asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can now give the House any figures pointing to increased employment having resulted from his recent visit to Canada?

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to see the increase of trade with Canada, which he foreshadowed after his return from Canada, to materialise and upon what lines?

One of the object; of my visit to Canada was to stimulate increased interest in British goods in the Dominion. There is already evidence in a number of quarters that my visit is bearing fruit and I am hopeful that with the co-operation of the trading interests concerned there will ultimately be a substantial increase in trade between this country and Canada.

Have the plans of the right hon. Gentleman for the export of British anthracite coal to Canada made any progress?

As far as anthracite coal is concerned, the demand is greater than we can meet at this moment. With regard to bituminous coal, negotiations are taking place.

Are we to understand that the British exports of anthracite coal to Canada have definitely increased?

Very substantially. I have already said that there are even more orders than we are in a position at this moment to fulfil.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman cannot send anthracite coal at the present time owing to the existing conditions in Canada?

That is why I said we cannot meet the demands, because no one knows better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman that no Minister can open the St. Lawrence.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether all the joint stock banks have agreed to participate in the offer of new capital for industry announced by him?

The position of the joint stock banks in relation to the reorganisation of industry differs somewhat from that of the city interests referred to in the statement which I made at Manchester on the 10th January, but I have every reason to believe that the policy outlined in that statement is generally acceptable to the joint stock banks.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he really means by City interests? It is very difficult to follow the matter.

It ought not to be difficult for the hon. Member to follow the position. He knows perfectly well what I mean. I said it quite deliberately, and I also said it in answer to the specific question. I am giving him a specific answer which he knows perfectly well and understands.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more precise than he has been in his reply to my hon. Friend, who may know of these things, because there are a large number of people in the country, especially in connection with trade and industry, who would like to have more definite informa- tion, so that they may know how to apply in appropriate quarters in order to get the benefit of the scheme?

That matter does not arise out of this question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal in what manner and to what extent the City is prepared to assist industry; whether he has formulated any-definite scheme or schemes whereby the textile industry might be assisted by the City; and what form such scheme or schemes will take?

As regards the first part of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to the statement which I made at Manchester on the 10th January, and of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. As regards the second part of the question, it is for the leaders of any industry to formulate proposals for reorganisation, but I shall, of course, be ready to co-operate. I am already in touch with certain interests in the textile industries. It must, however, be understood that the process of reorganisation in any industry will involve prolonged and delicate negotiations with a number of interests, the course of which it would be undesirable to divulge.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that in the West Riding of Yorkshire there are over 30,000 unemployed in the textile industry, that during the last nine years over 700 firms have gone out of existence, and that not one of the schemes which he has adumbrated in this House is any earthly use to the people in the West Riding of Yorkshire?

I am sorry for the latter statement, because it is in conflict with the interests involved. I admit the difficulties which have been mentioned by the hon. Member. Neither my colleagues nor I are responsible. One of the main causes of the difficulty in the whole of Lancashire at the moment, and with which, unfortunately, I have to deal, is over-capitalisation.

Arising out of the first part of the original reply, is the right hon. Gentleman considering, in connection with industries which may be assisted under the special city arrangement, the erection of elevators in various parts of the country for the reception of the additional wheat from Canada, and, in particular, whether he is considering the city of Nottingham as one of these desirable centres?

The last place which I would consider desirable for elevators would be Nottingham. Anyone connected with Nottingham should know that. In answer to the first part of the question, I met the millers yesterday, and I understand that I am to meet the wheat pool to-morrow. The whole subject is under review.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reasons showing the undesirability of Nottingham, known to the right hon. Gentleman but unknown to this House, will be disclosed in the forthcoming White Paper which he proposes to publish?

No. I hope that the White Paper will disclose things which are not so obvious. The obvious thing to do is to store the wheat as near as possible to the ports in order to save reloading.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definite reply to the latter part of my question, in view of the fact that he referred to Lancashire, and my question referred to the West Riding of Yorkshire?

Broadly speaking, the general principle which applies to Lancashire is applicable to Yorkshire. Negotiations are also taking place in the woollen industry, not similar, but in the same direction as cotton.

asked the Lord Privy Seal with reference to the increased financial facilities which are to be given to industry, whether it is proposed in this connection to form a new industrial credit bank or any similar institution?

As I indicated in reply to questions on a similar subject on Tuesday, 21st January, I cannot at present add anything to the statement which I made at Manchester on 10th January.

Does not the Lord Privy Seal think that this House is just as much worthy of his confidence as the Manchester Chamber of Commerce?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the negotiations now proceeding with the City and the Bank of England involve any capital or credit to be supplied by the State?

No, Sir.

asked the Lord Privy Seal the gross amount of the schemes for the relief of unemployment submitted in proper form by the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board up to the 20th January, 1930, and the total amount approved to date?

Three schemes, total value of over £2,250,000, have been submitted by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. Two of these, value nearly £2,000,000, have been approved and notification will be sent to the Board this week. The other scheme has been approved in principle, subject to an examination of detail, which is nearly complete.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some idea how many men these schemes will employ?

No, nor can anyone, for the very obvious reason that no one can make a calculation as to the exact amount of steel, navvying, and so on, and any attempt to do so would be merely to mislead the House.

asked the Lord Privy Seal the gross amount of the various schemes submitted for the relief of unemployment in proper form by the Liverpool Council up to the 20th January, 1930; and the total amount that has been approved to date?

As the answer is a long one and involves figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Since 1st June last, road schemes of a total value of £640,000 have been approved in principle by the Ministry of Transport. Miscellaneous works of a total value of about £200,000 have been approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee.

May I ask what proportion of the total number of schemes submitted by the Liverpool City Council have been approved by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and whether the statement is correct that, in spite of the fact that six weeks have transpired since the schemes were sent up by the Liverpool City Council, nothing has been heard in connection therewith?

The answer that I gave to the original question is the best answer to that statement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any progress has been made with the scheme to reduce unemployment by giving inducements to industries to establish themselves in the distressed areas?

There is nothing which I can usefully add at the present time to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject on the 26th November last.

May I take it that the idea has been abandoned?

No. The idea is not abandoned and ought not to be abandoned. It is not a party question to try to induce an industry to set up an organisation or branch in a distressed area. Therefore, although I have failed so far to induce them, that will not prevent me from pressing the matter.

Has the right hon. Gentleman decided what form the inducement is to take?

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his idea was that the State should give financial inducements to these undertakings to go to the necessitous areas? Is not that the idea?

That is just the reverse of what I said. I distinctly informed the House that it might be possible to do it in a number of ways: First, there was the question of the land to be purchased; and secondly, the question of the rates. My experience has been that, when I had got over both those difficulties and was nearly inducing a firm, there was difficulty about the water supply. All these things must be considered by the firms, but that will not deter me from trying to persuade them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal the exact position of the negotiations regarding the scheme for the electrification of the London and North Eastern Railway relating to Liverpool Street Station?

I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 17th December to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), a copy of which I am sending to him.

Is it right to say that this scheme must await the introduction and the passage through this House and the other House of any legislative proposals in relation to London traffic?

That is not true, but it is true to say that within the next hour the general manager of this railway is to meet the Minister of Transport. I do not know what the result of that discussion will be.

Has the right hon. Gentleman applied any of his kindly pressure to the London and North Eastern Railway Company to induce them to accelerate their schemes?

If the hon. Member had been negotiating with railway companies for the period that I have, he would not be so optimistic.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has definite information regarding any ships laid down for the purpose of carrying coal to Canada, consequent on his visit to that country; and, if so, with what firms the orders for these ships have been placed?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on this subject on 19th November last to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), of which I am sending him a copy.

Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman told us, at the end of last Session, that these orders either had been or would be placed? Can he now tell us what progress has been made with the placing of orders for the building of these ships?

It is quite true what I said distinctly in the House that, in the judgment of those who were dealing with the business, it would necessitate the building of five new ships. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I stated that in the House. I am now in a position to state that I have had a communication from a firm of shipbuilders who have been asked to tender. In addition, I received a communication yesterday morning dealing with the finance, which was then a matter of negotiation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, seeing that this question is so important from the point of view of unemployment, who are the shipbuilders with whom he is negotiating, and, when the orders are given for the ships, can he say to what part of the country they are likely to go?

The House wishes to be fair. Nothing would be more unfair than for me, in a matter of this kind, to indicate or suggest that it was my responsibility to ask a firm to place their contracts anywhere. I told the House distinctly that I have received a communication from a firm of shipbuilders.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that his statement last June in the House regarding these five vessels was misleading?

It was not made last June. If I had misinformed the House, it would be my duty to say so, and I would have no hesitation in doing so. If at any stage that position is reached in connection with any of my business, I shall have the courage to say so, right away.

Arising out of the original reply, which referred to an answer which he gave to me on a previous occasion, does the right hon. Gentleman remember that the answer he gave me was to refer me to a reply which he had given to somebody else. The reason I have risen is to stop this evasion. We who come from shipbuilding centres want to know exactly what he is doing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] I want to have a reply, and I think I have as much right to a reply as any other Member of the House.

asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) whether he can make any statement as to the progress of his plans for the relief of unemployment as they affect the industrial area of North-East England;

(2) whether he is able to state what number of men are employed, directly or indirectly, as the result of his schemes in Northumberland and Durham?

The assistance which the Government is offering to schemes for the promotion of economic development and the reduction of unemployment is available for the area referred to equally with other areas suffering from unemployment. The initiative in putting in hand local works of development lies with the local authorities and public utility undertakings. I shall be pleased to furnish information on such schemes approved for grant if the hon. Member will specify the local authority areas for which he wishes this information. I would remind the hon. Member of the grant recently announced to assist works to the value of £10,000,000 for the development of electricity supply on the North-East coast.

May I ask whether, in view of the exceptional amount of unemployment in this particular area, he will direct his energies to putting some schemes into operation with the general plan of relieving unemployment in the area?

I have publicly announced in this House and outside and invited members of all parties themselves to urge upon local authorities the presentation of schemes. I still want them to do that, and I am glad to say that many have done so. I cannot do more than urge local authorities to present schemes.

Yes, but, apart altogether from local authorities and their responsibilities, cannot the right hon. Gentleman initiate schemes?

We cannot have a discussion on every question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what schemes have been submitted to his Department by the Mossley Council, Lancashire, for the mitigation of the unemployment problem in that particular area?

No formal application has yet been submitted by the Mossley Town Council to the Unemployment Grants Committee for a grant towards works for the relief of unemployment.

May I ask whether the Department of the Lord Privy Seal has had the same experience which seems to be coming to other hon. Members, that most of these local authorities would like to reconsider the financial help granted by the Department?

It would be a mistake to convey to local authorities the idea that they will get better terms than under the old situation. I made it quite clear before the House rose that these terms were generous and would not be improved upon. That statement has been justified by the increased number of applications since.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government propose to introduce proposals for the retirement and pension of aged workers from industry?

I am not in a position to make a statement.

Is there any foundation for the statement that the Cabinet Committee have now devolved this matter upon the Cabinet Insurance Committee?

I have not seen any such statement.

Is it true?

I want to see the statement first.

Is the statement true without reference to anything else?

If the hon. Member will put down a question on the subject I shall be delighted to answer it.

May I ask whether it is still the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the pensioning of aged workers will help to solve the unemployment problem?

We are getting far away from the question on the Paper.

asked the Lord Privy Seal, if he is aware of the need for pensions to be granted to persons of 60 years of age and of over 30s. weekly who agree to give up their jobs; and if he intends to legislate in this direction?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on this subject on 21st January to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague on the Committee of the Government which is considering unemployment has stated in this House that the Cabinet Committee have now reported. In view of the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in Glasgow, will he now say what is the position of the Government seeing that members of the Government are now advocating this scheme?

I had an opportunity of reading the speech to which the hon. Member refers just before I came into the House, and I put it most respectfully to him that it does not quite bear the interpretation he has put upon it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that we were told in this House that the Cabinet Committee had reported? Has it reported; and is the statement of the Under-Secretary of State on the question of unemployment, in accord with his own views, and with Cabinet policy?

The question of the hon. Member is:

"To ask the Lord Privy Seal, if he is aware of the need for pensions to be granted to persons of 60 years of age and of over 30s. weekly who agree to give up their jobs; and if he intends to legislate in this direction?"

I have answered that, as I have said last week; and I have drawn attention to that answer now.

Are we never going to get an answer? That is no answer at all.

I desire to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Adjournment, at the first available occasion.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the White Paper intended to give information in regard to the Government's schemes of work for the unemployed has yet been completed; and if he will state when it will be issued?

A further White Paper giving information on schemes of work approved for the relief of unemployment up to the 31st January, will, I hope be issued about the middle of February.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is considering any scheme to deal with the annual flooding of the Thames Valley, in view of the fact that such scheme might, while finding work for the unemployed, also benefit the inhabitants?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 18th December to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Sir G. Penny) in the course of which I stated that limited schemes of drainage for the Wey Valley and the Thames between Wey-bridge and Teddington has been approved. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

May I ask whether there is any possibility of some general scheme for the Thames Valley being taken into consideration, in view of the fact that this would really provide work for the unemployed and relieve inhabitants of an annual loss?

I indicated in a previous reply that in my judgment this was an urgent matter. I even invited the authorities concerned, but, as the hon. Member knows, there is a great conflict of interests on this question, and I am putting it no higher than this, that we are doing our best to straighten it up.

Is it not the fact that a scheme costing £6,000,000 was laid before the authorities in the Thames Valley by the Thames Conservancy Board, and it was considered inadvisable to proceed with it; and that the scheme to which the right hon. Member referred, the Wey and Thames Rivers, is not part of that scheme. Further, may I ask whether he has been appealed to for assistance?

I have already stated that I gave approval to the latter scheme, and the statement of the hon. Member confirms my reply to the previous supplementary as to the difficulties involved.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has received, in response to his invitation, a memorandum from the Society of Motor Manufacturers advocating the retention of the McKenna Duties on imported motor cars in order to shelter the home market from unrestricted foreign competition; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Yes, Sir. I have received a memorandum from the Society of Motor Manufacturers in which, among a number of other matters, they advocate the retention of the McKenna Duties on imported motor cars. I am not in a position to make any statement.

Has the right hon. Gentleman given any assurance to the motor manufacturers whose representatives saw him, that will enable him to put an end to the uncertainty which now prevails throughout the whole of the industry?

It is not for me to give an assurance personally, as to the obligation of the Government. I discussed the matter fully with the motor interests and heard their views—and I know their views from the result of the discussion—and I have made the necessary representation on that subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate why he invited the motor car manufacturers to give him an expression of their opinion if he is not' prepared to put their recommendation into effect?

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the restrictions proposed on the sale of American cars by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders were the subject of discussion at the conversations which he had with the British motor trade and have his approval?

No, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any information as to the two new French Tariffs Bills; and whether their effect would be a general increase on French duties upon imported parts of motor cars and an increase on duties upon completed vehicles?

asked the President of the Board of Trade what added burden the increased protective duties under the new French tariff will have upon British motor cars exported to France?

Particulars of the proposed new specific duties on motor car parts were published in the Board of Trade Journal on 16th January, and particulars of those on complete vehicles will appear in the same publication on 30th January. The official explanation of the proposed changes is that owing to the difficulties of estimating the value of motor cars and parts the duty of 45 per cent. ad valorem at present laid down in the tariff has not in fact in all cases been levied. In regard to both parts and complete vehicles the new specific duties purport to be calculated so as to be equivalent to a real ad valorem duty of 45 per cent.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this does not really mean an increase of the duty?

Yes, that is my present information. It is plain at the moment that the effort is rather to make the 45 per cent. ad valorem effective. I do not see any increase of tariff in it.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if any measures are contemplated by the German Government to raise the existing tariffs on motor cars imported into that country or to limit the total number of cars to be imported, with quota appropriation to exporting countries; and if any representations are being made on the matter to the German Foreign Office?

I understand that the German manufacturers concerned have put forward suggestions on the lines indicated in the question, but that these suggestions have not been accepted by the German Government. The second part of the question does not therefore arise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, through his representative at Berlin, carefully watch the process of events?

Yes, that is part of our duty. Every week I pay very close attention to all problems of this kind.

Does the fact that the German Government have not accepted this proposal arise from the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for a tariff truce?

It would be difficult for me to connect the two circumstances this afternoon. If the hon. Gentleman wishes further details, I would rather that he put a question on the Paper.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the new volume published by the economic and financial section of the League of Nations secretariat, which reviews world trade during the period 1926 to 1928, where it is shown that the increase in British trade is 6 per cent. below the world average increase; and, seeing that the increase in world average is mainly due to the maintenance of a protective policy in most industrial nations in view of the facts thus revealed, His Majesty's Government contemplate an extension of safeguarding in the interests of enlarged British trade?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not, however, share the view put forward by the hon. Member that world trade is necessarily increased in proportion to the obstacles placed in its way.

Can we produce any facts on any authority that will convince the Government of the sin it is committing against British industry?

Is it not a fact that there are none so blind as those who will not see?

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement with regard to the present position in respect of the convention for the prohibition of export and import restrictions?

A full statement of the position will be found on page 59 of the Board of Trade Journal of 9th January, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will inquire as to the attitude of the principle chambers of commerce and economic groups in France with regard to the proposals for a customs truce?

No, Sir. I see no occasion for such an inquiry.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if any of the Dominion Governments have expressed their views regarding the proposed tariff truce; and, if so, whether these views are favourable to the proposal?

Certain statements were made, I understand, by the Governments of India, the Irish Free State, and the Union of South Africa, when communicating to the League of Nations their respective decisions as to participation in the Conference. As the hon. and gallant Member will no doubt be aware, the decisions of the Governments of India and of the Union of South Africa were against participation, and that of the Government of the Irish Free State in favour of it. I understand that the statements which I have mentioned will be published by the League of Nations in due course.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no definite action is taken till after the Imperial Conference this autumn, in view of the fact that this truce might stand in the way of the development of Empire economic policy?

I have already indicated to the House, in reply to similar questions, that I cannot give any pledge or undertaking, but I do not think that matters would in fact work out in that way.

Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously intend to proceed with this proposal, in view of the opinions expressed by the Dominions and Colonies?

Certainly. There are either 26 or 28 acceptances from European and other countries, and at the forthcoming Conference at Geneva, whatever may be the difficulties, I intend to do my very best in this matter.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government grants towards the cost of the British Industries Fair will now be discontinued in view of the fair being so successful that the demand of would-be exhibitors is now for 10,000 square feet more space than is available; and what is being done to fix rentals so as to make the Fair self-supporting?

The growing success of the Fair is most satisfactory, and I have been considering what change should be made in the arrangements for financing the publicity campaign in future years. The matter will be referred to the Committee presided over by Lord Chelmsford, which is to consider various questions relating to the Fair.

Can the hon. Gentleman see any hope of the Exchequer grant being done away with?

As I have said, that point will be referred to the Committee, and I must await their proposals.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the branch of the Fair held in Birmingham cost the Exchequer nothing?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British trade benefits very considerably as a result of this expenditure?

asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of pilchards exported from this country in 1928 and 1929; to what countries do they go; and what import duty, if any, these countries put on them?

The total quantity of pilchards exported from this country in 1929 was 72,974 cwts., valued at £117,900 (provisional figures). The corresponding figures for 1928 were 52,854 cwts., valued at £87,401. About 95 per cent. of these quantities went to Italy and the greater part of the remainder to the United States of America. The import duty on pilchards imposed by Italy is equivalent to about 1s. 7d. per cwt. gross, and that imposed by the United States of America, to about 4s. 8d. per cwt. net.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that preferential railway rates are being given to goods from the Rhine provinces to the port of Bremen by the German State railways; that this is diverting a considerable amount of traffic from the ports of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and is thereby detrimental to British-owned shipping, who use the latter ports and are debarred from using the port of Bremen; and whether, in view of existing trade agreements between Great Britain and Germany, he will inquire into this matter with a view to making representations?

The German State Railways have for many years given in respect of goods sent to German ports preferential rates over goods sent to Dutch ports. I am advised that this practice is not contrary to Germany's existing treaty obligations. As British shipping can trade with Bremen as freely as with Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and a considerable amount of trade with Bremen is at present carried by British ships, I am not clear what detriment to British shipping the hon. Member has in mind, but perhaps he will give me particulars.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an increase in the subsidy on goods carried on the State railways has been made recently as against goods carried on the waterway of the Rhine, and that it has had a very detrimental effect on the shipping of the Humber ports?

I have no details in relation to that point, but, even if the facts were as represented by the hon. Member, I should still doubt whether I had any power of representation. There is nothing in that inconsistent with the Treaty obligations.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the numbers employed in the fabric glove industry in May, 1929, and December, 1929?

According to particulars furnished by the Joint Industrial Council for the Glove-making Industry, in respect of firms which, in 1924, employed about 82 per cent. of the cutters in the fabric glove industry the average number of workpeople, including outworkers, employed by these firms was 1,295 in May, 1929, and 1,183 in December, 1929.

Is not the reason for the decrease the uncertainty that overhangs this industry at the present time?

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he has received a resolution, unanimously adopted by 14 trade unions and the employers' associations concerned in the Nottingham lace industry, expressing apprehension as to the possibility of the safeguarding duty lapsing in July, 1930, and urging that, in the interests of employment, the duty should be maintained until the fullest possible inquiries as to the operation of the duty have been made; if so, whether these representations have received the consideration of His Majesty's Government; and what reply has been made to them;

(2) whether he has received joint representations from employers and workers in the cutlery trade in Sheffield requesting that they should be allowed to place before him information in regard to the improved conditions of employment and production in the industry since the imposition of a safeguarding duty; whether he has agreed to receive such a deputation; and, if so, whether he will make available the information submitted to him?

The reply to the first part of both questions is in the affirmative. As was pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the 19th December, the policy of the Government in relation to the safeguarding duties is well known, and I fear no useful purpose would be served by receiving a deputation such as is suggested.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this joint request from the trade unions and the employers asked that a Committee should be set up to inquire into the actual results, as promised by the Balfour Committee, and is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to receive a deputation as mentioned in the second question, in view of the fact that it comes from employer and employed and that his right hon. Colleague has received a purely party committee?

I have replied to many questions by the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point. I am always willing to meet deputations, but in this case the Government have definitely declared its policy, and to receive deputations in these circumstances would, I suggest, be a waste of time.

rose—

We cannot have a Debate on every single question.

On a point of Order. These two questions were answered together by my consent, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman. I have been allowed to ask only one supplementary question, and this is a matter affecting the whole of the trade unions in these industries.

The hon. and gallant Member has received an extremely definite answer.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can say how-many fatal accidents to the members of the crews of British ships took place during the last year for which statistics are available, distinguishing between those in home and foreign waters, respectively; and in how many cases the findings of a court of inquiry indicated that the blame was not attributable to the deceased person?

During the year ended 31st December, 1928, 356 members of the crews of British ships lost their lives as the result of accidents, other than shipping casualties. Of these, 93 deaths occurred on or near the coasts of the United Kingdom, and 263 occurred elsewhere. In 99 cases the death was the subject of an inquest, and in the remaining 257 cases the death was the subject of inquiry and report by the Superintendent of a Mercantile Marine Office, a Consular Officer, or an Officer in a British Dominion or Colony. It appears from the information available that in at least 304 instances no blame was attributable to the deceased person.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these accidents was due to confusion as to helm orders?

That is the subject of another question. I have already indicated to the House that there will be ample opportunity for discussion in this Chamber long before that becomes law.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the practice of employing foreign captains and officers in British ships trading between foreign ports, having regard to the serious unemployment which exists in the mercantile marine, he will introduce legislation to make such practice illegal?

I fear that nothing can be added to the reply given on the 17th December to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the present position with regard to the suggested change in respect of helm orders?

The position in this matter remains as stated in the reply which I gave the hon. Member on the 10th December last.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that danger and inconvenience are caused to steam drifters by the regulation which requires these boats to have head-lights on their foremasts when steaming; and whether he will consider the possibility of permitting the lights to be affixed to the mizzen masts so that the fore-masts may be lowered?

This question is governed by the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, Article 2 of which provides that the masthead light must be carried "on or in front of the foremast, or if a vessel without a foremast then in the fore part of the vessel." These Regulations can only be altered by international agreement, and I am advised that there is not sufficient ground for suggesting an alteration in the sense proposed by the hon. Member.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishermen are strongly of opinion that this regulation is very dangerous indeed?

My information at the moment is that there is a division of opinion on the point, but in any case the essential part of the reply is the point relating to international agreement. I am very willing to make further inquiries, if the hon. and gallant Member wishes to bring further information to my notice.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is no foremast when it is lowered?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the cost of running the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts has already involved British nationals in a personal private expenditure of £2,250,000, he will now discharge all individual balances of less than £50 each on outstanding accepted Anglo-Hungarian claims, subject to a special deduction as discount on the dividend of 4s. 2d. in the £ thus anticipated, and thereby hasten the disbandment of the Clearing Office for Enemy Debts to prevent further expenditure?

The Administrator of Hungarian Property has no power to give preference to one class of creditor over others. I would remind the hon. Member that the commission deducted by the Clearing Office from payments to British claimants, represents less than 2¼ per cent. of the total cash payments, and that without the intermediary of the Clearing Office it would not have been possible to recover a large proportion of these moneys.

On the general question can the President of the Board of Trade tell us when he expects that the Clearing Office will be closed?

No, Sir. I have already been asked questions on that subject. The staff is diminishing, and the work is being wound up, but no one can give the definite date asked for.

On a point of Order. I find that substantial alteration has been made in this question since I handed it in at the Table, and I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether hon. Members are not entitled to claim the right to be consulted before such alterations are made?

The hon. Member, as far as I understand the point, has had his question summarised slightly.

I am quite prepared to admit that my question has been altered, but something has been taken out of it that I wanted to appear, and I therefore ask you whether, whatever the alteration may be, a Member is not entitled to be consulted before his question is altered?

Oh, yes, I think an hon. Member is entitled to be consulted before a question is altered. If there is any substantial alteration and the hon. Member objects, he can put his question down for another day.

I will ask it now.

The form referred to contains questions which Departments are required to ask of applicants for unestablished employment. The particulars demanded are the same in all Departments in which a medical examination is not required. In regard to the last part of the question, facilities are available through the machinery of the Industrial Whitley Council for the consideration of any suggestions which may be made on the subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of drawback that has been paid on the export of silk tissues during 1928?

The net amount of drawback paid during the year ended 31st December, 1928, in respect of silk and artificial silk tissues exported, including tissues used in the manufacture of British made-up articles exported, was £1,326,905.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it is proposed to introduce a Bill to deal with the taxation of land values?

I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to await the Budget statement.

Is not this one of the Bills which is going to be thrown overboard by the Socialist party?

I am not aware that there was any promise to introduce a Bill at all on this question.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is able to state the approximate amount of the national income for each of the years 1927, 1928 and 1929, and the figures on a comparable basis for 1900 and 1913?

I regret that no official estimates are available for these years.

May I respectfully ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the advisability of submitting this matter to the Economic Advisory Council?

The only official figures available are based upon returns of 1924. These have not yet been officially published, but a paper was recently react before the Royal Statistical Society based upon these figures which gave as the national income in 1924, after making allowance for possible errors to the extent of £225,000,000, an estimate of just under £4,000,000,000.