In putting this question, I am aware that the first part was answered on Monday, but I should be glad of some information on the last part.

I think that the question was entirely answered by the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) on the 9th July.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that he was making inquiries, and would he particularly answer the part of the question as to whether he can take steps to press the present Government of Manchuria to make some reparation to these British firms?

This stock has not been removed from the railway system to which it belongs, and I do not think that the time has come for making special representations yet. His Majesty's Minister has been doing, and will continue to do, his best to get payment of the commercial debts of these firms.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this money is long overdue to these British firms, and why does he not take as vigorous action as he would against the Nationalists of China in similar circumstances?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether China is still a member of the League of Nations; and, if so, who represents her on the League?

China is represented on the Council of the League of Nations by Dr. Tcheng Loh, the Chinese Minister at Paris.

Is he a representative of the new order or of the old order?

I should be sorry to say what anyone represents in China, but I believe that he is continuing his functions with the approval of the Nanking Government.

Does he represent the Government that owns the railway stock?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any official notification from the new central Chinese Government as to the abolition of the name Peking and the substitution in its place of Peiping; and whether in future correspondence is to be so addressed?

I have no official information regarding the reported change of name.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any unofficial information?

I think none, except perhaps what my noble Friend and I have read in the papers, but I think that Peking would still be a sufficient postal address.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an estimate has been formed of the cost of the assistance rendered to the "Jervis Bay"; and whether this expense will be charged to the owners of that vessel?

I have not yet got details of the cost, but it will be about £500. As regards the second part of the question, a definite answer cannot be given until the full circumstances are known. It is the duty of His Majesty's ships to afford every possible aid to vessels in danger or distress, and if the services Tendered come under the heading of salvage services, the Crown is precluded from claiming expenses, under Section 557 of the Merchant Shipping Act.

In the case of the "Jervis Bay," there can be no question of salvage, because there was no real cause for anxiety. In that case, are we to understand that the Crown will have no claim at all on the shipping company?

The right hon. Gentleman must have more information than I have, if he is able to satisfy himself that there was no need for the action that was taken by the captain of the "Jervis Bay." I prefer to wait until I hear a proper account of the circumstances. The word "salvage" is interpreted in a pretty wide sense to include such things as mutiny, disorder, piracy, and so on. I have taken legal opinion in this matter from the best advisers, and I think that it deserves attention; the word "salvage" cannot be interpreted in a narrow sense, so that if any mutiny or piracy or plunder were concerned, that would be covered by the word "salvage."

If mutiny was mentioned in the telegram, and it did not actually take place, would there then be a claim?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when warrant or petty officers or ratings are promoted to mate, there is any understanding, implied or otherwise, that they will not be promoted to commander, but will only reach the rank of lieutenant-commander; and can he explain the small percentage of lieutenant- commanders, formerly mates, promoted to the rank of commander during the last three years?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; lieutenant-commanders promoted from mate are considered equally on their merits with other lieutenant-commanders for promotion when the selections are made. None of the ex-mates whose seniority as lieutenant-commander is 1924 or earlier, the seniorities from which officers are now being promoted, reached the rank of lieutenant before attaining the age of 28, and the great majority were of the age of 31 or above. Consequently, it is only to be expected that promotions to commander would be very exceptional. The age of selection for mate, which governs the age for promotion to lieutenant, has since been appreciably reduced, and it is probable that the more recently promoted officers will have better chances of selection. In the nature of things, however, the exmate must be at some disadvantage as compared with the officer who has been trained as such from a much earlier age, and, it must also be remembered that it is only the best of the officers ex-cadet who are promoted to the rank of commander, and it is against these that the ex-mate has to compete.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that it is only the best of the petty officials and ratings who are promoted mate, and they have been through a double sieve, if I may say so, before they reach that rank, and will he see that the avenue of promotion from the lower deck to the quarter deck is widened?

I am quite aware that they are being selected for merit. As I have said, the age of selection for mate has now been reduced, and as that governs the promotion to lieutenant it will give them a better opportunity than they have had before.

Is it not bad luck for the excellent officers who were promoted during the War—simply because they were not able to qualify on account of age?

It is equally bad luck that a large number of naval officers should have to leave the service, because there is no room for them.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been reached regarding the refit of His Majesty's Ship "Iron Duke"; and when it will be undertaken?

The "Iron Duke" was taken in hand at Devonport for large repairs on 23rd May, 1928.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what grants have been made from the Naval Prize Fund to the Dominions and Crown Colonies?

Grants amounting to £5,000 have been made from the residue of the Naval Prize Fund to the Dominions and Crown Colonies, made up as follows:—

Is that in respect of the damage done by the vessels of these Dominions?

I should require notice of that question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the small obsolete warship which he is willing to lend for experimental purposes with pulverised coal fuel is sufficiently modern to secure a fair test and for obtaining the best possible results?

It is presumed that the purposes of any experiments carried out in a converted vessel would be to determine the practical and financial difficulties to be overcome in the use of pulverised fuel in a sea-going ship. The type of vessels which the Admiralty are willing to lend would be entirely suitable for such a purpose.

If that is so, why was the offer rejected by those who desire to make the tests?

What offer? I do not know to what the hon. Member is referring.

I understand that they asked for a certain vessel on which these experiments could be made. Why was it rejected if the vessel was all that could be desired and they could get the best results?

My answer is that the type of vessel which we think will give the best results has been offered to them, and I do not know what more I can do.

Has there been any refusal of the type of vessel offered to them?

That question is difficult to understand. "Refusal of the type of vessel offered" might open up a wide discussion. I have no doubt that we selected what we thought was the most suitable, and I have no reason to suppose that they have differed from our view.

Have they refused the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman on account of the type of vessel not being suitable?

I am not aware of their having refused. I am sorry I did not understand the hon. Member's first question.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that William Hazelby, of 36, Chapel Road, Nantyglo, Monmouthshire, an unemployed miner, was sent by the local Employment Exchange to Brixton on the 2nd of July and told there was employment for him; that when Hazelby got to Brixton he was offered casual labour as a sandwich-board man, which, as an able-bodied miner, he refused; that Hazelby was left stranded 150 miles from his home; has he authorised such action on the part of officials of Employment Exchanges; and will he have this case investigated, with a view to paying this man any unemployment benefit that may be due to him?

asked the Minister of Labour whether Mr. W. Hazelby, who was brought from Nantyglo to London for the work of carrying sandwich boards, became chargeable to the Lambeth Board of Guardians for any period; will he state what experience, if any, Mr. Hazelby possessed in respect of the work of a painter's labourer; and was the work as a painter's labourer found for him by the Employment Exchange authorities or the local board of guardians?

The circumstances in which Mr. Hazelby was brought to London were fully explained in the reply given on Monday last to the question by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. E. Young). The suggestion that he became chargeable to the guardians is entirely without foundation. Work was found for him by the Exchange as a painter's labourer, and I understand he has had previous experience in the building trade as well as in the mining industry.

Is the Minister aware that he has not answered the question? I want to know if he or his Department authorised bringing a man from a long distance to carry sandwich boards, and if he is prepared to indemnify this man for any loss he has sustained through carrying out the instructions of the Employment Exchange?

I am not aware that he suffered any loss. As regards the rest of the hon. Member's question, it was, as I have said, dealt with in the previous reply.

On a point of Order. You prevented me from putting this question on Monday, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister says he answered it on Monday.

I may not have permitted the hon. Member to put a supplementary question, but I did not stop any relevant question. The hon. Member cannot expect always to receive an answer which entirely satisfies him.

My point of Order is this: The Minister says that he answered on Monday a question that was never put. It was not allowed to be put, and I say that he has not answered the question.

Does the Minister know what has happened to the painter's labourer who did the work which this man is doing now?

I think the hon. Member ought to give me notice of that question. He is assuming that there was a painter's labourer who was doing the work, an assumption which I do not admit.

Will the Minister be good enough to reply to the last part of my question, and say whether this work was found for Mr. Hazelby by the Employment Exchange or the board of guardians?

The hon. Member cannot have listened to my reply, which stated that the suggestion that the man became chargeable to the guardians is entirely without foundation. Consequently, the job could not have been found for him by the guardians, nor was it.

Can the Minister say by whom and under what circumstances it was found for him? Who made the application?

If the hon. Member will give me any further points upon which he wishes information, I will have them inquired into.

May I ask whether the Minister and his Department deliberately set themselves out to insult these young men?

May I ask, as the representative of a London constituency, whether there is not already much unemployment in London?

asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the case of two young men who were sent from the County of Durham by the Employment Exchange to Fort William, in Scotland, only to find there were too many applicants for the work; is he aware that these young men had to walk back from Edinburgh to Durham; and will he inquire into this case?

No, Sir. I am not aware of any such case.

Will the Ministry of Labour inquire as to why these men were sent from Durham to Fort William, and will he say whether they will be paid their expenses, seeing that they had to find money in order to get back to Durham?

Perhaps I might explain that I have already inquired into this matter. The hon. Member appears to have taken what was stated in a newspaper paragraph for gospel. I have already inquired from the men themselves, and they were not sent.

asked the Minister of Labour if he has made inquiries into the case of a young man named Milburn, who was sent from Bishop Auckland Employment Exchange to Wakefield, only to find when he got there that there was no work for him; and can he say when this young man's benefit will be resumed?

Mr. Milburn was sent to Keighley, not Wake-field, and arrived at the Exchange in the afternoon. The manager was then in process of completing arrangements for his engagement, to commence next day, but before these arrangements were completed Mr. Milburn left the Exchange, about 4.30 p.m. to return home. He would have been able to start work next morning had he waited a few minutes longer. His claim to benefit is under consideration by the insurance officer.

How long was this man kept waiting at the Employment Exchange? The answer seems to imply that he merely went there and went away again.

I do not know how long it was, but I shall be glad to make inquiries. Certainly the opportunity which gave him his job came within an hour.

Are we to take it that men are sent long distances without any knowledge whether there is a job or not?

It is quite clear from my answer that there was a job.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman's last answer in contradiction of definite instructions issued by the Minister of Labour to managers of Employment Exchanges relating to the transference of workers such as these?

That does not arise out of this question. This is a matter of general policy, and I am perfectly prepared to state that general policy and to justify it at any time when there is an opportunity for debate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries from his officials on this point? It is known that there are thousands of miners in Yorkshire out of work, and surely there can be no justification for any officer sending miners from one district to get work in another district where there are thousands out of work.

This is a particular case which has been given. If hon. Members wish to raise the general question, which has nothing to do with the individual case, perhaps they will put down a general question, and, if there is a possibility of dealing with the question within the compass of an answer, I shall be glad to deal with it. If it is reserved for a Debate, I shall be glad to deal with it then.

There is no need to have a Debate. Surely, the Minister can sympathise with anyone in any part of the House [Interruption.] May I ask whether the Minister would not sympathise with a point of view that his officers should not give instructions to send men into districts where there are already a large number of unemployed?

I will say at once that to send men to a district where there is the same degree of unemployment—[Interruption.] I am now being asked not to debate this question and therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it until there is an opportunity for debate. [Interruption.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer and not try to evade it? I did not ask him to debate the question.

Order, order!

It is quite obvious that we cannot have a Debate on one question——

On a point of Order——

The hon. Member will please allow me to complete my sentence. These questions are put on specific cases, and on each one of them we cannot have a general Debate on the policy of the Ministry. Really, we must get on with the questions on the Paper.

On that point of Order. That is exactly the difficulty that we raise on this question—it shows that this is a general policy all over the country. My object in putting my ques- tion to the Minister was to ask him whether, if that were the policy, he would stop it, or, if it were not, whether he would inquire why it was happening.

That should be put down as a specific question.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a young man, 19 years of age, was sent by the Employment Exchange from Bishop Auckland to Shoreditch; reporting there he was sent to a hostel in Grays Inn Road, there he was not allowed to write a letter unless it was censored, then he was given a job of delivering powder samples for a chemist at a wage of 2s. per day, and eventually he had to walk back home from London to Bishop Auckland; and can he say if his benefit has been resumed?

The wages in this case were 1s. 3d. an hour for six hours a day, and not 2s. a day, as stated in the question. The man concerned was advised to consult the exchange in case of any difficulty, but left his job and returned home without informing the exchange. I have no information with regard to the alleged censorship of letters at the hostel, and I find it difficult to credit it. His claim to benefit is under consideration.

Can the Minister say what Shoreditch has done that it should have unemployed men from Durham sent to it, in view of the fact that there are thousands unemployed in Shoreditch at the present time?

rose——

Mr. Stephen.

On a point of Order. Surely we are going to be allowed to put supplementary questions?

As I have said before, we must get on with the questions on the Paper.

My point of Order is this: On a former question I was not allowed to put a supplementary question which would have contradicted the answer of the Minister. [Interruption.] On this question, I want to put another supplementary question——

There must be some limit to supplementary questions.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Edward Whittington, 53, Havodarthen Road, Llanilleth, and David MacDonald, Brynithel Terrace, Aberbeeg, Monmouthshire, were sent to Birmingham to work for the Birmingham Corporation, and that when they arrived there they were told there was no work for them and they were left stranded with only four days' unemployment pay; will he take measures to stop sending men long distances to places where there is no work for them; and will he see that these men are paid for any expenses they have incurred through carrying out the instructions of the Employment Exchange?

The two men travelled from Wales to Birmingham on the 2nd July, and were paid accrued benefit on arrival at Birmingham. They were placed in employment three days afterwards, and, I understand, have expressed themselves satisfied with the jobs.

asked the Minister of Labour the names of the chairmen of the court of referees for Glasgow; how many are practising solicitors; and what industrial experience they possess?

The chairmen of the Glasgow Court of Referees are Mr. Brownlie, Mr. Chalmers, Colonel Menzies-Anderson, Mr. Reid, Mr. Semple and Mr. Stewart. They are all practising solicitors. I do not know what the hon. Member means precisely by industrial experience, but I am satisfied that all these gentlemen are well qualified to carry out the duties of chairman impartially and efficiently.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least one of those chairmen has been prominently identified with anti-Labour and anti-working-class opinion in the City of Glasgow; and is it true or not that all those men have been drawn from one political party and that some of them have had no industrial experience?

I am not aware of any of the circumstances just stated by the hon. Member. I have never inquired as to anything except the capacity of a person for the job. I am entirely unaware of their political opinions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Semple has been prominently identified with anti-working-class opinion, that he has had no industrial experience, and no experience except that of being a prominent member of the right hon. Gentleman's party?

I have no knowledge whatever of the points to which the hon. Member has alluded. I am not aware whether it is the fact or whether it is not, but I would never ask any person with whom I was connected to conceal his opinions on other occasions than those on which he has official duties, whatever those opinions may be. So far as industrial experience is concerned, I can say that, supposing they had been connected with industry, I should at once expect the objection that they were allied to the capitalist party or something of that kind.

I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that many claimants to unemployment benefit at the Glasgow Exchanges are availing themselves of the right to appeal their claims to the court of referees; and if he will take steps to have these rights brought more prominently before the notice of claimants?

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is uncertainty on the part of unemployed men and women as to whether, when their claims have been rejected by the insurance officer, they may appeal to the court of referees; and whether he will take steps to make sufficiently clear to applicants their rights in this respect?

The existing procedure provides for each direct claimant to be informed, individually, of his right to appeal against disallowance of benefit. The form notifying the disallowance contains a paragraph informing him that he is entitled to appeal. I am sending the hon. Members a copy of this form and also of the corresponding form sent to the Association in the case of an indirect claim.

Will the Minister look at the form again, and see that the sentence dealing with the right of the applicant to appeal to a court of referees is put a little more prominently in the form. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that he is not dealing with people who have had a great deal of experience in reading.

I am perfectly ready to consider that point. The difficulty is that there is no more prominent position in which that statement can be put. I am anxious that everybody should know that they have a right of appeal, but if the hon. Member will look at the form he will find a blank space for the reasons for the disallowance to be written in, and immediately beneath the blank space comes the sentence:

"You are entitled to appeal against this decision provided your appeal is lodged at this office within 21 days."

Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have those lines printed in black type?

asked the Minister of Labour the number of lads and young women under 21 years of age who have been placed in employment through Bridgeton, Parkhead, and Springburn Employment Exchanges, respectively, during the last 12 months, and the total number registered as unemployed at present?

Separate statistics are only available in respect of juveniles under 18 years of age. As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Could not the Minister, in view of the change that has been made by the Act, try to get for us some figures with regard to juveniles under 21?

I will consider that, and see if it is possible.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for unemployment benefit made by men, women, and young people, respectively, at Bridgeton and Parkhead Employment Exchanges, respectively, and the number of claims rejected in each case since the

asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet considered the opening of an office in Glasgow for the purpose of dealing with affairs arising from the administration of the Trade Board Acts; and, if so, what action he intends taking?

I cannot add to the replies which my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, gave to questions on this subject on 2nd May last.

have already got the answer. I want to know if the right

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

I have considered the point, and the answer is quite clear. It is that there is no sufficient case at present for establishing an office in Glasgow, or for transferring it from Edinburgh to Glasgow. If more money was available, I should prefer to spend it upon having more inspectors. If any information is wanted about Glasgow, it can be got by a reference to the Employment Exchange.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Glasgow is the only large industrial centre in this country without a Trade Board office, and that all other large towns of a similar size have a Trade Board office? The Government have built an Employment Exchange in Glasgow, and it only means setting aside more room in that Exchange for this particular purpose.

I have considered all those points.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the number of applicants for small holdings who have been settled in Harris since 1912, and the respective dates of their applications for and settlement upon small holdings?

As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL RJSPORT.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the statutory authority under which land has been refused to men whose applications have been before his Department for a number of years and who have occupied land without authorisation?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the question on this subject asked by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on 3rd May last.

If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the reply he will see that it does not mention what I ask him about, namely, the statutory authority under which he claims to have this right?

I have the onus of keeping, or assisting to keep, law and order in the administration of this Department. I also have to hold the balance between those who behave properly and those who do not.

Is the House to take it that the right hon. Gentleman admits that he possesses no statutory authority to act as he did act towards these two persons whom he has kept out of small holdings for the last 16 years?

I am quite prepared to take the responsibility for the action that I have taken.

Why did you not say so in your original reply?

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is yet in a position to state when the White Paper on the subject of the new agreement with Imperial Airways, Limited, will be laid; whether the new agreement will contain any provision designed to secure technical progress in the design of civil aircraft; and by what date it is hoped to inaugurate the weekly service between England and India?

In view of the widespread desire that the House shall be given early particulars of the new Agreement with Imperial Airways, Limited, I have arranged to lay forthwith a White Paper summarising its main features, since the full formal Agreement will take a considerable time to conclude. This will be available for hon. Members on Thursday. As regards the second part of the question, a feature of the new Agreement will be provision for an obsolescence rate of 25 per cent. per annum, which is expressly designed to enable the company to equip itself with the most up-to-date types of aircraft as new designs become available during the currency of the Agreement. As regards the last part, assuming it is possible to obviate, the Persian difficulty and no other political obstacles arise, I hope that the service will be inaugurated on or about 1st April next, which is the date envisaged in the new Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether Captain Hinchcliffe, who recently lost his life in an attempt to fly the Atlantic, was a member of the Reserve of the Royal Air Force; and whether he was in receipt of any service pension?

The answer to the first par; of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, Captain Hinchliffe was not in receipt of service pension or of any non-effective award from the Air Ministry, but I understand that he was in receipt of, a wounds pension and disability retired pay for war service from the Ministry of Pensions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the widow and two young children of this gallant officer are in very poor circumstances, and will he, in view of the great services rendered to aviation by this officer, and of the fact that the State has benefited to the extern; of £500,000, make representations, through whatever channels he thinks most suitable, that adequate provision be made for this officer's widow?

The gentleman in question was not an officer on the Reserve of the Royal Air Force, and the Air Ministry, therefore, has no locus standi in the matter. I would suggest to the hon. Member that he should address a question to the Ministry of Pensions.

Is there no compassionate grant in the Air Ministry, as there is in the Admiralty, that can be applied to oases of this sort?

No, Sir.

One ought to be established.

asked the Minister of Transport the present position of the negotiations between his Department, the London County Council, and the Southern Railway Company regarding the proposed new Charing Cross bridge?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), of which I am sending him a copy.

Will my right hon. Friend see that, at any conferences which may take place as to the removal of Charing Cross Station, the travelling public are represented?

That is a matter which I have had constantly under review.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that the bridge over the river at Newhaven, belonging to the Southern Railway Company, has recently had a restriction placed upon it whereby vehicles with over eight-ton loads are debarred from passing over the river, except those belonging to the railway company, and also trains belonging to the Southern Railway Company; and whether he will take steps to secure the removal of this restriction, in view of the fact that this is the only road through Newhaven and seriously affects the position of haulage contractors and traders from other parts of the country?

My attention had not previously been drawn to the restriction placed upon traffic over this bridge, but I am causing inquiries to be made and will communicate with my hon. Friend on the subject in due course.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that a number of persons in receipt of pensions adequate for comfortable maintenance are employed in various Government Departments; that in some cases these persons are also granted additional pensions on retirement; and whether, in view of the number of capable men and women unable to secure employment in any capacity suitable to their qualifications, he will set up a Committee to inquire into the whole question of the advisability of prohibiting the employment in Government service of such pensioners except under special and temporary circumstances when no other person is available?

The pensions of civil pensioners re-employed in the Government service are, under Section 20 of the Superannuation Act, 1834, either suspended or adjusted so that the salary and pension of a re-employed civil servant shall not exceed the amount of his former pay. No deduction is ordinarily made from the service or disability pensions of ex-members of the Army, Navy or Air Force employed in a civil capacity, and I am aware that a number of such pensioners are employed in Government Departments and that in certain cases they will in due course be eligible for the grant of a civil pension in respect of their service in a civil capacity. In regard to the latter half of the question, I see no reason why ex-members of the Army, Navy, or Air Force in receipt of service or disability pensions should be debarred from further employment, for which they are fitted, in a civil capacity in Government Departments; nor would it be in the interests of the State to take any steps which might tend to restrict the free choice of the best candidate available for a particular post. In these circumstances I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member's suggestion of the appointment of a Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that something like 30,000 men have been removed from employment and debarred from any future employment because of the receipt of a paltry 10s. a week pension from the State, and that employers all over the country are discharging men and refusing them any chance of further work merely because of the 10s., and does he think it is right that men who have comforable pensions and can live quite reasonably should take work when there are others capable of doing it?

asked the Home Secretary if he can state how many of the chief officials attached to the police and other Departments connected with his office whose salaries and emoluments exceed £500 a year are in receipt of pensions, the amount of such pension, present salary, and future pension to which such officials will be entitled to on retirement or which may be granted on the recommendation of the Home Secretary; and the number of persons employed at salaries and emoluments under £500 a year who are in receipt of pensions and who on retirement may receive additional pensions?

The answer is a long one, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.