions among Flag Officers of the Fleet who are members of the House of Lords and those who are not?

It is not a class distinction at all, but a difference between an Admiral who has no probability of going back into active service and one who has.

If one of these gentlemen is selected for any office of profit under the Crown, does his half-pay still run?

That is quite a different question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any precedent for the Fleet Order of the 26th August, 1927, or whether it is claimed to be covered by the Order in Council of 25th July, 1927?

I am not sure that I understand the meaning of the first part of the question. The Fleet Order and the Order in Council are complementary to each other, and taken together carry out the decision of His Majesty's Government that persons in the Naval, Military, Air or Civil Services of the Crown cannot, while on the active list of their respective Services, be permitted also to be actively engaged in the support of a political party.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Order in Council deals only with candidature for Parliament, and that both he and the Prime Minister stated that the Fleet Order is entirely based on the Order in Council?

No. I cannot now give the actual words of my answer, but the Fleet Order was intended to carry out the Order in Council and to make clear the views of the Admiralty as to the activities of officers in this matter.

As this question cannot be thrashed out by question and answer, I propose to call attention to it on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House to-morrow.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in the event of a half-pay officer taking part in a meeting or demonstration for political purposes, acting as a member of a candidate's election committee, in any way actively prosecuting a candidate's interest, issuing a political address, or standing for Parliament, what disciplinary machinery can be employed; and how can he be brought before a Court Martial?

It is open to the Board to deal with a half-pay officer who disobeys the King's Regulations in any of the following ways, according to the deserts of the case:—

Is not the whole trouble due to the fact that an attempt has been made to bring the Navy into line with the Civil Service, where no half-pay exists? Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that a mistake has been made, and will he not have it rectified?

No; I do not think a mistake has been made. The question is not merely one of the difference between a naval officer and an officer in the Civil Service; the question is one between naval officers and naval ratings. Naval ratings cannot be placed on half-pay, and, therefore, if the Order is to be fair to all ranks in the Navy, I think you have to include half-pay officers, because there are no half-pay ratings.

Would the punishment be determined according to the political party of the officer concerned?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Law Officers of the Crown have been consulted as to the legality of paragraph 4 of the Fleet Order of 26th August, 1927, which has been the subject of Cabinet inquiry?

I regret that I cannot enlighten my hon. and gallant Friend, as this is information which it is contrary to practice to give.

In view of the fact that the opinion of the Law Officers has often been quoted in the past, especially in connection with courts-martial, would I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to ask a question as to what the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown is?

I do not think we ever admit questions asking for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.

On a point of Order. With great respect, may I refresh your memory, Sir, as to what happened during what was called the Campbell Debate in the last Government, when the Law Officers were cross-examined in this House?

I am dealing only with questions, not with Debate.

Am I to understand that an officer is to be punished for an offence when he is not subject to naval discipline?

That does not follow as a supplementary question.

I tried to ask it before.

It would be better put to-morrow night, when the whole question will be brought up by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs).

Arising out of the last answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, is your ruling in accordance with his answer, that it is incompetent to give any answers showing the relative increase or decrease in the Admiralty staffs?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that officers and men of the fighting services were allowed to exercise their full electoral rights by attending political meetings, asking questions of candidates, and, when in mufti, advocating their political opinions and the redress of such grievances as affected them and their families as citizens until the year 1924; whether, seeing that there has been a curtailment of these rights, he will state the reasons which have prompted the Government to take this course; and whether, seeing that the service towns are largely composed of service men and their families, he can grant to voters in the service full permission, when in mufti, to take the same part as other electors during a General Election?

In view of the large numbers of officers and men of the National Army awaiting demobilisation in 1918, special permission was granted at that election to officers and men of all three fighting services to advocate their political opinions provided that they were in mufti. This special permission has since been withdrawn, and I see no reason for its renewal. The general rule in these matters for the three fighting services has now been formulated as a general prohibition of active participation in meetings held for party or political purposes, and the active prosecution of the interests of a Parliamentary candidate. This general regulation, which I see no ground to modify, is clearly incompatible with the practice of, namely, canvassing, whether in uniform or in mufti, or in any other way of openly advocating the interests of a particular candidate. But personnel of the fighting services even in uniform are not precluded by the rules from attending political meetings and asking questions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he told me last week that no change whatever had been made in the practice, and, seeing that he now admits that a very fundamental change has been made, I ask why it is necessary to disfranchise the whole of the service towns, and whether he realises how much indignation is felt by service towns at this interference with the exercise of their democratic rights?

I am no more infallible than the hon. Member; I have learned something from giving an answer in a hurry, and it is not to answer any supplemetary questions of this kind without notice.

May I ask whether that ruling covers and prevents Parliamentary candidates who are standing for Parliament circulating their photographs in naval uniform and asking for votes?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the Prime Minister, may I give notice that next Tuesday I will raise this matter on the Adjournment?

asked the Minister of Labour the number of theatrical and film actors and actresses of foreign birth who were admitted to Great Britain for the purpose of taking up engagements for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

During the year ended 31st December, 1927, 120 permits were issued to enable aliens to come to this country for employment as theatrical and film actors and actresses. In addition, in five cases the Home Secretary was advised to agree to aliens taking up such employment after they had been given permission to land for other reasons. All permits were issued for short periods in the first instance, but in some cases where plays proved to be successful or where further engagements had been secured, I advised the Home Secretary to agree to short extensions of the original period.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has not been a great increase in the last few months in permits for people coming into this country to make films?

I cannot answer that question offhand. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question, I will try and get comparative figures.

Has the right hon. Gentleman got particulars of the number of permits that have been issued to theatrical agents of foreign origin?

Have we not Members of this House who are of foreign birth; if so, why not actors and actresses on the stage?

asked the Minister of Labour what are the rates of wages paid the artificial silk industry to unskilled, semi-skilled, and skilled workers, respectively?

I regret that I am not in possession of the information desired.

Is it not very desirable that we should have information about the conditions of labour in industries that are receiving very special privileges from the nation?

Has the right hon. Gentleman no figures with regard to increases or decreases of wages in these industries during the last three years?

I do not think that we have with regard to the silk trade, but I will make inquiries with regard to it if the right hon. Gentleman wishes. I do not think that I have power to get the actual figures for wages, unless they are voluntarily given by the industries concerned.

I should like to know if any other Minister of the Crown has information as regards the conditions of labour in a safeguarded industry, or whether the industry having been safeguarded, the interests of the workers are left to chance?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question to the other Ministers from whom he wishes information. The other Ministers are quite obviously, for one, the Home Secretary with regard to the conditions of industry, many of which conditions come under the Home Office. I am unable to answer for my colleagues.

Do not the Government regularly publish the changes in the rate of wages paid to the working classes in this country?

Of those wages of which we have information.

Is there any Joint Industrial Council dealing with either artificial silk or silk?

I can find that out and let the hon. Member know.

Is it the practice of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to have an officer attending meetings of these Joint Industrial Councils where they exist?

That question does not arise.

I am in this difficulty, that I realise that the question I wish to put ought to be put to the Head of the Government, and I have some difficulty in knowing who is the Head of the Government at the present time.

Order, order!

Would you guide me then, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have some doubt as to who is leading them at the moment?

The Minister of Labour has stated that he will see if he can obtain the information for the hon. Member. If he does not succeed in getting it, I suggest that the hon. Member should apply to the Board of Trade.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of people registered as unemployed at the Gateshead Employment Exchange on 1st February, 1927 and 1928, respectively;

The number of persons on the registers of the Gateshead Employment Exchange at 30th January, 1928, was 8,746 as compared with 11,522 at 31st January, 1927. Statistics are not available regarding the number of these persons actually in receipt of unemployment benefit, but the number of persons with claims to benefit current was 6,660 at 30th January, 1928, and 9,819 at 31st January, 1927.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by people with claims to benefit current, as distinct from people in receipt of benefit?

Those who are making claims to benefit, some of whom are in receipt of benefit, and some of whom are in course of being adjudicated on. I can give further information on this matter to the hon. Gentleman if he will communicate with me. The figure which I have given is the nearest to that asked for.

asked the Minister of Labour what industries, either in the South of England or around London, hold out a prospect of being able to absorb unemployed workers transferred from the more distressed areas?

As I stated in reply to the hon. Member on 22nd February, there are trades and districts in which the rate of employment is relatively very low, and experience shows that men coming from other districts succeed in obtaining work. But so much depends on the aptitude of the particular applicant and his suitability for a particular job that I do not think I ought to attempt to specify the industries to which applicants for employment should be directed.

If the Minister of Labour cannot specify the industries, how can men who are unemployed in the north know where to come to?

The reason, as regards London, is that it is not so much a question of industries as of jobs. For example, there is a great turnover of work in London, and opportunities for jobs are continually growing. It is in that way that a considerable number of Welsh miners have obtained work. It is not possible, it is not right or suitable, that people should flock in in large numbers because they hear of a particular job, for they might be disappointed. But with the quick turnover in London and the- comparatively good state of trade here, there is an opportunity for sharing out a good amount of employment with people like miners from South Wales who come in from the more distressed areas.

Is it not a fact that workmen are being grossly misled over these jobs?

Does that mean that the Welsh miner comes to London and prevents a Londoner getting a job that another Londoner has vacated?

Not necessarily.

What else can it mean?

In what type of employment have the bulk of these Welsh miners been placed; have any of them been placed in the artificial silk trade?

Perhaps the hon. Member, when he asks for details of that kind, will give me notice. So far as I am aware, none of the Welsh miners have been placed in artificial silk works, in what I call the ordinary weaving or textile trades. The greater number, so far as I know, are in constructional work of one kind or another.

In view of the prospects in London and the south, has the new Committee which is being set up succeeded in transferring any men from the north to the south where the work is supposed to exist?

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that miners are being sent from Lancashire Employment Exchanges, principally Wigan, to Manton collieries, Nottingham, under the promise of work, good wages, and regular employment; that the statements made to the men are not correct, and that many men from Wigan have had to apply to the Worksop Board of Guardians for relief; and whether he will institute inquiries into these cases, with a view to preventing a continuance of such transfers to districts where work is not available, and also to safeguard the unemployment benefits of the men who have been misled by these offers, and of those whose benefits have been stopped because they refused to go to Manton?

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the transfer of miners from Wigan to pits at Manton under the ownership of a Wigan company. The men were interviewed by representatives of the colliery company, and I have no evidence that the statements made to the men at the interviews were not correct, nor does my information support the hon. Member's statement that many have since applied to the Worksop Guardians for relief. Further transfers to Manton have been temporarily suspended owing to short time working. The question whether benefit, can be paid to men who refuse offers of work is decided not by me, but by the independent statutory authorities appointed for that purpose.

Is the Minister of Labour aware that 90 people were asked for and that a considerably greater number—over 100—have been sent than were required; and that the chairman of the Worksop Board of Guardians has made a public statement that something like 120 people have applied to that board of guardians for relief; and that when these people returned to Wigan they had to apply to the board of guardians?

I will certainly inquire further into any point that needs inquiry, and, if the hon. Member will give me any information, I shall be glad to place it with the other points for inquiry.

I can give the right hon. Gentleman newspaper reports.

When the right hon. Gentleman is making his inquiries, will he ascertain whether this colliery has employed all its men who were stopped in 1926, or whether it is not a, fact that many of the men who have hitherto worked at that colliery are still unemployed, and that the whole colliery has been on short time for a very long period indeed?

asked the Minister of Labour how many miners were registered as unemployed at the Doncaster and Mexborough Labour Exchanges on the 7th January, 1928, and on the last date for which figures are available?

The numbers of insured persons classified as belonging to the coal-mining industry who were recorded as unemployed in the areas of the Doncaster and Mexborough Employment Exchanges at 19th December, 1927, and 23rd January, 1928, were 981 and 1,431 respectively, including 503 at the earlier date and 857 at the later date who were temporarily stopped from the service of their employers.

asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many miners were registered as unemployed in Yorkshire in the first week in January, 1928, and on the last date for which figures are available;

As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Seeing that the number of mine workers thrown out of work has been constantly increasing during the past few weeks, will the Minister advise the Transference Board not to send more miners to an area already seriously affected by unemployment?

As the hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension, perhaps he would read the answer and then put down his supplementary question as another question, because he will find from the answer that the number of wage-earners in the colliery areas in Yorkshire has gone up and that the number of unemployed in Yorkshire from that date has gone down.

Is the Minister not aware that in the reply which he read out it was stated that the number of miners unemployed has increased by about 600 in a period of a month, and is he not aware that that applies to the whole county and not merely to one district?

Has the Minister observed the news in this morning's papers of a case where miners are unemployed because they refused to allow the safety men to attend to the pit, and it is flooded out?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he intends to set up a training centre for unemployed persons in the Wrexham area?

No, Sir. I do not see my way at present to provide any more training centres beyond those in existence or in contemplation.

asked the Minister of Labour how many insured persons were refused benefit at the Employment Exchange at Wrexham in January, 1928, and the principal reasons for the disallowances?

During the four weeks ended 13th February, 1928, the number of applications for extended benefit considered by the Wrexham Local Committee was 138, of which eight were recommended for disallowance. In six cases it was held that the applicants were not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment, in one case the applicant had not had a reasonable period of insurable employment in the last two years, and the remaining case was that of a single person residing with relatives to whom he could look for support. Statistics regarding the decisions on applications for standard benefit are not available.

asked the Minister of Labour whether the Industrial Transference Board has had its attention called to the condition of unemployed miners in the Wrexham area; and, if so, what steps are contemplated to provide work for these men?

The Industrial Transference Board has constantly before it the situation in all mining areas, and, while unemployment amongst miners in the Wrexham district is fortunately not so great as that in other mining centres in Wales, the Board will have this district in mind in its efforts to facilitate the transfer of surplus mining labour.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in this district the Transference Board has actually transferred anybody and found work for them?

The Transference Board, whose operations it will be open to the hon. Member or others to raise in the Debate later, is not, as he imagines, a Board that has large executive powers of its own. It works very largely through the other executive departments, in order to stimulate their efforts to provide openings, and so make the number of transfers greater than it would otherwise be.

Are we to understand that the powers of the Transference Board are so small that it can practically do nothing?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of Labour how many bricklayers and bricklayers' labourers were unemployed on 1st February, 1928 and on 1st February in each of the previous four years?

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

asked the Minister of Labour the reason for the increase in the cost of the office of umpire from £4,730 in 1927 to £9,475 in 1928; and also the courts of referees from £26,450 in 1927 to £210,000 in 1928; and how much is to be paid to the umpire and to the referees and chairman of the referees?

Owing to the abolition of the Minister's discretion with regard to extended benefit by the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, a great number of claims which have hitherto been dealt with by the local employment committees will be referred to the courts of referees and the umpire, with a consequent increase in the cost attributable to the latter. The salary of the umpire at present is £1,650 per annum; chairmen of courts of referees receive 2½ guineas per sitting, together with travelling and subsistence allowances; other members of courts of referees receive travelling and subsistence allowances and compensation for lost time.

Does not the Minister consider that it would have been better to utilise some of this money in relieving unemployed workmen rather than in giving it to these well-paid officials?

Perhaps I am to understand from that that the hon. Member is in favour of the Minister retaining his discretion in the matter, and adjudicating on benefit?

Is it not meant that it would have been better to retain local committees rather than have courts of referees?

Is the Minister aware that my opinion is—

I should like to have the hon. Member's opinion on a more suitable occasion.

asked the Minister of Labour the total estimated cost of administration and the amount to be paid in benefits to unemployed workmen out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund during the year 1928?

The estimated cost of administration of the Unemployment Fund in the year ending 31st March, 1929, is £4,930,000. The amount of unemployment benefit to be paid will, of course, depend upon the volume of unemployment; for the calendar year 1927 it was £36,750,000.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give the total number of insured workers engaged in those industries to which the Safeguarding of Industries Act is now applied in the years 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively?

I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission,

asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet appointed the representatives on the court of referees of the workpeople and employers in Glasgow; if not, when is it his intention to do so; and what bodies he has consulted, or proposes consulting, on the subject?

The appointment of additional members of the panel is proceeding. As regards the last part of the question, I am afraid I cannot add to what I told the hon. Member on 15th February.

The right hon. Gentleman told me nothing on that date. With all due respect, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what body he has consulted. The reason why I put down a question is because on that date he did not tell me what body he was consulting.

The hon. Member could not have been listening on that date, otherwise he would have heard that I replied to him that there would be consultation with the local employment committee. That is the body which I am consulting, and it contains representatives of workmen and employers and others.

In view of the fact that large numbers of the working-class are not represented on this committee, and in view of the fact that the Minister is starting off under a new Act, will he take steps to see that every representative body of working-class opinion is consulted?

I have taken every pains to see that the consultation is sufficient to be fair to everyone, in my opinion.

asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet come to any decision as to publishing a small booklet explaining the provisions of the new Insurance Act; and, if such decision is in favour of doing so, when it will be issued?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is yet in a position to issue a summary of the Unemployment Insurance Acts?

A summary of the Unemployment Insurance Acts has been prepared and is being issued as a Command Paper. Copies will, I understand, be available to-day at the Vote Office.

Is the Department making a charge for this booklet, or are they distributing it free to those who are occupying posts in the administration of the new Act?

I shall have to consider that point.

Will the right hon. Gentleman place this booklet at the disposal of the people through the Employment Exchanges?

I have just said that I will consider that point.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of sea schools now operating and their location; the number of boys who have received training in these schools and entered the merchant service and the Navy, respectively; the number who are at present receiving training for the merchant service; and the number who have been or are about to be transferred to the naval training establishments?

I have been asked to reply.