asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the approximate amount owing by the individual States of America which defaulted in respect of loans raised by them for industrial purposes previous to the date of union; and whether it is proposed to re-open this subject with the Government of the United States of America?

As regards the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the annual report of the Council of Foreign Bondholders for 1928, in which it is stated that while it has not been possible to obtain any reliable information on the subject, the sums owed by the defaulting States total approximately 75,200,000 dollars not including interest. As regards the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by addressing representations to the United States Government on these debts at the present time.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any correspondence has passed between His Majesty's Government and the United States in the last year or so on this subject?

Not that I am aware of.

Is the hon. Member aware that in the case of Mississippi these claims have been proved in the Courts on several occasions, and, as. it is not possible to sue a State in the Courts and as the Federal Government have taken over the responsibility, will he take some steps in the matter with the Federal Government?

I have no doubt that His Majesty's Government will take note of the information given by the hon. and gallant Member.

Can the hon. Member say what is the amount of accrued interest in addition to the 75,000,000 dollars?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress, if any, is being made with the negotiations for a commercial treaty with Turkey?

On the 2nd July last a draft commercial treaty was initialed, ad referendum to the two Governments, by His Majesty's Ambassador in Turkey and the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs. The draft treaty was carefully considered by the various Departments of His Majesty's Government concerned, and full instructions were recently sent to His Majesty's Ambassador with a view to the continuance of the negotiations.

Will the hon. Member see that there is some clause in the treaty which will prevent at any time the possibility of the importation of County-fed cereals into this country from this part of the world?

I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as a result of a definite request made to him by the British Council of Foreign Bondholders for diplomatic assistance, he has yet asked His Majesty's Minister to Mexico to make suitable representations to the Mexican Government; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Minister has reported what has been done?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on the 27th November to the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville), to which I have nothing further to add at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, now that he has been fortified by a request from the British Council of Foreign Bondholders for diplomatic assistance, invite the Governments of the United States, France, and Holland to join His Majesty's Government in a concerted endeavour to persuade the Mexican Government to honour its obligations upon defaulted securities of the Mexican Government?

The recent request of the Council of Foreign Bondholders only referred to the bonds of the National Packing House Company, in regard to which my right hon. Friend has already replied to the hon. Member. In the circumstances, no further question seems to arise.

I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory attitude taken up by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in regard to our losses owing to the default of the Mexican Government, I shall raise this matter in Debate at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communication from the International Committee of Bankers on Mexico with reference to the situation in which holders of Mexican Government Bonds find themselves to-day; and whether he is prepared to make diplomatic representation on their behalf?

As my right hon. Friend explained in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) on the 20th of November, His Majesty's Government have received no request for diplomatic action from the British representatives of the International Committee of Bankers, and would not be in a position to take such action except at their request.

Can the hon. Member answer the last part of my question—as to whether he has received any communication or representations from this particular committee?

There has been no request for intervention, but there has been some information which has been of a confidential character.

Does the information consist of the statement made by the President Elect of Mexico, a few days ago, on this very point?

I have said that the communications have been of a confidential character, and therefore I cannot satisfy the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that the Government of Soviet Russia has decided to withdraw from the International Postal Union?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon what date it is proposed to enter into the negotiations for the settlement of the outstanding questions with the Soviet Government?

No, Sir. Negotiations with the Soviet Government will begin as soon as possible after the Ambassadors have taken up their duties, but for the present I can give no actual dates.

Will the hon. Member take steps to ensure that the relations between the Soviet Government and the Third Internationale are clearly understood?

That does not arise on the question on the Paper. It is a matter of dates.

May I ask why the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State are not here to answer these questions?

Can the hon. Member say when the Ambassadors will take up their duties?

I think in the next week or two.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to give diplomatic privileges to trade representatives of Russia; and, if so, to what extent?

The question of the privileges to be accorded to any Soviet Government trade representatives will receive careful consideration if and when a request for such privileges is made to His Majesty's Government.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has received any intimation from the Commonwealth Government as to the conditions on which they can agree to the Government's policy regarding Russia; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of this intimation?

I cannot add anything to the statements as to the general attitude of His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the course of the Debate on the 5th November, and in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) on 13th November.

Cannot the hon. Gentleman tell us why this House has not been officially informed of the attitude of the Commonwealth Government, and as to whether it follows the attitude of its predecessor or not, in view of the fact that the views of its predecessor were amply explained in the Australian Parliament on 27th August?

I think, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads the reply which Was given by my right hon. Friend, he will see that the Dominion Governments have been kept fully informed of all that has taken place in connection with this matter, and they have not expressed dissent.

Yes, but this House has not been kept informed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of Powers having capitulatory privileges at the present time in Egypt and their names?

The number of such Powers before the War was 15. They were the United States of America, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Great Britain, Holland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Russia, Germany and Austria-Hungary. The privileges of the two latter were terminated in the Treaties of Versailles and St. Germain. They have, however, since concluded agreements with the Egyptian Government whereby their nationals enjoy provisionally the right of trial by consular tribunals in all matters for which those tribunals were competent up to 1914.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government still adheres to the statement made in the Foreign Secretary's letter to the late Prime Minister of Egypt that the terms-of the present treaty represent the extreme limit to which His Majesty's Government is prepared to go?

No change has taken place in the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the proposals which have been submitted to the people of Egypt.

Is it the correct interpretation of that letter that His Majesty's Government in no circumstances are prepared to make any further concessions in the Treaty with Egypt?

I am afraid I can add nothing to what I have said; that no change has taken place in the policy of His Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any conversations have taken place since the publication of the proposed Egyptian Treaty between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government as to the return of Egyptian troops to the Sudan; and, if so, what was their effect?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The latter part does not, therefore, arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the case presented by the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland, in connection with the abolition of visa charges between Great Britain and the United States of America, has been considered by the Government; whether the Interdepartmental Committee appointed by the Government to consider this question has yet reported; if so, what was the nature of their Report; and what action the Government proposes to take in the matter?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the Interdepartmental Committee has furnished a preliminary report which is under consideration by His Majesty's Government, and a further meeting of the Interdepartmental Committee will be held early next week.

Will the hon. Member tell me when I may usefully repeat this question and get a definite answer?

Perhaps the right hon. Member will put it down again in 10 days' time, when I hope to be able to give a reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any protest has been addressed to the Government respecting the letter addressed to the Speaker of the Polish Parliament by over 40 British trade union leaders and Labour Members of Parliament, in which opinions were expressed on matters relating to the political situation in Poland?

No, Sir.

Is it not a gross interference on the part of supporters of the Government in the domestic affairs of a friendly foreign Power?

That hardly arises out of the question on the Paper. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question on that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has, in conjunction with any other Government, drawn the attention of the Soviet Government and of the Chinese Government to the terms of the pact of Paris and to its application to present conditions in Manchuria; and, if so, with what result?

As the hon. and gallant Member will be aware from the statement that was made on the 2nd of December by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Up to the present no reply has been received from either Government.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the reports in the Press of the reply received by the United States Government?

I am afraid that I have not any information on that point.

On a point of Order. To-day is the day for questions to the Foreign Secretary, but neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Under-Secretary is here, and we can get no information out of the hon. Member who is replying.

I was asked by my right hon. Friend to express his regret that he is unable to be here to-day on account of another engagement. The reason for the absence of the Undersecretary is well known.

A rather belated apology.

The hon. Gentleman says that the reason for the absence of the Under-Secretary is well known. I hope it is not because of illness. We do not know. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain.

With regard to the Under-Secretaries I understand that the explanation is that owing to the uncertainty of their position, it was not thought advisable that the Under-Secretary should be present.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any official residences on shore are now maintained for the use of commanders-in-chief of squadrons or other flag officers serving afloat; and, if so, where they are?

Official residences are maintained for the Commanders-in-Chief, Mediterranean Station, America and West Indies Station, Africa Station, and East Indies Station at Malta, Bermuda, Simonstown and Trincomali respectively. In addition, the Commander-in-Chief, East Indies Station, has at his disposal an official bungalow at Diyatalawa Rest Camp; and the Commander-in-Chief, China Station, an official bungalow at Wei-Hai-Wei. No other flag officer serving afloat is in occupation of an official residence.

Has my right hon. Friend considered the question of economising on the four major residences mentioned?

No, I think that the circumstances of the duties of the commanders-in-chief require the present provision of residences.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that foreign ships have ample officers' accommodation?

I have not travelled widely, but I have seen enough of the conditions in the tropics, and in other warm climates, to lead me to consider that some provision of this kind ought to be made.

But my right hon. Friend does not propose that the Mediterranean Station should be treated as a tropical station? It is a perfectly healthy station.

Is it not a fact that the maintenance of these establishments is necessary for the proper performance of their duties by officers?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government, in connection with the present Anglo-American naval negotiations, to abandon the naval bases in the Caribbean Sea as having no longer any raison d'être ?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) on the 25th November (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 980).

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be a good thing to extend the undefended frontier to the Atlantic Ocean?

I have nothing to add to what I have already said in the House on this question.

Is the subject of naval bases included in the Five-Power Conference?

I am not in a position to reply.

Is it not a fact that bases, as commonly understood, do not exist in the Caribbean Sea at all?

The actual position of bases in the West Indies has been referred to again and again, and I do not think it ought to be necessary to add anything now.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, although these bases must be up to date, if they were abandoned, it would probably cost more later to put them into proper order?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the amount of the contributions paid and promised by the Governments of the Dominions and by other parts of the Empire towards the cost of the construction of the naval base at Singapore; and what part of the contributions paid over has so far been spent?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by me to the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) on the 20th November (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 463–4).

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the whole of the expenditure involved in delaying or postponing work in progress at the naval base at Singapore will be borne by the home Government?

The liability of the Exchequer for the whole of the cost of the Singapore Base is limited only to the extent of contributions from the Dominions and Colonies. Any expenditure arising over and above what is received in that way must of course be borne by the home Government.

That does not answer my question. What I asked the Prime Minister was whether the Government would give an assurance that, whatever the cause of delay, the Dominions and Colonies should not have any of their money taken from them?

The position of any contribution from Dominions and Colonies was referred to specifically in the reply recently by the Prime Minister, who said that all these relevant considerations would be taken into account.

Surely the Government can give an answer now-and say that they do not intend to use this money (which was subscribed to hasten the work) in order to delay the work?

I refuse to give an answer which might prejudice negotiations.

Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House whether any new expenditure will be in- volved in delaying proceedings, and whether the "break" clause in the contract has been claimed by the contractors?

I am not able to answer.

To what negotiations does the right hon. Gentleman refer?

I refer to possible negotiations, that is to say, that, if there were a final decision taken upon the question of this base, negotiations would have to take place, possibly with the contractors and possibly with the Dominions and Colonies, and it would be very unwise if anything were said to prejudice those negotiations.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider allowing dockyard employés to count all their hired time for pension?

Established dockyard employés with previous hired service are allowed to count one-half of such hired service for pension purposes. I am not prepared to recommend that hired time should be allowed to count in full.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why he is not prepared to support what is quite obviously a measure of justice?

Is any consideration to be given to the whole scheme of service for the employés in the dockyards, so as to prevent their retiring without any pension at all after 20 years' service?

With regard to the first supplementary question, I should say that, if we carried out the suggestion in the question, it would place the hired men in a position of advantage over the established men. It seems that a deduction of a proportion of the wages is made when the men are established. With regard to the other question, the matter is being considered.

The hon. Gentleman entirely misconceives the position when he says that. This is the question of a man drawing a pension after a lifetime of service, and of how much time he will be allowed to count towards that pension. It cannot prejudice anyone else but can advantage the man.

It all depends upon the question of establishment.

Cannot the Admiralty put these men on at least as good a footing as the conscientious objectors in the Civil Service??

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consult with the Treasury regarding the bringing in of established men under some scheme whereby they would be entitled to unemployment benefit on retirement?

The answer is in the negative; established men are awarded retiring allowances in accordance with the provisions of the Superannuation Acts.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the retiring allowances are quite inadequate, and that in many cases, after a life-time of service, they are 7s. 6d. and 10s. a week, that men are compelled to retire at the age of 60 and cannot draw unemployment benefit?

The retiring allowances depend, of course, upon the amount of wages paid and the period of establishment. These factors are taken into consideration in fixing the superannuation.

Is any consideration being given to the question of one-sixtieth being counted for retiring 'allowance instead of one-eightieth?

That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to look into this question of the status of established men and the rate of pensions that they enjoy?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to what extent the clocking-in system has been introduced in His Majesty's dockyards; whether it has proved satisfactory; and whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to intro- duce this system in all His Majesty's dockyards, and when it will be put into operation?

The clock-muster system has been introduced in Portsmouth Dockyard; it has proved satisfactory, and the intention is gradually to extend it to the other dockyards.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any new regulations have been issued prescribing white mess-dress for officers in the Colonial Services; and what have been the views of the various governors on this suggestion?

rose —

Can we have your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to what is the position of the Undersecretaries of State at the present moment? The Government seem divided on the subject. It has been explained to the House that the Government thought it improper that the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs should answer questions until his position had been regulated by the Bill now before Parliament, but another Undersecretary of State, in exactly the same predicament, is now rising to answer a question. Would it have been proper for the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to have answered his questions; or is it improper for the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to answer the question which is now being put?

All the Undersecretaries of State sit, and are in exactly the same position now, as they were in yesterday or the day before, or any other day. Until the Indemnity Bill has passed into law, they do so at the same risk as before.

Then in your view, Sir, there was no reason why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should not have been present to answer Foreign Office questions in the absence of his chief?

There is no reason why he should not answer questions to-day any more than yesterday.

Is it not the case that there are now only six Under-Secretaries of State in this House; and, consequently, cannot these six Under-Secretaries from now onwards, answer any questions or take part in any Divisions? Is not the Bill of Indemnity to indemnify them against something which they had done prior to the recent re-shuffling of offices?

The hon. Member is raising a point of law.

This is a point of Order, not a point of law.

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is in the negative. The second part accordingly does not arise.

Has the hon. Gentleman's Department received replies from the various governors upon the regulations which were sent to them on this matter, as suggested by the Colonial Office, last June?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Arab families that have been evicted at Wady-el-Hawareth; and what steps the Government propose to take to look after these people?

I have no information concerning this alleged eviction.

Would the hon. Gentleman look into the question of the eviction of Arab families from lands which have been purchased—lands which have been in the possession of those families in many cases for several hundred years?

I shall be very glad to look into the question and receive any information which the hon. and gallant Member has to give on the matter.

asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether the 16 or 17 Jewish colonies who were still in possession of their arms under the colony defence scheme at the time of the recent outbreak will be allowed to retain them, at any rate until other and adequate means of defence are provided by the administration; and whether, pending a final decision as to the means of maintaining order in Palestine, the arms will be restored to those colonies which have been deprived of them during the last five years?

The question of defence of the colonies is at present receiving careful consideration, and it is hoped that an early decision will be taken. Pending that decision, I am not in a position to make any statement.

Is it quite clear that arms will not be taken from these defenceless Jews?

Is it not a curious commentary on the situation, that, after 10 years of government, it is necessary to arm these colonists?

May I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his new position and at the same time ask him whether we can be assured that the colonists who have still arms will be allowed to retain those arms; and is he aware that I hold in my hand a list of no fewer than 75 attacks on and murders of Jews which have taken place since this trouble?

I shall be very pleased to represent what hon. Members have said to my Noble Friend.

In view of the fact that it has been the declared policy of the Government to give equal treatment to Arabs and Jews, will they apply the same treatment to both in this matter, and not disarm the Jews while leaving the Arabs armed?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the terms of the status quo in reference to the Wailing Wall are registered at Jerusalem; and whether the new regulations are in accordance with its terms?

Existing rights in relation to the Wailing Wall have not been authoritatively defined. It is therefore impossible for the terms of the status quo to be registered. The regulations were based on established procedure so far as it could be ascertained pending authori- tative definition; but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that they are temporary and provisional, and without prejudice to the rights and claims of either party.

If the hon. Gentleman were to carry on the authorised procedure, would it not be far better for all parties concerned?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether steps are being taken to bring the terms of the proposed Anglo-Argentine trade agreement to the notice of the Governments of the Dominions, in order to ascertain whether they are likely to conflict with any proposals which they contemplate submitting to the Imperial Economic Conference?

I presume that the hon. Member's question refers to the offer of the Argentine Government under certain conditions to reduce the duty on artificial silk. I would refer him to the reply which was given to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) on 27th November, of which I am sending him a copy.

Is it not a fact that the reduction of duties on our artificial silk going to the Argentine has been made by the British Ambassador a condition of the declaration that there will be no restrictions in this country upon any imports?

That is not the question on the Paper. I have answered the question on the Paper—and, further, may I say that the whole matter is under consideration.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number and names of Imperial Airways, Limited, aircraft which have crashed; and the number of lives lost as a result of these crashes since the company's formation?

Since the institution of the company nearly six years ago, there have been in all five fatal accidents to aircraft of Imperial Airways, of which four were on regular service. The number of persons who lost their lives was 19 passengers, nine employés of the company, and one Government servant. There were in addition five accidents in which the aircraft was wrecked or seriously damaged, but none of these caused any personal injury. The aircraft were of various types but for the most part without distinctive names.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the serious allegations which are being made in regard to the "City of Rome"; and, if not, will he make inquiries?

I am not aware of any serious allegations. A question on this subject was answered a few days ago.

Has the hon. Gentleman had a report from the Italian Government regarding that matter?

The answer is in the negative.

Are the log books of the "City of Rome" in possession of the Air Ministry for purposes of inquiry?

As far as I know, the log books, if available, would be in possession of the Commission which has been inquiring into the accident.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any subsidy is paid to Imperial Airways, Limited; if so, the amount of the subsidy; and what form of control the Ministry exercises in seeing that it gets value for its money?

As regards the first two parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to Command Paper No. 3143 of 1928, in which he will find particulars of the subsidy which is being paid to Imperial Airways. As regards the last part, the contract entered into with the company ensures that payment is made only in respect of services actually performed in accordance with the terms of the contract, and specific provision is made for the verification by Air Ministry representatives of the data upon which mileage claims are based. Furthermore, there are two Government directors on the Board of the Company.

Is it correct to say that the subsidy granted to Imperial Airways, Limited, lasts till the year 1940?

It is a correct statement that the subsidy continues, I think, till about 1940, but it is a diminishing amount.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to state that they are receiving this subsidy for what they have done in real value, admitting that the subsidy lasts until 1940?

Is the amount received as the subsidy higher than that required for the dividend of 7½ per cent. paid on the shares of Imperial Airways, Limited?

Is there any condition attached to this subsidy that standard rates shall be paid to the workers?

We are getting rather a long way from the question on the Paper.

asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the employment found for 45 men recently discharged from the works and building staff at Cranwell aerodrome, in Lincolnshire, was only temporary and that they were, after a short period, unemployed; whether any permanent work has now been found for them and, if not, how many are at present unemployed; and whether gratuities have now been paid to those employés discharged from Cranwell aerodrome who are entitled to them?

As regards the first two parts of the question, while I naturally regret to hear that these men are again out of employment, I am afraid that it would be impossible for the Air Ministry, and, indeed, outside the Department's province, to ensure that they obtain permanent employment after the work first found for them has come to an end. As regards the last part, all gratuities found to be admissible will be paid without avoidable delay. Payment has already been made in six cases, but in each case records of service going-back over seven or more years have to be carefully scrutinised.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the late Government gave a definite pledge that work would be found for these men, and, while he is not responsible for that pledge, will he do what he can to find work for them?

The answer to the last part of that question is, "Yes, certainly"; also I have to say that work was found for them, but it was impossible for the Ministry to guarantee that that work should be permanent.

Does not the discharge of these men arise from the fact that the system of private contracting was introduced by the late Government?

asked the Minister of Transport whether there are any proposals at present under consideration for the construction by his Department of new roads under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; and whether in such cases he proposes to use his powers under this Act to acquire the land on either side of the road to a depth of 220 yards, so as to secure to the public the full advantage of the increased value of land caused by the new road, and also to prevent the destruction of the beauty of the countryside by uncontrolled speculative building?

No proposals are at present under consideration for the construction of new roads directly by my Department. Should any such works he undertaken by the Department, the desirability of acquiring additional lands for purposes of recoupment will be very fully considered.

asked the Minister of Transport when the Government expects to be able to present a Bill dealing with London traffic?

I can add nothing to the statement which I made in this House so recently as Monday last.

Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce his Bill before he commits this House to heavy financial commitments?

It is obvious that I cannot be financially committed without the authority of this House.

In connection with the statement to which the right hon. Member has just referred, did he make it before consultation with any of the interests concerned with the traffic of London?

I have been in consultation with the traffic interests of London on various traffic questions, but the view which the Government took was that when the Government's decision was made the House of Commons was the first body which was entitled to information thereupon.

Might I take it on that statement that no consultation took place either with any of the local authorities or with the private interests concerned?

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the amount of unemployment in Lanarkshire, he will speed up the work on the Glasgow-Edinburgh road as one means of relieving the distress in that county?

I am in close touch with the local authorities responsible for this scheme, and am giving them every encouragement and assistance in speeding up the work.

Since there are fewer than 400 men who have been given employment throughout the whole of the county of Lanarkshire by work schemes, will the right hon. Gentleman also extend his good offices to the building of new roads and other works in general throughout the county?

Certainly, at all times the Department is endeavouring to find work, and the hon. Member may be sure that I shall be as helpful as I can.

asked the Minister of Transport if he will include a Clause to protect owners of motor-cycles against disproportionately high rates of insurance in his proposals to introduce compulsory third-party insurance?

I have no reason to suppose that disproportionately high rates will be charged in respect of any particular class of vehicle, and my hon. Friend will no doubt agree that rates of insurance for motor-cycles should be governed by the risks involved as in the case of other classes of motor vehicles.

Have the Government had under consideration an insurance scheme run under Government auspices?

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the practice of the New Zealand Government with reference to the insurance of motor-cycles?

I shall be perfectly willing to consider everything which is relevant to the problem, including the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. R, A. Taylor), but we have not considered it wise to pursue it, having regard to assurances received.

Will the hon. Gentleman take care that careful drivers will not be penalised by having insurance rates raised—[ Interruption ].

asked the Minister of Transport the number of schemes for roads that have been submitted by the Durham County Council; how many have been refused; and the reasons for such refusals?

Six schemes, estimated to cost £288,209, have been approved in principle as part of the Trunk Road Programme and, in connection with these schemes, works estimated to cost £208,209 are in hand. The county council have also recently submitted, as part of their Five Years' Programme, a list of seven schemes of road and bridge improvement estimated to cost £243,000. I am now awaiting the details of these schemes from the county council. The lists of works originally submitted by the Durham County Council have been the subject of discussion with officers of my Department, and the schemes to be included in the Five Years' and Trunk Road Programmes have been agreed. A grant has not been refused to any scheme included in these programmes.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction exists with regard to the railway arrangements for the conveyance of the Scottish women fish-workers to and from Yarmouth; that at South Town Station, Yarmouth, on the 28th instant, large numbers of women passengers were kept standing three-quarters of an hour in the rain before being allowed to board the train for a 24-hour journey in overcrowded conditions; and whether he will consider what steps he can take to see that proper treatment and more comfortable travelling conditions are afforded to those women?

I am informed by the London and North Eastern Railway Company that this complaint does not refer to Yarmouth South Town Station. I understand, however, that on the date mentioned by the hon. Member five special trains were booked out of Yarmouth Beach Station on the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway. I am in communication with the Joint Committee in the matter, and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of thing happens every year, and that, if he does not take steps to prevent a recurrence next year, the whole thing will have been forgotten, and it will happen again?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be assured that I will take all possible steps within the powers of a Minister over a private undertaking. Unfortunately the information which he gave me as to the station caused some delay in taking any effective action, but he may be assured that I will do everything that I can to avoid this thing in future.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received a reply from the local authorities concerned to the offer made of expert advice and financial assistance towards the inquiries which will foe necessary regarding the bridging of the Tamar?

I have invited the highway authorities concerned to a conference at which the proposed crossing of the River Tamar will be discussed, and at the moment I am awaiting replies to my invitation.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider by what means, if any, more use could be made of the River Thames to relieve traffic congestion in the streets of London?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on the 26th November to a similar question of which I am sending him a copy.

I am asking the hon. Gentleman from the point of view of traffic, and not from the point of view of unemployment, how far it will relieve traffic congestion in the streets of London, for, in his position, he is responsible for advising the House on transport questions?

I assume in these matters that I am responsible for transport, and that my right hon. Friend is responsible for dealing with the question of unemployment.

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the importance of the proper development and co-ordination of the canal system in this country, he is prepared to take the initiative in stimulating action in the matter?

I have already conferred with representatives of canal authorities, and asked them to consider schemes for the economic development of their undertakings.

Owing to the unsatisfactory, nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that rural district councils are not carrying out the normal volume of work upon rural roads this winter, in anticipation of the cessation of their financial responsibility for this work as from 30th April, 1930, under the terms of the Local Government Act, and that, in pursuance of this policy, certain rural councils have already discharged their regular road maintenance staffs; and whether he will take such action as may be necessary to secure that the normal work on rural roads shall be carried on throughout the winter, and that rural councils who undertake any exceptional work on approved lines shall not be penalised but reimbursed for any expenditure so incurred?

The estimates of expenditure on the maintenance of roads by rural district councils for the current financial year were in excess of the estimates for preceding years, and no cases have been brought to my attention in which rural district councils are curtailing the maintenance of rural roads. If, however, my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any case where it is alleged that the rural district council have reduced their expenditure in pursuance of such a policy as that to which he refers, I will cause inquiries to be made. Should any rural district council desire to undertake further maintenance work on rural roads and to defray the expenditure from their own revenue account within the current financial year, I should be happy to consider a supplementary application for assistance from the Road Fund.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the Electricity Commissioners have come to any arrangement with the London County Council in view of the jury's rider in the investigation held into the two London County Council subway fires which occurred in September, 1928, in which it was stated that the London County Council's electric system was obsolete and dangerous; and can he say whether his Department proposes to take any action for the purpose of minimising similar gas explosions in future?

The Electricity Commissioners inform me that the London County Council have adopted a new system of electric lighting for the Victoria Embankment, the supply being at low tension and involving a new system of cables laid under the footway and the removal of the old lighting cables from the subway. So far as my Department is concerned, no further action is being taken at present.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this system is also being introduced to other cables, to avoid accidents like these in future?

I have no doubt that that is under consideration by the responsible executive authorities, but I understood that the question related only to the Victoria Embankment.

asked the Minister of Transport whether the Electricity Commissioners sanctioned the recent sale of the city of Hereford's electricity undertaking to a company or trust; whether he has knowledge of offers being made to acquire other municipal undertakings, and, if so, which; and what steps he proposes to take to safeguard the cheap distribution of electricity throughout the country as distinct from its cheap generation, which was one of the main objects of recent legislation?

The Electricity Commissioners inform me that they have decided to hold a local inquiry before coming to a decision in this matter. With regard to other municipal undertakings, I have seen various references in the Press to proposals for acquisition, but I understand that no application for consent to any such transfer is before the Commissioners. In regard to the last part of the question, the Commissioners would not sanction any such transfer unless they were satisfied that it was accompanied by technical proposals conducing to the cheaper distribution of electricity.

Is the Minister keeping well in mind the fact that, while producing companies are placed under well understood limits as to price, companies which merely have the powers of distribution have no limit whatever put on them as to the price that they charge to the public outside London?

Certainly, that will be one of the aspects that will be kept in mind.

asked the Minister of Transport how many Special Orders for the supply of electricity are now under the consideration of the Electricity Commissioners; and what is the average time taken in getting such Orders through?

I am informed that there are 70 Special Orders at present under consideration by the Electricity Commissioners. The average time taken in getting such Orders through, including the stages of confirmation by the Minister of Transport and approval by each House of Parliament, is between 12 and 15 months.