asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in January last an American ship, the "President Garfield," grounded on a coral reef in the Bahamas; and why the Government refused to allow the United States to place a lightship near these dangerous reefs when the United States Government asked permission to do so several years ago?

I am aware of the stranding of the "President Garfield." No record can be found of any request by the United States Government, for permission to place a lightship in the locality where the vessel stranded, although prior to 1906 the United States Government had passed on to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington petitions from shipmasters asking for a lightship. In 1916 a lighted buoy was definitely recommended by the United States Government, who suggested a suitable position for it. A buoy was subsequently approved by His Majesty's Government and placed in the position suggested, and the United States Government undertook to arrange for attendance on the buoy at British expense. This arrangement was made, and the United States Government purchased the buoy and placed it in position, and are providing for attendance on it at the expense of His Majesty's Government.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the National Maritime Board has come to an agreement by which in future vessels of more than 2,750 tons gross trading beyond Western European limits will carry three certificated navigating officers as from 1st September next; whether this will affect all vessels on the British register; what means there will be of enforcing it; and whether it is intended to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts accordingly?

The Board of Trade have been informed that an agreement has been reached by the National Maritime Board to the effect that foreign-going vessels of 2,750 tons gross and upwards, when trading outside Western European limits, shall carry three certificated navigating officers in addition to the master. The agreement will presumably apply to all vessels for which shipowners represented on the National Maritime Board are responsible. I have no reason to suppose that British shipowners who have deliberately entered into this agreement do not intend to observe it. It is not proposed to amend the Merchant Shipping Act.

How does the hon. Gentleman know that it will be observed by those who do not belong to or are not represented en the National Maritime Board?

I think we ought to give the scheme a chance before criticising it.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that no case has ever been known where shipowners have not carried out loyally the decision of the National Maritime Board, on which shipowners, sailors, and firemen are represented?

I think the National Maritime Board does its work exceedingly well.

In that case, why not introduce a short amending Bill, which would be sure passing through this House, to make this statutory?

Questions on business should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of vessels of 1,000 tons register and upwards launched from British shipbuilding yards during 1928 or the latest year for which statistics are available; the number of these vessels which are British owned and foreign owned; and the number of vessels in each of these classes which provide for deck hands and firemen two- or four-berth cabins, messrooms, separate hospital accommodation, baths or shower baths, drying rooms, oilskin lockers, and wash basins?

If the information for which the hon. Member asks were readily available, I should be pleased to supply it; but it would have to be compiled from the records of each ship built during the period, and I do not think the result would justify the time and labour that would be involved.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the date has been agreed for the Irish Free State to take over the Irish Lights service?

No, Sir. The future of the Irish Lights service is still under the consideration of His Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Free State, and I regret that I cannot state when a decision is likely to be reached.

Is the hon. Member taking any steps to look after the pensions of these men?

All matters are bound to be taken into consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that circular letters are being addressed by the district military headquarters to medical practitioners in the district requesting the practitioners to fill in a form stating whether, in the event of mobilisation, they would be willing to devote a portion of their time to work in the local military hospitals in order to fill the vacancies created by the withdrawal of regular Royal Army Medical Corps officers for the expeditionary force; whether this registration of doctors for military purposes is being carried out all over the country on his instructions; and, if so, with what object?

Inquiries are being made by the military authorities in various parts of the country to see how far the local civil medical practitioners can be counted on in the event of mobilisation to act in a civil capacity in hospitals in the United Kingdom in place of Royal Army Medical Corps officers until relieved by other Royal Army Medical Corps officers.

What is the mobilisation which the War Office has in view, and for which these preparations are being made?

No particular mobilisation; any mobilisation.

Is this the usual practice?

It is a desirable practice.

Is it still the practice since this country signed the Pact to renounce war as a matter of national policy?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the proposed abolition of the roads and communications departments in the Salisbury district can be cancelled, or whether some arrangements can be made to prolong the employment of the ex-service men now employed by that department to mitigate the hardship of the abrupt termination of their employment on the 31st March next?

While I regret that the permanent retention of this organisation would not be justifiable, arrangements are being made, instead of winding up the department on 31st March next, to spread the reductions over the next four months. In addition, any men for whom continuous employment on the routine maintenance of roads can be found beyond that period will be kept on and endeavours will also be made in any contracts which may be placed for re-surfacing or new road work to secure that the contractors shall give preference to those who have been engaged by the War Department on this work.

asked the Secretary for Mines why household coal is now 4s. a ton dearer than a year ago; and who is reaping the advantage?

So far as my information goes, the retail price of house coal in Central London at the present time is, according to quality, from 1s. to 2s. per ton above the price a year ago. Quotations in the trade papers show that pit prices have advanced by at least that amount, and in some cases by more.

Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to answer the last part of the question, as to who is reaping the advantage of this extra charge on the consumer?

I have explained the difference in prices. If the pit prices have gone up by more than the retail price, I presume there is some benefit to the collieries.

Did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an answer earlier in the year to the effect that the pit-head price was 12s., as against 16s. last year?

Is it not the fact that the majority of the collieries in the country, before this advance, were losing money?

Oh, yes, Sir.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why it is, when the wages of the miners have been decreased and their hours increased, that the price of coal is higher than it was 18 months ago?

That seems to be a matter for debate.

Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman approached the coal merchants in London to ascertain why this increase has been imposed?

No, Sir.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman do as was done in the early part of 1924, when a similar increase was imposed on domestic coal users in London, namely, approach the coal merchants and ascertain the reason for it?

As I said in my answer, while the retail prices have increased by from 1s. to 2s. per ton as compared with a year ado, the pit prices have increased by at least that amount, and, therefore, no inquiry seems to be necessary.

Is it not a fact that, if the price of coal could be advanced 1s. or 2s. more, the wages of all men in the Kingdom would be increased?

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the free-on-board prices to-day are just about equal to those of a year ago?

I am not asked about free-on-board prices, but about the price of coal for sale in this country.

It is coal that is coming to London.

asked the Secretary for Mines the average price f.o.b. for coal exported from this country duing the quarter ending 31st December, 1928, and the average pit-head price for all coal sold in Great Britain during the same period?

During the quarter ended December, 1928, the average declared value of British coal exported was 15s. 6d. per ton f.o.b. Complete figures relating to pithead prices of coal dis- posable commercially are not yet available, but the estimated average price is 13s. 6d. per ton.

How much have f.o.b. prices been reduced by the freight relief?

Is it not a fact that, since rate relief was given, f.o.b. prices have been advanced?

Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman hope we are going to obtain permanent prosperity in the mining industry by giving coal away?

Has the Mines Department at any time in giving comparative prices taken into account the amount of heat?

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received details of the result of the experiment with pulverised coal in three of her boilers on the steamship "Hororata" on her recent journey to New Zealand; and whether that result points to the possibility of an, extensive use of pulverised coal on steamships?

The ship has reached New Zealand and telegraphic reports on the experiment have been received by the owners, but the vessel's return to this country must be awaited before full information as to the results is available.

Is it the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intention, when he gets the information, to circulate it?

I am awaiting the report, as I said.

asked the Secretary for Mines how many individual collieries in Yorkshire made trade losses and profits during the quarter ended 31st December, 1928; and the highest profit per ton of coal produced at any colliery and the highest loss at any individual colliery during the same period?

This information is not in my possession.

Why is the information not in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's possession, and does he not think information ought to be available in view of the ridiculously low wages of the workpeople?

This information is not necessary for the purposes of my Department.

Why did the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me that the collieries were losing money?

Because they are losing money.

asked the Secretary for Mines what was the total amount of mining royalties payable on the coal output in Great Britain for 1928; can he state what is the estimated total sum paid in 1928 or 1927 as wayleaves for the passage of coal upshaft, for water passage and for air passage, underground, and for surface wayleaves, respectively, in and about the coal mines of Great Britain; and has his Department made any inquiry into the obstacles these various wayleave charges place upon the efficient, planning and working of the coal mines affected?

The total sum paid in royalties and wayleaves by collieries in 1928 was about £5½ million. I do not have the separate figures asked for in the second part of the question. As regards the third part, I beg to remind the hon. Member that very full provision has been made by the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act, 1023, and Part II of the Mining Industry Act, 1926, for dealing with any matter which, contrary to the national interest, interferes with the best development of coal.

Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that that Act, while it facilitates the proper working of minerals under certain conditions, does not affect the main evils of wayleaves, whereever minerals are worked from numerous estates, and that all these varied wayleaves are still chargeable? Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that nationalisation of minerals would abolish all these petty burdens, as we should then have only one landlord—the State?

Can the hon. and gallant Friend state the amount paid in taxation on royalties?

Not without notice.

asked the Minister of Transport, whether he has received a protest from a number of the residents of the new housing estate, West Wickham, against the high charges made by the West Kent Electric Company for electrical current; and whether his Department is taking any action in the matter?

I do not appear to have received any such protest.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the schemes put forward by the Electricity Commissioners during 1927 and 1928 to the Central Electricity Board?

The following five schemes were transmitted by the Electricity Commissioners to the Central Electricity Board during the years 1927 and 1928:—The Central Scotland Scheme, The South-East England Scheme, The Central England Scheme, The North-West England and North Wales Scheme, and The Mid-East England Scheme.

Has anything been done for North-East England?

I believe that a scheme is being put up to the Central Board by the Commissioners.

asked the Minister of Pensions, seeing that great hardship is inflicted on the families of men undergoing treatment in cases where allowances are not payable, several persons, women and children, having to live on a flat-rate pension of 8s. a week in some instances, and that a pensioner undergoing institutional treatment cannot accept or follow a remunerative employment, if he will authorise the payment of full treatment allowances in all cases of institutional treatment, whether the pensioner was in employment or not when admitted?

Special allowances during treatment are, as my right hon. Friend has more than once explained, payable only where the man has incurred loss by having to give up a remunerative occupation in consequence of the treatment. Allowances are nevertheless paid (both in the case of in-patient and other forms of treatment) where the man is proved to be ordinarily an earner, notwithstanding that he may have been temporarily out of employment at the time of commencing treatment. There would be no justification for the payment of these special allowances in cases where there is no evidence to indicate that, apart from the course of treatment, the men would be engaged in remunerative occupation and their ability to provide for themselves and their families is, therefore, not adversely affected by their treatment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many of these men, owing to their economic circumstances, are unable to take advantage of hospital treatment, and that others are forced to leave, before the period of treatment is complete, because of their economic circumstances and, seeing that many of them are only in receipt of 8s. a week, does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it would be advisable to give treatment allowances?

We have no power to give it. We can only give it in cases where the man has been definitely taken away from a remunerative occupation to undergo treatment.

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicate the regulation under which they have no authority to pay a treatment allowance in any case where a man is undergoing in-patient treatment?

I cannot give the number off-hand.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will further consider the claim for disability pension of Mr. G. J. Ross, Louisa Street, Darlington, late trumpeter, Royal Artillery, in view of the following facts: that he was perfectly fit on enlistment in 1926, aged 14; that there is no trace of heart disease in his family; that he was discharged two years later with valvular disease of the heart of such degree that his doctor states that he will never be able to do heavy work; and that his doctor further states that in his opinion his present complaint, if not actually due to, was certainly aggravated by his trumpet blowing; and whether, in the light of such evidence, he will reconsider this case for compensation?

The case of Mr. Ross has been fully considered, but as I have already informed the hon. Member, the Army medical authorities are satisfied that his disability is not attributable to his military service. I regret, therefore, that he is ineligible for a pension from Army funds.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this boy—he was no more than a boy—was perfectly fit before he joined the Army at the age of 14 years and that this disease only developed as a result of his service in the Army as a trumpeter?

No, that is precisely what cannot be shown. Medical authorities say that the disability did not develop because of his service in the Army. It might equally have been developed if he had remained in civilian life.

Is the Secretary of State for War aware that in the opinion of his private doctor there is no doubt whatever that his complaint was aggravated by his service in the Army?

That is one of the instances in which doctors differ.

Ought not this boy to be given the benefit of the doubt?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any trace in his military record of the boy having had rheumatism?

Not without notice.

asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he is aware that an unemployed miner, Mr. Charles Reed, of 35, Collwyn Street, Coed Ely, Llantrisant, was recently employed by the Forestry Commissioners for a period of nine months; that during the whole of that period his employers did not make any contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund for this man or deduct any contributions out of his wages, with the result that this man has ever since been unable to qualify for unemployment benefits, having failed to procure other work since he ceased to be required by the Forestry Commissioners; and what are the reasons for this course, and does it apply in all like cases for the period unemployed workers are found temporary employment by his Department?

Mr. Charles Reed was formerly employed by the Forestry Commissioners and no contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund were made during the period of such employment, the reason being that the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, excludes from unemployment insurance persons employed in agriculture, including horticulture and forestry. I, however, refer to the answer to a question by the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. W. Robinson) which was given on the 12th instant by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour.

In view of the fact that this man was employed by the Forestry Commissioners for a continuous period of nine months, why is it that some arrangement was not made? If the law is against it, why do you not amend it? Are you aware of the fact that this man who was in the employ of your Department for nine months was unable to qualify afterwards for unemployment benefit, having failed to procure other work, and that he was unable to get poor relief or unemployment relief, or anything else.

I am not aware of that fact.

If I bring the facts before the hon. and gallant Gentleman, will he assist me to get this man some employment?

asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners transferred under the Government's transference scheme from South Wales to London; the number transferred for temporary employment; the number of miners who have applied for benefit; the number refused; and the number in receipt of unemployment benefit at present?

I regret there are no statistics available giving the detailed information desired.

Is it part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy to see that these men who are transferred to other areas get the local rate of wages?

Yes, certainly.

Can the Minister of Labour reply to the first part of the question, as to the number of miners transferred from South Wales to London?

No, Sir. Those are the figures that I have not got. I can give the hon. Member the total number of men transferred from South Wales, but not the number who have gone to London. The total number transferred through the Employment Exchanges from South Wales to other districts since the Prime Minister's appeal is 4,500, exclusive of other methods of transfer.

May I ask whether men who come from mining areas to take employment in other districts and then lose their employment have their fares paid to their homes?

Can the Minister of Labour tell us the number of men transferred to London and elsewhere who have returned to their own districts?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will provide statistics showing the number of miners who have been transferred from the Rhondda Valley under the Government's transference scheme; the number sent to training centres for migration and work in this country; the number who have been sent overseas; and the number found work, in this country, from the training centres?

I am obtaining such information as is available, and will let the hon. Member have it as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed registered at the Employment Exchanges of Treorchy, Tonypandy, Ferndale and Porth, respectively, on 31st January, 1928 and 31st January, 1929; the number in receipt of unemployment benefit on the above dates; and the number refused unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, on the ground of the applicant not genuinely seeking work?

asked the Prime Minister whether the attention of the Government has been called to the recently issued Report on investigations in the coalfields of South Wales and Monmouthshire by the chief inspector of the Ministry of Health; and what further steps it is proposed to take to counteract the destructive effects of idleness in the distressed areas?

The measures which the Government are taking in order to deal with the position in the distressed areas have been stated in the House on several occasions. The most recent occasion was the Debate on the Supplementary Estimates of the Ministry of Labour on the 11th February, to which I would refer my Noble Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chief inspector said that it would be nothing short of a miracle if the present policy of transference which has been adopted by the Government should prove an effective remedy for the conditions in South Wales? May I ask, most respectfully, whether the Government will consider the raising of a loan for the purpose of national development, in order that the destructive effects of idleness may be mitigated for these unemployed people?

I quite sympathise with the point of view which my Noble Friend puts forward, but he will understand that Question Time is not the moment when these extremely grave and national issues can be debated.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is that the destructive effects of idleness are discovered only among the poor?

Has the attention of the Government been called to the steps that have been taken by the Society of Friends in South Wales in enabling people to acquire and work garden allotments? Will that work have the favourable consideration of the Government, especially having regard to its good effects upon the physical and moral welfare of the people? Has the attention of the Government been called to the great success of the experiments in that direction which have been undertaken in the County of Nottingham by the Board of Agriculture?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that, in spite of the many well-organised opportunities for migration to the Dominions which have been offered to these men, they have persistently refused to go? [Interruption.]

asked the President of the Board of Education what is the total amount which has been paid oat by the State to the Lord's Mayor's Fund for the distressed mining areas?

My right hon. Friend would refer the hon. Member to the answer which he gave to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) yesterday, of which I am sending him a copy.

May I ask whether we can be informed when the new Supplementary Estimate will be presented to the House?

My Noble Friend pointed out yesterday that that is a question for the Leader of the House.