asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the usual course of consulting His Majesty's Dominions and the Government of the Irish Free State was followed before the naval compromise with the French Government was reached; and, if not, whether he will give a reason for the departure from the usual procedure?

In putting this question may I join in the congratulations which have been offered to the right hon. Gentleman?

In accordance with the procedure agreed at the Imperial Conference of 1926 for adoption in cases of this kind (see page 22 of Command 2768) His Majesty's Government in Great Britain informed. His Majesty's Governments in all the Dominions beforehand of the policy contemplated. No comments were received from any of the Dominion Governments.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total numbers of British and American cruisers in 1914 and 1928; and the number of British and American post-war 10,000-ton cruisers built, building, or proposed to be built?

In 1914 the total number of cruisers was British 112, United States 35, whilst to-day the position is British 51, United States 32. Included in the latter figures are seven postwar 10,000-ton cruisers of the British Empire. No 10,000-ton cruisers have been completed by the United States of America. In addition there are building six of this type for the British Empire and eight for the United States of America. Proposals for building further ships of the type are still under consideration in both countries. By the White Paper of July, 1925, the British Programme includes three further 10,000-ton cruisers, whilst in the United States a Bill is before the Senate for laying down five ships of this type in each of the years 1929, 1930, and 1931.

Are all these battleships being built in our own dockyards?

No Sir, not all of them. I presume the hon. Member is referring to the Royal Dockyards. Some of these warships are being built there, and some in other yards in this country.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether any estimate has been formed of the respective coastlines of the British Empire, the United States and her possessions, and the French, Italian, and Japanese Empires?

The respective coastlines, including Dependencies and Mandatory areas, are estimated to be, in statute miles, as follow:

May I ask what possible ratio there can be between the length of coast-line and the defensive needs of any of these countries; and does it not weaken our position if we take our stand upon such a useless formula?

I do not know to what the hon. and gallant Member is referring. I never said whether there was any use in it or not; I merely answered the question which my hon. and gallant Friend nut to me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to go to the expense—[Interruption.]

We must get on with the questions on the Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what British missionaries have recently been killed in China; and whether he will make a general statement regarding the present position of British missionaries in the disturbed areas of China?

During the past three years there have been the following cases of murders of British missionaries in China: Mrs. Sibley, who was murdered by a coolie, who appears to have been insane, in Chengtu on the 7th June, 1926; Mr. Slichter and child, regarding whom I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Central Southwark on the 2nd May, 1927: Miss Mann, who was shot by brigands near Taiyuanfu on the 12th instant. As regards the return of missionaries to the interior, on the 25th September, 1927, His Majesty's Consuls in China were authorised to deal with individual applications at their discretion, subject to the following conditions:

(1) Permission for missionaries to return to the interior to be confined in general to men, and to he given only for those districts for which the Chinese authorities were prepared to issue the necessary passports.

(2) Applicants to he informed specifically that His Majesty's Government did not encourage them to return, and that they did so at their own risk and on the understanding that they might be advised to evacuate again at short notice.

Consuls were instructed that, if they were in any doubt, they should act on the side of caution. On the 29th March last Consuls were further authorised to use their discretion in extending permission to return to women missionaries in the same conditions, and were again directed to act on the side of caution in cases of doubt.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement regarding the progress of the negotiations on the tariff question between His Majesty's Government and the National Government of China; whether any negotiations are in progress on the question of extra-territoriality; and whether His Majesty's Government, in order to facilitate relations and in view of the recognition of the National Government of China by the government of the United States of America last July, will take immediate steps leading up to the full recognition of that Government?

Negotiations with the National Government for a treaty on tariff matters are still in progress, and in the circumstances I should prefer at this stage to make no detailed statement as to the present position. No negotiations are taking place on the question of extra-territoriality. As regards recognition, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece) on the 14th November.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us without inconvenience whether in this matter we are co-operating with and consulting America or whether we are co-operating with and consulting Japan?

A later question on the Paper raises that issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any particulars with regard to the understanding which has been reached between the Governments of Great Britain and Japan concerning common action in relation to mutual interests in China?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the conversations with the Japanese Government on the subject of diplomatic co-operation in China?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement concerning the progress of conversations between Great Britain and Japan in regard to joint policy in China?

Relations between Great Britain and Japan with regard to China are based on the obligations of full and frank communication specified in Article 7 of the Washington-China Treaty of 1922, and on the fact that Japan and Great Britain have much larger interests in China than have the other Washington Powers. In these circumstances, the two Governments have agreed informally that the close contact which they desire to maintain can best be promoted and developed by constant communication and consultation between their respective Ministers at Peking. The two Ministers, being each fully informed of the views of his colleague's Government in regard to every new problem as it arises, will then be in a position to consider whether a common course of action is desirable or not, and if not, to understand and explain the reasons to their Governments. There are no conversations proceeding between the two Governments regarding China other than this informal exchange of information and views which takes place at Peking and which will, I hope, be continued. This arrangement is not a new departure but a natural consequence of the Washington obligations. Similar conversations and consultation take place between His Majesty's Minister and the Ministers of other Powers at Peking. The general lines of British policy in China were laid down in our declarations of December, 1926, and January, 1927, to which we adhere.

Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the United States have been consulted and what is their view with regard to these arrangements?

No, Sir. There has been no consultation with any- body, but our Minister in Peking communicates with the representative of the United States in that capital; and that I think is the best channel through which we can co-ordinate wherever co-ordination is possible and desirable our policy with that of the United States, Japan and other Powers.

May we take it for certain that there is the same consultation and co-operation with America that we now understand there is with Japan? May we take it that there is no sort of differentiation or preferential treatment given to the Japanese Government and the Japanese policy in China?

Certainly. From the first day I met the Ambassadors of the Powers concerned, it has been my earnest desire to work in harmony both with the United States and Japan with respect to our common interests in China.

The Foreign Secretary has explained that the same policy is carried out by conversations with—

The hon. Member is not asking a question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if our Minister in Peking is not first instructed from Whitehall as to what policy he shall pursue when holding those conversations with the Japanese Ambassador?

Certainly, His Majesty's representative in China receives instructions from our Government as all our representatives abroad do, and he would not speak otherwise than as he believes His Majesty's Government would desire.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the answer he has given will not he news at Washington?

Yes, I am quite sure that it will not be news to the Washington Government. The Washington Government are aware and must be aware of it. One of my first steps on taking my present office was to express the hope that we should pursue a common policy, or at any rate consult freely with other nations in regard to all our actions in China.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give reasons showing why the British delegation, at the ninth assembly of the League of Nations, rejected the proposal to set up s. wireless station as part of the peace machinery of the League?

The British delegate opposed acceptance of the schemes submitted to the assembly on the ground that it would be difficult to justify in present circumstances the annual expenditure of a considerable sum by the League with the object of assuring a means of communication of very doubtful efficiency to be used only in a hypothetical, and it was to be hoped, extremely remote case. On this the question was referred to a sub-committee and eventually general agreement was reached that it would be impossible to reach any definite conclusion during the session of the assembly. The assembly therefore decided to subject the schemes to further expect examination and the matter will come up for decision next September.

Did not the Rumbold Commission in the case of the Graeco-Bulgarian dispute say that better machinery for communication ought to be in existence?

Yes, Sir. The matter has exercised the minds of those responsible either as members of the Council or as servants of the League, but the Rumbold Commission were not experts in these matters, and my own doubts arise over the question of the efficiency of a station -which would have no business, or very little business, in ordinary times.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information regarding the position of the International Relief Union initiated by the League of Nations; and, seeing that 30 Governments had acceded to the Diplomatic Convention by the end of April and that 570 shares of the initial fund had thus been guaranteed; that according to Article 18 of the Convention it is stated that the Convention may come into force when ratifications or accessions have been deposited in the name of 12 States of which the combined contributions amount to 600 shares; and that the accession of His Majesty's Government would secure the necessary number of shares, whether he will now accede to the Convention?

Although the Convention establishing the International Relief Union has been signed by 30 States, it has so far only been ratified by five. It is therefore not accurate to say that 570 shares have been guaranteed, for such shares can only be taken into account if the States who have signed have also ratified. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain have decided to accede to the Convention and will shortly notify the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to that effect. I am, of course, unable to state whether after their accession a sufficient number of other States with the necessary number of shares will ratify the Convention so that it may thereby enter into force.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many times he has been to sea in the Admiralty yacht His Majesty's Ship "Enchantress" during the last 12 months; how many times she has been used at sea by the other Lords Commissioners; and on how many occasions have warships been used by himself and/or the other Lords Commissioners for sea voyages during the same period?

The "Enchantress" has not been used for any sea voyage during the last 12 months, as she is not at present in all respects in a state of readiness for sea. Individual members of the Board of Admiralty have been to sea in His Majesty's Ships during the same period on several occasions, but I have no exact record of the number.

May I ask what is the justification for entailing the expense of keeping the "Enchantress" in reserve?

It was thought that she might be useful at same future time. She is not being used now solely for reasons of economy.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that the answer he has just given that she may be useful at some future time might be used in favour of keeping up Pembroke Dockyard and other places?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can make any statement regarding the conclusions arrived at up to the present from the experiments with pulverised coal being conducted on board an obsolete cruiser of His Majesty's Navy; how long has actual experimental work been proceeding; and when is it intended to issue a report?

No experiments are being conducted at present on board an obsolete cruiser of His Majesty's Navy. A commercial company has applied for the loan of an obsolete naval vessel in which to carry out experiments. The terms of the loan are not yet finally arranged.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us any idea whether this boat is likely to be suitable for this purpose?

I understand that the commercial experiments which have been made already have proved very satisfactory, and it remains to be seen whether the commercial company which wishes to experiment on this ship will really require it. We are doing all that we can in the matter.

Is it not of the highest importance to ascertain whether pulverised fuel is of value for this purpose, and is it not advisable to proceed at once with these experiments under Admiralty control?

No, Sir; we are already proceeding under the advice of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in this matter and we are guided very largely by their views.

Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that some months ago the First Lord indicated in this House that the Admiralty were willing to co-operate with other people who were willing to make these experiments, and is it not time we were doing something in that direction?

If the hon. Member had listened to my original reply, he would have been aware that I stated that we are doing everything we can in this matter to the best of our ability.

Are we to understand that the Admiralty are doing nothing except leaving this matter in the hands of a commercial company?

We are doing whatever we are advised to do by the department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and we are also helping the commercial people to the best of our ability.

Is it not a fact that if proper facilities had been given, experiments would have been conducted many months ago?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what vessels of different classes have been presented to the Canadian Government since the War; how many are still maintained or have been replaced; and what sums were realised by the sale of these vessels when scrapped?

The following vessels were presented to Canada in 1919£1920:

• Cruiser£"Aurora."
• Destroyers£"Patriot," "Patrician."
• Submarines£"H.14," "H.15" (re-named "C.H.14" and "C.H.15").

Of these, the cruiser and submarines have been scrapped. The two destroyers are on the Disposal List, and in anticipation of the building by Canada of two modern destroyers, they have been temporarily replaced by the "Vancouver" and "Champlain" (formerly His Majesty's destroyers "Torbay" and "Toreador"), which have been lent to Canada for the purpose. It would be contrary to the usual practice to disclose the sums actually realised by the sale of the vessels which were scrapped.

What has been done with the money that has been realised?

The money we receive comes into the Appropriation-in-Aid of the Navy.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a gratuity is payable for loss of office to commanders who are retired at the age of 45 or 46 years, seeing that the age for compulsory retirement is 50?

The Regulations for the Naval service do not provide for continuous employment being available for officers, and officers are always liable to be placed on unemployed or half pay when appointments are not, available for them. At the present time, owing to the smaller number of suitable shore appointments available for senior commanders, chiefly due to the loss of the coastguard appointments, it is a matter of great difficulty to find employment for such officers; and in these circumstances it is the policy of the Board to arrange appointments as far as possible so that each officer has the opportunity of qualifying for the maximum rate of retired pay before retirement. This arrangement, which is to the general advantage of the officers themselves, necessitates employment being limited to a great extent to officers below the age of 46, at which age officers normally become eligible for the maximum rate of retired pay laid down for the rank. No question of gratuity arises, since the matter is, as I have indicated, covered by the ordinary conditions of naval service.

What is the maximum returned pay in these cases?

I shall be very glad to give it if the hon. Member puts down a question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of commanders, Royal Navy, placed on the retired list during the period 1st October, 1927, to 30th September, 1928, before reaching the age of 50 years, the age for compulsory retirement, and the reasons therefor?

The number of commanders placed on the retired list during this period, before reaching the age of 50, was 17, of whom 16 retired voluntarily and one was retired for non-service.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that is a somewhat extravagant way of obtaining short-service officers?

Opinions may vary on the point. The matter is under consideration.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of captains, Royal Navy, borne on the active list and how many are holding full-pay appointments; and the number of commanders, Royal Navy, borne on the active list and how many are holding full-pay appointments?

The numbers on 15th November, the latest date on which information is available, were as follow:

—		Borne.	Holding full-pay appointments.
Captains	…	246	219
Commauders	…	421	387

The figures for captains exclude Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and Duke of York. Officers on full-pay sick or ordinary leave and on passage, with regard to whom separate figures are not available, are included amongst those on full pay.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of engine-room artificers who entered His Majesty's naval service since 1st April last and what percentage of the number were entered direct from outside engineering works?

Twenty-nine engine-room artificers have been rated since 1st April last after training in the Service as artificer apprentices; 10 have been entered from outside engineering works and two from His Majesty's dockyards. The percentage of entries from outside engineering works is, therefore, 24.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the technical advisers of the Admiralty are still in favour of the construction of capital ships of the "Nelson" type; and whether, seeing the great divergence of opinion as to the usefulness of these ships either for offence or defence, he will cease making preparations for the construction of additional ships of war of this class?

Under Article 21 of the Washington Treaty, a conference must be convened in 1931 to consider any changes necessary to meet technical and scientific developments. In the meantime, the construction of capital ships is governed by the provisions of this Treaty. The views of His Majesty's Government as to the desirability of reducing the size and power of capital ships by international agreement were made public at the Geneva Three-Power Naval Conference in 1927, and at the Preparatory Commission in March, 1928.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will set out the new rules and principles governing the attributability of tuberculosis cases in the Navy?

I am afraid that this is not practicable, as the value of working rules of this kind depends largely on the power to apply the spirit of them to the facts of individual cases as disclosed by the medical evidence. To state them as absolute rules would give them a hard-and-fast character which would impair their value.

Is it not also important that those making claims under these rules should be acquainted with the rules, so that they may be assured that they are not making claims that have no chance of being put into effect?

I do not think that that point really arises. It is perfectly clear that all claims will be made, and they will be considered, in the light of the new rules, which, as I have stated in previous answers, are much more favourable than the old ones.

Can we know what the rules are?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the Board of Admiralty has decided to revise the rules and principles relating to the assessment of attributability of tuberculosis cases at and from 1st October last, the Board can see its way to make the revision retrospective, in order that those who are now left without pensions but who nevertheless, had they been subsequently invalided, would have come within the new rules, may benefit by them?

The new rules are in effect a concession, and it has been necessary to fix a date for their introduction. The 1st October last has been taken for this purpose, after full consideration, and it is not proposed to depart from it.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the whole purpose of revising the rules was that the Admiralty realised that in some cases full justice was not done to the men; and that being so, would it not be within the spirit of the Admiralty's intention to admit people who have been excluded under the old rules?

The hon. Member will appreciate the fact that we cannot go back beyond a certain date for various reasons, but we can always do so for medical reasons, and any case can always be considered when it comes up.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman assure us that under the new rules men who are discharged from the Royal Navy on account of tuberculosis will not be treated more harshly than men discharged from the other two Services?

When the joint committee of the three Services has reported, will not the rules then be again revised?

That remains to be seen.

Would a certificate from a medical man, which pointed out that a discharged sailor was suffering from tuberculosis attributable to the conditions of service, and which had been rejected by the Admiralty, he considered now?

Any new medical evidence that is brought forward will always justify reconsideration of a case.

Is there any prospect of these new rules and principles being published?

My hon. and gallant Friend did not, perhaps, hear my previous answer, in which I indicated that that is not our intention.

May I ask if, in the new rules, the condition for a pension that the disease was contracted owing to special hardship has been deleted, so as to put men of the Royal Navy on a par with those of the other two Services?

The rules certainly do not place the Navy under worse conditions than the other two Services.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make a statement regarding the reported visit of Devonport dockyard officials to Valparaiso with a view to the Admiralty tendering for the refit of the Chilean battleship "Almirante Latorre"?

The Chilean Government have been consulting with the Admiralty as regards the refit of the "Almirante Latorre." Some dockyard officials have been sent out to Valparaiso to report on the vessel. The Admiralty have not yet heard the result of this inspection. The cost of sending dockyard officials to Valparaiso is being borne by the Chilean Government.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman undertake that this policy of trying to get work for the dockyards from foreign Governments wherever possible will be continued?

Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask the hon. Gentle- man who has put this question to let it be known in his constituency that this is the Government's policy and that they have done so much?

Do we seriously understand that it is the Government's policy to keep in good order other nations' battleships?

May I have an answer to my supplementary question?

It, goes without saying that the Government are always anxious to obtain work for British workmen.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any materials, plant, or equipment for the Singapore naval base have been ordered from, purchased in, or made in Germany; and, if so, the nature of such purchases?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, accordingly, does not arise.

Does that cover plant ordered by contractors?

As far as I know, yes.

Are we to understand that the contractors themselves have not purchased any wagons in Germany?

I can only give the answer that I have given.

Why not be certain?

It is certain, as much as any question can be certain.

Is it possible, under the terms of the 1919 Treaty, for the German Government or any German firms to make plant for use at naval bases?

I must have notice of that question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what date the Admiralty first had knowledge that Sir John Jackson, Limited, intended to place the contract for foul large mechanical excavators for use on the Singapore naval base with an American firm?

The Admiralty were informed on the 2nd November, 1928, that the contract for this plant had been placed. The Department had no prior knowledge of the contractors' intention to purchase this plant abroad.

Had not the Admiralty's representatives on the spot at Singapore discussed with representatives of British firms, long before the 2nd November, the question of this work?

I must have notice of that question.

In view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply a few moments ago, that the Government always do their best to find work for British workpeople, does he not think that the Admiralty ought to have known where the contracts ultimately went?

In view of the fact that an announcement was published in the Press on the 2nd or 3rd November, may I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply is to the effect that the Admiralty had no knowledge before that date?

That is exactly what I said.

Thank you.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that certain plans or drawings for the Singapore naval base were delivered by the contractors to an American firm's sales office in London, and from there sent to the American company's works in America; and whether such action was taken with the knowledge and consent of the Admiralty?

No Admiralty plans or drawings for the Singapore naval base were delivered by the contractors to an American company. The contractors delivered certain drawings of their own to the company, in order to explain the work which the plant required by the contractors would have to perform. These have been seen by our responsible technical officers, and the contractors' action neither betrays public confidence nor is in any way irregular.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the contractor in this case is an ex-Conservative Member for Devonport?

What is wrong with that?

Buy British goods!

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to his announcement on 17th April that the Board of Admiralty were making a careful review of the relevant regulations on the rights of complaints of officers and men against those of superior rank, whether any changes have been made or are about to be made as a result of this review and, if so, of what nature?

As a result of the reiview that has taken place, certain changes which, it is thought, will impart greater clearness to the Regulations on the subject are now under consideration. When these have been finally decided upon, they will be issued as amendments to the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions.

Will these regulations be published?

They will be issued as amendments to the King's Regulations.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of applications for benefit that have been made to the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange during the period of three months ended 31st October, 1928; the number granted and the number refused, giving similar figures for the corresponding period a year ago?

I am unable to give these figures to-day, but I will obtain them and send them to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction that is caused at this Employment Exchange by so many refusals of benefit? Is the reason why so many are refused because they are not genuinely seeking work?

I am not aware of it.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman have inquiries made at the Exchange? Two people who have been refused benefit have committed suicide.

asked the Minister of Labour whether in the interest of Parliamentary control of his Department, he is prepared to supply Members with copies of all regulations and instructions on procedure issued by his Department to officials, whether they be marked confidential or otherwise?

asked the Minister of Labour of he will make available to Members copies of the circulars and instructions issued by his Department to Employment Exchange managers in connection with the transference of unemployecl workers from depressed areas?

All regulations are published and copies are placed in the Library of the House. As regards instructions to the staff, it has been the invariable practice of my predecessors to treat them as confidential, and I do not think I ought to alter this practice. I am always ready to state the general effect of any instructions and, in the case of transference of unemployed workers, I did this in a reply given on 14th November, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Short).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulty Members are placed in when confronted by a person who has had his unemployment benefit stopped and the Member is quite unable to explain the reason as a result of these circulars?

No, but I do not think that arises out of the question. If hon. Members wish for informa- tion about any particular case, and they will refer it to me, I will always do my best to give an answer.

Is not the real reason for secrecy that if these methods were known to the House they would not be approved?

All I can say is that my methods are precisely the same as those of my predecessors.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the special reason for withholding this information from Members?

All my predecessors have had exactly the same practice, which is that instructions given to an official of the Department are matters of ordinary Departmental confidence, and it is the only principle on which administration can properly be conducted.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of his undertaking that an applicant for unemployment benefit whose claim has been rejected has the grounds of such rejection fully stated on the form for appeal which he signs, confidential instructions have been issued to the local officers, on the 26th March, 1928, that they shall forward a further report on a blank sheet which they shall not communicate to anyone outside the Department and of which no copy is to he retained at the local office?

The answer to the hon. Member's question is that no report or information is put before the Court of Referees on an appeal from rejection of a claim to benefit which is not communicated to the appellant or his association before the appeal is heard. In order, however, that there may be no misunderstanding on the point, I should mention that, when a claim is being sent to the insurance officer for determination in the first instance, the local officer who interviews the claimant may in appropriate cases (which only form a, very small proportion of the total) make a special report for the information of the insurance officer which is not shown to the claimant or to the Court of Referees. The need for this arises from the fact that the insurance officer in London cannot interview claimants himself. The Court of Referees does interview the claimant and therefore need not have such a report. As I have said, any report or other information which is laid before the Court is communicated to the claimant or his association.

Is not the information contained in this secret report used by the officer to influence the Court after the applicant has withdrawn?

No, it is information which is merely given to the insurance officer. A doubtful case is referred, first of all, to the insurance officer before it can go to a Court of Referees on appeal. The reason this report is ever given is that the insurance officer cannot see the man for himself, and there are certain inferences which can only be formed on actually seeing the man. The local officer acts as the eyes and ears, so to speak, of the insurance officer for that purpose.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman so particular that a copy of the report is not kept in the local office?

So far as I know, there is no Regulation or instruction either for or against any report being kept in the office.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read his own instructions?

Seeing that the Minister has a representative present at all hearings before the Umpire, is that representative furnished with a copy of this confidential report?

So far as. I know, that is not the case before the Court of Referees, and I do not think it is the case before the Umpire either. It is a small point of procedure, but, if the hon. Member wishes, I will find out and give him a definite reply.

If this additional information may be of an adverse character, why should it not be made available to the man, so that he can have an opportunity of questioning the accuracy of the statement?

We really cannot spend any more time over this question.

asked the Minister of Labour the total number of registered unemployed at the Clapham Junction Employment Exchange; how many persons of that total are miners transferred from the mining areas under the Government scheme; have any of the men so transferred been found employment; if so, how many; at what Occupations; and have any of them been offered or accepted employment at less than trade union wages and conditions?

The total number of wholly unemployed persons registered at the Clapham Junction Employment Exchange on 26th November was 3,221 men, 428 women, '78 boys, 56 girls. These numbers do not include any miners transferred under the Government scheme. Forty-two men and 20 boys from the depressed areas have been transferred to this Exchange area to definite employment in a wide range of occupations. It is not the practice of the Employment Exchanges to transfer men at less than the recognised rates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the opinion expressed by the magistrate last Monday?

That question cannot arise out of the answer which has been given.

I am submitting to the right hon. Gentleman that besides doing injury to the unemployed in the London area, he is increasing the task of the magistrates and the police.

That does not arise either out of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave or out of the original question.

asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the London County Council is not in favour of the transference of unemployed from other parts of the country, and that a special committee of the London County Council expressed the view that the total number of unemployed in London must be increased by the transfer of men to London from the depressed areas; and if he intends taking action in the matter?

I have made inquiries and have ascertained that it is not correct to say that the London County Council is not in favour of the transference scheme. The matter has not yet come before the Council. I should add that during the past five years the insured population of Greater London has increased by 10.2 per cent. mainly owing to the inflow of new workers, and the rate of unemployment has fallen from 9.8 per cent. in October, 1923, to 5.7 per cent. in October of this year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the County Council considered this subject yesterday and that a report was presented showing that there was a serious shortage of houses in the London area and that there was not a sufficiency of houses to receive extra people from outside?

Perhaps the hon. Member knows that there was a report from the General Purposes Committee, but the London County Council itself did not consider that point.

Is it not a fact that in hundreds of cases under the schemes of the Transference Board a number of employés have been dismissed and the transferred men are taken on and the dismissed men find themselves dependent upon the Employment Exchanges or the boards of guardians?

No, Sir.

I will give the right hon. Gentleman a few instances.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the total number of unemployed persons registering at the Wednesbury Employment Exchange in receipt of extended benefit on the last available date prior to the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927; the number of such persons who established their claims to benefit under the new statutory conditions; and the total number disallowed and the reasons therefor?

I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available. I will, how- ever, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the total number of persons on the Registers of the Wednesbury Employment Exchange at or near

asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he is aware that unemployed persons registering for benefit at the Employment Exchanges in the Rhondda Valley have to wait for five and six weeks pending a meeting of the Court of Referees on their cases; that unemployment benefit is discontinued during the waiting period; and whether he will arrange so that the cases can be brought before the Courts of Referees during the six weeks' additional benefit;

(2) whether he is aware that recipients of unemployment benefit at the Employment Exchanges in the Rhondda Valley, whose cases are taken before the Courts of Referees at the end of the qualifying period, when the decision of the Courts of Referees have been given in favour of the claimant, have to wait five and six weeks before the decision becomes operative; and whether, in view of the hardship entailed, he will expedite matters so as to curtail the waiting period between the date of decision and date of payment?

The volume of work in some districts in connection with the review of claims under the 1927 Act was very great and unfortunately at one stage a certain amount of arrears was allowed to accumulate. As soon as this was brought to my notice I took steps to meet the difficulty. If the

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I sent in cases three weeks ago and that I have not had a reply yet with regard to them?

Of course, as far as an inquiry to myself is concerned, there is always the additional time which is taken up' in referring right down to the locality and back again. If the hon. Member desires that I should personally go into every case as I frequently do, then of course it may need more references to and fro. That was not the kind of delay to which I thought the hon. Member referred in his letter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people have to wait 12, 13 and 14 weeks without their unemployment benefit, and is there any reason why these men should have to wait seven or eight weeks for their money after the decision in their favour has been arrived at by the Court of Referees?

As far as it does not relate to exceptional cases, which I am asked to look into personally, I think that steps have been taken to relieve the congestion down there. If the hon. Member has any reason to think that there is still delay in regard to the number of cases, of course I will look into the matter.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the advisability of setting up a committee of both Houses of Parliament to inquire into the possibilities of increasing pensions at 65, conditional upon retirement from competitive industry, as a help towards the solution of the unemployment problem?

His Majesty's Government have from time to time considered suggestions having the same object in view as my hon. Friend, but they have not found it possible to entertain them.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give further consideration in view of the report that there is already £30,000,000 surplus in this Fund?

Yes, I will give further consideration to that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advantages of giving an increased pension to people at 65 so that employment can be given to those at 25 without very much additional burden on the Exchequer?

Yes, Sir, it is a very large question indeed, and, needless to say, it has often been considered, but there is no proposal which we have been able to entertain up to the present time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider that part of this question which asks for the setting up of a committee of inquiry, seeing that it is so important.

No, Sir, I do not think that it will be advantageous to set up a committee. It is really a matter which the Government of the day and those who are responsible for the finances of the country must decide.

Has it recently been considered by the Government, and, if so, can they make a report upon the subject?

Well, Sir, these questions belong to the very largest class of questions, and I do not think that it will he advantageous for me to try to discuss them.

May I have an answer to my question I Has the matter been recently considered by the Government?

All these various proposals are at all times in the minds of competent politicians.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that in 1918 the Ministry of Reconstruction, with other Departments of State, examined various proposals and schemes for the construction of a ship canal between the Forth and the Clyde, and came to the conclusion that the estimates of the cost of constructing such a canal could not be tested until a detailed geological survey of the route had been carried out; and whether he proposes, in view of the importance of a thorough examination of these projects in the national interest, to take steps to secure such a geological survey?

I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 26th November in connection with the same matter, in which I indicated that it is for the advocates of the canal to make any necessary survey of the nature referred to if they consider that any useful purpose would be served thereby. In view, however, of the circumstances explained in the answer given on the 12th November by the Prime Minister to a question on the subject asked by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Couper), I could not recommend that any assistance should be given out of public funds towards the cost of any such survey.

Is it the considered opinion of the Government that it is in the national interest that individuals who favour this scheme should make the geological survey at their own charge? Is that the answer?