asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will direct the attention of those in charge of the machinery set up by the Government to inquire into Soviet propaganda in this country to the display in London in April and May of the film "Mother," by the Russian Communist Pudovkin, in view of the revolutionary nature of this film and the fact that it forms part of a newly organised system of Russian propaganda?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) on Monday last, to which I have nothing to add.

Yes, but is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that that reply stated that he had nothing to do with the licensing of films for display in this country, which is not the question that was asked? The question asked whether he was going to raise the whole problem of films before the Propaganda Inquiry Committee or not.

I think that was covered in the answer that I was not going to take action.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this film deals entirely with conditions in Russia in the year 1905 and depicts the odious character of the Tsarist tyranny of that day, and has he any objection to it?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects to be in a position to inform this House of the result of the inquiry being instituted by the Government into Soviet propaganda?

I am not yet in a position to say when the investigations now proceeding are likely to be terminated. But, as I informed the House on 26th May, His Majesty's Government will decide on the basis of the inquiries what action, if any, will be appropriate.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if we shall have some statement from the Government on the subject before the House rises?

No, I cannot. I must allow the Government to decide what action is going to be taken on the information that is supplied after the inquiry.

What is the reason for the delay?

There is no unnecessary delay. The inquiry is proceeding.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the wide powers of inquiry given by the Official Secrets Act in reference to this question?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has recently received any further report from the British Ambassador concerning religious persecution in Soviet Russia?

No further comprehensive report has been received, but recent telegraphic correspondence seems to indicate that there has been some improvement following upon the gradual application of the decree of March last.

Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore now agree that all the representations that have been made have had some good effects?

That is a matter of debate.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the cost of training a Dartmouth entry cadet, a special entry cadet prior to being commissioned, and a mate prior to being commissioned as such; the number of cadets to be entered this year via Dartmouth; the special entry system; and the number of mates to be promoted?

As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the total cost of the warships which it has been decided to commence this financial year since the signing of the Naval Treaty?

The vessels which it has been decided to commence this financial year since the signing of the Naval Treaty are three deferred submarines of the 1929 programme and the new construction programme for 1930, details of which were announced to the House of Commons on 25th June. The estimated total cost of these ships, inclusive of cost of guns, torpedoes, and ammunition, is approximately £10,540,000. It should be noted, however, that naval construction cancelled by the present Government would have cost some £12,000,000 and that the total cost of the programmes of 1928, 1929 and 1930 will be well below the cost originally proposed for 1928 and 1929.

Can my right hon. Friend give the total cost, including guns, torpedoes and ammunition?

I included that.

My right hon. Friend said "exclusive."

No—"inclusive."

When is it proposed to introduce the Supplementary Estimate, for how much will it be, and will it be before the House rises?

The Estimate is in the printing press and will be available in the Vote Office as soon as it is received from the printer. The amount is just over £200,000, most of which is concerned with the cost this year of the three submarines which are being built under the 1929 programme.

How much employment will that £200,000 give this year?

A very considerable amount.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give an estimate of the total cost of new building of warships and replacements to provide the maximum tonnage of cruisers, destroyers and submarines allowed to this country under the Naval Treaty, in order that such tonnage shall be under age at the date of the expiration of the Treaty?

It would be a complete waste of time to try and produce such figures, since, as has already been made clear to the House, His Majesty's Government have no intention of building along the lines indicated. Moreover, it is not possible to give an accurate or useful monetary estimate in respect of various categories in which ships may be built of varying designs and equipment on which no decision can yet be taken.

Why is my right hon. Friend unable to make this estimate, in view of the fact that the categories of ships are laid down quite clearly in the Treaty and we can only build up to a certain amount?

I have already said that His Majesty's Government do not at present propose to build along the lines indicated in the question, and the second part of my answer indicated that until we know exactly all the characteristics of the ships which we may decide to build we can give no accurate estimate.

Are we to understand that it is not proposed to build even up to the inadequate limits provided for in the Treaty?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated amount of naval tonnage now under construction or projected by the British Empire and the United States of America, respectively?

The totals are approximately as follow:

	Tons.
United States of America	140,000
British Commonwealth of Nations	115,000

These figures refer only to vessels which have actually been authorised and for which money has been appropriated in this year's estimates, except that they include this Government's recently announced programme for 1930 and the submarines of the 1929 programme, for which a Supplementary Estimate is shortly to be introduced.

Do these figures include all the shipbuilding which is projected or under construction in this country, but only part of that projected for the United States; and is there not a much larger quantity of tonnage projected in the United States which is not included in the return?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will study my answer, he will find that his supplementary question is unnecessary. I think that my answer makes it quite clear.

When the right hon. Gentleman gives the figures for the British Commonwealth of Nations, does he mean that no ships are under construction in any other part of the British Empire besides this country?

The figures included in the London Naval Treaty were for the Empire as a whole, and it is obvious that in regard to future construction programmes, there must be some consultation.

Did any of the Dominions apply for separate advice and representation at the Naval Conference; if so, what answer was given?

That question does not arise out of the answer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the reasons why a naval rating when commissioned is given the separate rank and distinctive title of mate, a practice which does not exist in the Army or Royal Air Force, and why mates are messed in the ward room with the senior officers instead of in the gun room with their contemporaries, the sub-lieutenants?

It has always been the intention that promoted naval ratings should have equal status with ex-cadet officers, but they would be gravely hampered if, during the period immediately following selection, they were not distinguished from the ex-cadet sub-lieutenants, whose preliminary qualifications would be quite different. When therefore the scheme was inaugurated in 1912 it was decided, after careful consideration, to give them the title of "mate," which is the old name of the sub-lieutenant. The reason for including them in the ward room instead of in the gun room mess was that the mates under the 1912 scheme were expected to be always three to six years older than the sub-lieutenants. It was considered, therefore, more suitable to include them in the ward room. This matter will form part of the inquiry I am having made into the whole question.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the inquiry into the matter of lower-deck promotion, any of the lieutenant-commanders (ex-mate) will be enabled to give their views on the defects of the mate scheme?

Yes, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the departmental inquiry into the working of the mate scheme is now in operation; and when it is anticipated that he will be able to make a statement?

The answer to the first part of the question is contained in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 7th May last [OFFICIAL REPORT, column 981]. With regard to the second part of the question, the inquiry has not yet reached a sufficiently advanced stage for a statement to be made.

Will it be possible to include a representative of the mate class when the right hon. Gentleman is making these inquiries into the whole question?

I intended making an announcement to-day, but as the question has been asked, I may say that we have had a preliminary survey in the Admiralty, and I have now decided to appoint a small departmental committee to continue the inquiries on the basis already made, and to include on the committee an officer of as superior a rank as possible who is an ex-mate, so that the position may be adequately safeguarded.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many ex-officers, naval and marine, are employed in Government Departments of the Admiralty; how these appointments are made; if the candidates are selected by a board; and what are the terms of service?

Excluding officers employed in what can be regarded as essentially naval services, e.g., the recruiting service, Royal Marine police, etc., some 80 retired naval and marine officers are employed in various departments of the Admiralty at headquarters and the out-ports. These comprise officers in the Naval Ordnance Inspection, Research and Design Branch, the regulation for recruitment to which are now under revision, and officers in His Majesty's dockyards, factories, Admiralty headquarter establishments, etc. Appointments are made by the Board and selections are made with a view to making the best use of the services of suitable officers who may be available when vacancies arise. The terms of service vary according to the appointment held.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the percentage of naval and marine officers, respectively, on the recruiting staff; how many of these officers are in receipt of a pension of £400 or upwards; and how many officers are there waiting on the list to be considered?

There are 11 naval (including seven medical officers) and five Royal Marine officers serving on the Naval Recruiting Staff. Of these, nine officers (including six Naval medical officers) are in receipt of retired pay of £400 or upwards. There are 12 suitable candidates whose names are on the waiting list.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been reached concerning the filling of vacancies on establishment in His Majesty's dockyards and the departure from the one-in-eight principle now in operation?

The reply is in the negative.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision has been reached regarding the leave with pay of chargemen, recorders, yard craftsmen, etc., in His Majesty's dockyards and other Government establishments?

The reply is in the negative.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when we may expect the reply, as it has been so long under consideration?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty has now given fresh consideration to the award of marriage allowances for naval officers; and whether he can now make a statement?

This matter is still under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when a decision is likely to be reached?

I cannot, as there are many contingent matters which will take a long time to examine.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider utilising the turret drill-ship His Majesty's Ship "Terror," at Portsmouth, for training lower-deck candidates for commissions, in a manner similar to the training given special entry cadets in His Majesty's Ship "Erebus," at Devonport?

There is ample accommodation in existing establishments for training all officers at presentrequired. No justification can be seen for incurring additional expenditure in the manner proposed.

As it is anticipated increasing the number who are promoted from the lower-deck, would it not be a good thing if this ship were used for this purpose?

I think that if you promote a large number from the lower-deck, you will not increase the number of officer vacancies. The point is that the present accommodation for training officers is sufficient.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of executive special entry cadets at present under training in His Majesty's Ship "Erebus" at Devonport; the total staff employed for their professional and educational training; and the other purposes for which this ship is kept in commission?

The turret drill ship "Erebus," in addition to its duties as such, is used for the preliminary training together of all naval cadets, entered otherwise than through the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, of whom there are training as executive officers 13 special entry and nine direct entry cadets. In addition there are certain Dominion and foreign officers. All the different educational duties are carried out by the complement of the ship, which includes three naval instructors, except that a teacher of French attends from the shore for a limited number of hours a week.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of cook ratings on board His Majesty's Ship "Vernon" employed to cook breakfast for over 200 men; if he is aware that in May there were two cooks at the Royal Hospital, Haslar, for duty with the sick-berth staff; that a third cook had to be brought in after an interval, during which the naval cooks were overworked; that even with three cooks the work is excessive; that in No. 1 Galley, Royal Naval Barracks, out of a staff of 22, 14 are new entry Royal Marines, sick or undergoing outside training, and eight only are left to attempt the work; that in Galley No. 2 officers' cooks have been brought in to assist; and if he will do his best to remedy this state of affairs, which is not fair to the naval cooks' branch, and must mean the cooking of food and rewarming it for the messing of the ratings?

His Majesty's Ship "Vernon" is allowed a staff of 17 cook ratings, with one additional cook rating for every 60 ratings borne in excess of 1,000. The number required to cook breakfast probably depends on the amount of night leave granted, but I regret that there has been no time for inquiry on this point. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the information given in reply to his question of the 29th May. The reference to Royal Marines in connection with No. 1 Galley, Royal Naval Barracks, is not understood. The use of supernumerary officers' cooks to assist in Galley No. 2 should enable more leave to be given to the other cook ratings, and no objection is seen to the practice.

The hon. Gentleman says that a certain number is allowed; how many are working?

I take it that 17 are working.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that there are not a sufficient number of naval cook ratings at the Royal Naval Barracks, Portsmouth; that bread for the Royal Naval Barracks is being purchased from outside sources because of the insufficiency in numbers of naval cooks; and that the naval cooks' branch complain in the welfare requests Nos. 5 and 6 that the number of cooks is insufficient for the duties and that hardship is caused to the branch and to the ratings generally?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, the intention of the bakery at the Royal Naval Barracks is for training for duties afloat and the normal procedure is to purchase locally. The welfare requests referred to in the last part of the question are being considered.

What is the answer to the last part of the question?

It is being considered.

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the dangers arising to the public through excessive hours of labour worked by drivers of licensed chars-a-banes and motor omnibuses on long-distance routes; and whether he has taken any action in the matter?

My attention has been drawn to the matter to which my hon. Friend refers and provisions to deal with it are included in Clauses 19 and 92 of the Road Traffic Bill now before Parliament.

Have the officers of the Department made any investigation into these complaints?

I am quite satisfied that bona fide complaints exist, and therefore, without waiting for the officers of my Department to take action, I took legislative action in the Road Traffic Bill.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is in a position to make any statement as to the report of the engineer on the proposal to construct a bridge across the River Tamar?

I have not yet received the report of the engineer but expect to receive it during the course of this month.

If I put down another question in the course of a fortnight, could the Minister then give an answer? This is a matter of considerable interest to the West Country.

I cannot go beyond what I have said, that I anticipate receiving the report in the present month.

asked the Minister of Transport the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents that have occurred during each of the last five years through railway carriage doors becoming unfastened while trains were in motion; whether representations have been made to him regarding the need for greater safeguards in this connection; and whether he can afford greater security to passengers by requiring additional safety devices to be used?

The total number of accidents to persons falling out of railway carriages during the running of trains during the last five years amounts to between 19 and 35 persons killed and between 42 and 51 persons injured in each year. The liability of accident from this cause is about one in every 20,000,000 passenger journeys. It is not possible to say what proportion of these accidents might have been prevented by the use of a different type of door fastening. The matter, which is continually under review, is referred to on page 19 of the report on the accidents that occurred on the railways of Great Britain during 1928, and in all the circumstances, and having regard to the fact that any arrangements involving increased difficulty in opening doors might create danger in certain circumstances, I have not felt justified in pressing companies in the matter.

During this period of five years does the number of these occurrences show an upward or a downward tendency?

There have been increases, but, on the other hand, in one or two years there were decreases, so that I do not think any particular tendency is revealed by the figures.

Would it not be a good thing to have everyone medically examined before entering a train to see whether they are likely to fall out?

asked the Minister of Transport if he can make a statement regarding the proposal to pro vide an improved crossing for road vehicles over the River Forth at or near Queensferry?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 14th May to a similar question by the hon. Member for West Edinburgh (Mr. Mathers).

Has the Minister nothing to add in regard to recent meetings held in Scotland on this subject?

I am not sure whether at that date the meetings had been held. A meeting of the local authorities in Edinburgh was held with my co-operation. There were divided views as to the merits of the bridge, and the promises of financial contributions amounted only to about 2 per cent. of the estimated cost.

asked the Minister of Transport whether in view of the situation of unemployment in the steel industry, he will favourably consider the proposals for the construction of a bridge over the Humber?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 26th June to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for the North-Western Division of Kingston-upon-Hull (Sir A. Lambert-Ward) of which I am sending him a copy.

Can the Minister say when he will be in a position to call the local authorities concerned together?

No, Sir, I am not able to say that.

Is the Minister aware that this matter has been in hand for a long time?

That is a kind of misrepresentation that I cannot allow to pass. The reports of the engineers have been received, and no possible delay has taken place. I do not think that the local authorities have come to any conclusion yet. It is wrong that such general accusations should be made.

On a point of personal explanation. Is my hon. Friend aware that I did not at all intend to misrepresent him and have no desire to do so, and I am quite prepared to express my regret if he thinks I did. My hon. Friend has been very helpful.

Will the Minister taken an early opportunity of making the journey from Grimsby to Hull and personally investigate the most uncomfortable means of transport between there two leading centres, particularly in the winter, in foggy weather?

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has had under consideration the expediency of restoring and reconstructing the London-Worcester direct road between Wheatley and Over-Kiddington to enable traffic to Worcester and to Birmingham to by-pass Oxford and, if so, with what result; and whether, pending such reconstruction, he will cause the existing route to be efficiently signposted for the guidance of through traffic?

Consideration has been given to this suggestion, but it is doubtful whether its adoption would lead to any marked diminution of traffic in Oxford. The route referred to is a factor in the problem as a whole, but in any event it would be inadvisable to encourage its extended use by through traffic until considerable and extensive improvements have been effected.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can state in detail the duties of the Lord Privy Seal in relation to unemployment, apart from the membership of the Committee of Ministers dealing with this question?

Apart from the duties attaching to membership of the Special Committee of Ministers the Lord Privy Seal has no specific duties relating to unemployment though, as a member of that committee, free from Departmental preoccupations, he will be in a position to devote his whole time to the committee's heavy work.

Will he answer questions on unemployment in this House?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the departmental organisation established by the Lord Privy Seal continues in existence?

No, that organisation does not continue in existence. As I stated in the House, the responsibility has gone back into the various Departments, the work of which is now being co-ordinated.

Has not the First Commissioner of Works any duties in connection with it?

Which Minister is responsible for co-ordinating the work?

The Lord Privy Seal has the matter in hand as a member of the committee of Ministers.

Are we to address general questions on unemployment to the Prime Minister, or the Lord Privy Seal, or to whom?

I think the best thing will be for hon. Members to go on just as they have done. Whenever any doubt arises as to who should answer a specific question, it is always referred to me, and I will do my best to meet the convenience of the House.

Does the new Lord Privy Seal receive the same salary as his predecessor for less work?

He does not.

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to make a statement to the House at an early date concerning the increased grants proposed to be made to the local authorities in respect of public works; and whether he can give an estimate of their cost to the National Exchequer?

I have been asked to reply. A detailed statement on this subject will be published as a White Paper on Friday next. The cost to the Exchequer must naturally depend on the extent to which local authorities take advantage of the improved terms of grant.

Is there any estimate of what the additional cost will be?

No, as I say, that will depend on the extent to which the local authorities take advantage of the terms offered.

But has not any consideration been given to what the further cost to the local authorities will be?

Do the Government propose to introduce any legislation on this subject before the end of July?

asked the Minister of Labour if she has received an application from the Hinderwell Urban District Council for a grant to enable them to commence certain schemes of work in that area for the purpose of providing employment for the unemployed miners who are laid idle as a result of the Boulby and Grinkle mines closing down; and, if so, what action she proposes to take in the matter?

Preliminary inquiries were made in April last by the Hinder-well Urban District Council regarding certain schemes of work in contemplation, but no formal application for grant from Exchequer Funds in aid of such works has yet been received by the Unemployment Grants Committee.

asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of the schemes submitted in proper order by the Liverpool Corporation for the relief of unemployment; the sum that has already been sanctioned for grant; and the number of men at present employed upon those schemes?

As the reply is necessarily long, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons registered at Parkhead Employment Exchange were admitted to benefit as a result of the abolition of the not-genuinely-seeking-work condition; and how many of these have since been refused benefit as not normally engaged in insurable employment?

I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when the information will be available?

It is not possible to get this information explicitly, because the figures are naturally bound up with the ordinary registration figures.

Is it not the fact that we used to be able to get the number of those who were refused benefit on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking work; and why cannot we get the figures for the total number disqualified under the present arrangement?

This question is much more complicated than that.

Is it not the case that all the Employment Exchanges have full lists of the names of individuals, and, in view of the importance of this matter, does not my hon. Friend think that some of the Exchanges should have these facts at hand?

I have made a very close inquiry into this matter, and I am sure that it is not possible to get these figures. Of course, an estimate could be made, but it could only be done in a very general way.

Could not the Parliamentary Secretary at least tell the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) the number of those who have been refused benefit at the Parkhead Exchange since the passing of the new Act on the ground of not being normally in insurable employment?

That could not be done for the simple reason that what the hon. Member asks for is the number of those originally accepted under the new Act who have since been refused benefit. That is not possible.

I suppose it is not desirable.

Is it not the case that, if this question cannot be answered simply because six months ago scarcely any were refused benefit on the ground of not being normally in insurable employment, all that the hon. Gentleman needs to do is to give the figure that he knows?

It is possible to get the number of those who were refused benefit under the Act generally, but it is not possible to get the number refused out of those who were accepted under the new Act.

Is it not the fact that this condition has been abused in exactly the same way as the old one?

No; that is not so.

It is so.

asked the Lord Advocate what action he proposes to take in regard to the representations which have been made to him to set up a, judicial inquiry into the allegations of corrupt practices by members of the city council of Glasgow?

I have considered these representations, but have been unable to discover any ground on which I could advise that steps should be taken to have a tribunal of inquiry set up under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921.

If I am able to place additional and important evidence of corrupt practices by members of the Glasgow City Council, in addition to the already conclusive evidence submitted by me and others, will the Lord Advocate undertake to tear himself away from the political influences which are operating, and set up a tribunal?

The insinuation in the hon. Member's supplementary question does not call for a reply, but may I say that the allegations which have been made hitherto have been of the vaguest and most nebulous kind. I have had them very fully and carefully inquired into by my Department, and they were found to be without a scintilla of evidence. The people who have been most vocal in agitating in this matter have declined to submit any evidence whatever to the Procurator-Fiscal, who is the proper official to investigate the matter. Let me just add that if the hon. Member has any evidence in his possession, I hope he will deem it to be consistent with his duty to submit it forthwith to the Procurator-Fiscal, who, in due course, will report to me upon it.

As the Lord Advocate has not given any undertaking to consider——

I did not rise to call the hon. Member to order when putting his supplementary question because I thought it was a maiden effort on his part, but I cannot allow him to proceed in that way.

Arising out of the Lord Advocate's answer, is it the view that a Member of this House has no interest in clean government, and no right to put views before the House, but must proceed, as a member of the public, through the ordinary police channels?

I do not in any way object to considering representations that are made, but they must be specific. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that before you can set up a tribunal under the Act of 1921 there must be a definite matter to be inquired into. Hitherto there has been no definite matter except in one respect where an inquiry was held, and there the specific allegation was shown to be absolutely without foundation.

Would the Lord Advocate be prepared to receive the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and myself to put the position before him again?

Certainly, but I think it would be much more satisfactory if the hon. Member reduced the allegations to writing and signed them.

In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I intend to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in primary schools science, mechanics, bench work, cookery, laundry work, dressmaking, hessian-embroidery, cane and raffia work, leather work, ball making, and paper folding, etc., are regularly taught to pupils under 12 or 14, many of whom have not passed the elementary qualifying examination; and whether he will take steps to eliminate or decrease the teaching of such subjects at least at earlier stages of the pupil's career so that the pupil's energies may be concentrated on the essential subjects of reading, writing, arithmetic, history, and geography?

I am aware that the subjects mentioned are taught to a number of pupils who have not passed the qualifying test. Some of these manual subjects form a valuable part of the training of the younger children. Others are appropriately included in the curriculum of older pupils whose aptitudes are not for book work. I have no reason to think that in either case an undue amount of time is given to these manual and practical subjects and, therefore, I do not feel that the change suggested in the last part of the question is called for.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this question is based upon an erroneous idea of the real purpose of the occupations mentioned in the question?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the simple qualifying test examination in primary schools (i.e., prior to senior advanced divisions or post-qualifying courses) is optional, and is conducted by an examining board composed usually of teachers and the executive officers; under how many authorities, and in how many schools in Scotland, no qualifying test examination is held; whether the teachers have the power to withhold or veto the qualifying test examination; whether that examination is unofficial or is recognised by the Department; and whether in the interests of both primary and advanced education, he will cause the qualifying test examination to be made compulsory upon all pupils, and have it made official and conducted under the supervision of His Majesty's inspectors of schools, and therefore uniform in character?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question of 6th June, 1930, to which I have nothing to add.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in order to ascertain the real position of elementary education in Scotland, he will state the gross number on the rolls of elementary schools with numbers in average attendance, the gross number in the qualifying class, the number of these who entered for the qualifying test, and the numbers who passed the qualifying test, adding numbers of non-entrants and exemptions; and whether he will give instructions that full information under these heads will be tabulated in future annual reports of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, so that by a comparison of the gross number in the qualifying class with the numbers who passed the qualifying test the real results of primary education may be obtained?

The average number on the rolls of primary schools in Scotland in the year 1928–29 was 654,199, and the average attendance was 584,473. The information at my disposal is not sufficiently detailed to enable me to give the other figures asked for my the hon. Member. I will consider the suggestion made in the last part of the question, but I cannot accept the view that the real results of any form of education can be completely shown in statistical form.