asked the Minister of Labour what the unemployment figures in the Gravesend Division of Kent were at the time the last Government assumed office, and what they were when the Government resigned?

The number of persons on the registers of the Rochester and Gravesend Employment Exchanges was 3,962 on 3rd June, 1929, and 7,709 on 24th August, 1931.

Has the Minister formed any estimate of the number there will be after three months of the present Government?

asked the Minister of Labour whether, under the new proposals of the Government, any of the unemployed persons claiming transitional benefit and referred to public assistance committees for the determination of their needs and rate of benefit, if any, payable, will have any right of appeal against the decisions of the public assistance committees?

It is contemplated that the assessment of the needs of individual cases will be made by the ordinary machinery of the public assistance authority and that there will be no appeal to any other authority.

Is the Minister aware that this takes away a very valuable right from the unemployed person; in fact, sets up a Poor Law dictatorship?

I do not accept the statement of the hon. Member as to a Poor Law dictatorship. What I have said is that the procedure of the public assistance committee in assessing need will be precisely what it is at present.

Is it not a fact that the unemployed person will have no right of appeal against the assessment of need?

That is precisely what I have said.

Is not this an alteration of conditions of the law which is not even contemplated in the Economy Bill?

I do not agree. It was agreed to by the last Government.

Is the Minister aware that in the County of Glamorgan there will be 10,000 cases which will come before the Public Assistance Committee?

I am not aware of the figures given by the hon. and gallant Member.

In the case of an ex-Service man falling within the transitional stage and in receipt of a disability pension, can the Minister say whether the pension will be taken into account in considering the question of unemployment benefit?

That is a totally different question; perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

When the amount is fixed by the Public Assistance Committee will it be granted by way of loan as Poor Law relief which is now repayable?

No, Sir. What will happen is that the need will be assessed by the Public Assistance Committee, and it will be paid out of Exchequer funds, as it is to-day.

May I inquire—

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

asked the Minister of Labour if he can give an estimate of the number of unemployed persons who will be placed in the transition category when the 26 weeks' rule begins to operate in the case of those then on standard benefit?

asked the Minister of Labour what is the éstimated number of unemployed workers which the new condition for obtaining standard benefit. will deprive of such benefit?

Figures giving the latest available information on the points raised in these questions are in course of preparation, and I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT in the course of a day or two.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of ex-officers and nurses accepted for training under the Royal Warrant during 1928, 1929, and 1930?

There have been no acceptances for training under the Royal Warrant during 1928, 1929 and 1930.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the intention of the Government with reference to the Hours of Industrial Employment Bill?

The Government do not propose to embark on a programme of contentious legislation, and, therefore, this Bill cannot be proceeded with at present.

Will not the Government endeavour to improve on the miserable record of their predecessors in this matter?

If the Government do not intend to embark upon contentious legislation, I take it that they will drop the Economy Bill?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any provision will be made from public funds to meet the increase in administrative charges to local authorities consequent upon the new duty to be placed upon them of inquiries into the affairs of unemployed persons no longer in receipt of transitional benefit?

It is anticipated that in many cases the local authorities will not need to incur additional expenditure in this connection. It has appeared from discussions with representatives of the authorities that some authorities will desire themselves to bear any extra expense they are put to. In other cases, however, they will be unable to bear it and provision will be made by Order in Council for the Minister of Labour to make them a grant in respect of approved additional expenditure.

asked the Minister of Labour the number of establishments under trade boards not inspected during 1930 and the amount of arrears paid to workpeople in consequence of offences discovered by inspectors during the same period?

All the figures for which the hon. and gallant Member asks are given in the report of the Ministry of Labour for 1930 (Cmd. 3859).

Is the Minister aware that on the percentage basis the amount of the offences discovered by his inspectors is no less a sum than £150,000.

I am aware of exactly what is stated in the report of the Ministry of Labour for 1930.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the London General Omnibus Company was informed that the number and route of the service should be clearly shown on the back as well as the front of each vehicle; and when that requirement will be fulfilled?

The London General Omnibus Company were informed in July last that the display in large type of route num- bers and destination points on the near side and on the rear of double deck omnibuses of the newest type should be carried out during the annual overhaul of each vehicle. The requirement will not, therefore be completely fulfilled until July, 1932.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious public inconvenience caused by the absence of these route marks? Is it not possible to expedite the matter?

I am aware of the inconvenience, and that was why the instruction was given. But it involves considerable structural alterations to these vehicles which can best be done when they are brought in for the annual overhaul.

Is it not possible to cover the advertisements of the "Daily Herald" by information as to the route?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great inconvenience that has been caused by people who are unaware of the destination of the Liberal party?

Can I have a reply to my suggestion?

asked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange for a system to be instituted whereby the circumstances of every fatal road accident in respect of which an inquest is held should be reported by the coroner concerned for the purpose of tabulating the causes of such accidents and the consideration of methods of avoiding them?

It is not necessary to put this duty on coroners. There are other means of obtaining the information. The questions involved are being considered by a Departmental Committee set up by the late Minister of Transport.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that coroners themselves have suggested this?

The suggestion will be considered, no doubt.

May I ask whether the number of fatal accidents in connection with long-distance motor coaches are specifically stated?

There is an annual return.

Does it include separate figures of the accidents in these long-distance motor coaches?

That point shall be considered.

asked the Home Secretary what action has been taken by his Department with reference to the recommendation passed by the county chief constables in April last suggesting that the Home Office should set up a national wireless installation for the purpose of circulating details of grave crimes to mobile police squads; and will he give particulars of any arrangements that are being made to further this suggestion?

The whole question of the further development of wireless as an aid to police work is now under review by a conference on which my Department is represented.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the methods by which this notification is made in America?

The experts will no doubt have that in mind.

asked the Home Secretary what action has been taken on the application of the Surrey Standing Joint Committee for an increase in the police establishment for the Surrey constabulary area; and if, in considering the application, he is taking into account the appropriate proportion to be observed between the numbers in the various ranks of the force?

An interim augmentation has been approved, but no decision has been reached on the main question. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proportion of constables to other ranks in this force is higher than in any other county constabulary in the country, and will he try to apply the Liberal principle of equality or opportunity?

asked the Home Secretary what was the number of non-textile factories and workshops Acts under the particular Section of the Factory and Workshops Act at any convenient date during 1930?

I regret that the figures are not available. The particular Section has been extended to a number of non-textile industries and the collection of the figures would involve a large amount of work which I do not think would be justified.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures were available in the Home Office 25 years ago to my personal knowledge; have they not been kept annually ever since?

I am told that they are not available.

asked the Home Secretary if he has now considered the statements supplied to him by Members of this House and by private individuals concerning the action of the police in dealing with the unemployed section of the crowd outside the House of Commons on Tuesday, 8th September, and if he can now make any further statement on the matter?

I have seen the statements referred to and they are at present under investigation. I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will put another question on the Order Paper for answer next week.

asked the President of the Board of Education if it is proposed to act on the suggestion of the Committee on National Expenditure, in paragraph 503 of their report, that all educational functions should be concentrated, as far as local 'authorities were concerned, in the hands of county and county borough councils, and to carry out also the suggestion, in paragraph 503 of the report, that county and county borough councils should take overthe responsibility for supervising and helping private educational effort in their areas; and what national and local economies would be made by accepting these suggestions?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, I have not been furnished with any information on this point which may have been in the possession of the committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the May Committee themselves said, in the paragraph quoted, that they put this first among the efficiencies that should be secured? Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not desire efficiency, but only economy, at the Board?

The answer is as I have given it. The answer is in the negative.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will state what instructions have been given by his Department with reference to the reduction by 13 per cent. of the salaries of municipal employ és serving in the offices of education committees who have already suffered Civil Service pay reductions?

No hard and fast rule has been imposed with reference to the reductions in salaries of officers other than teachers employed by local education authorities; but the Board have informed the authorities that, in determining their grant, they will have regard to the extent to which appropriate reductions in such salaries and wages have been made in the light of the reductions in the salaries of teachers and the various branches of the public service. Any recent reduction in salary would clearly be a relevant factor in considering whether any further reduction was appropriate.

Do I understand from that answer that it is not intended that the 15 per cent. cut shall be applied to employ és in this category?

As far as my Department is concerned the reduction will be the appropriate one, and what that might be will be determined by the facts.

asked the President of the Board of Education what is the total sum paid in salaries to teachers in this country not governed by the Burnham scale; and if it is intended that these salaries are to be reduced by 15 per cent.?

I have not the information to enable me to answer the first part of the question in the terms in which it is put. If, however, the hon. Member has in mind the case of supplementary teachers in elementary schools, I may say that the total sum paid in salaries to such teachers, in the financial year 1930–31, was approximately £730,000. As regards the second part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 1 of the Board's Circular 1413, of which I am sending him a copy, from which he will see that the Board's grants will be calculated on the assumption of a deduction of 15 per cent. from the aggregate total of the teachers' salaries otherwise payable.

On what principle are some teachers penalised and others let off altogether—the teachers in the private schools?

The same principle as applies to other cuts in the Economy Bill.

Are these not the cuts of which the late Government approved?

That is so.

How do you know?

asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that a number of teachers in Carmarthen-shire will shortly suffer considerable reductions in salary by being transferred from scale 3 to scale 2; and if he proposes to reduce the salaries of these teachers by 15 per cent. or at all?

Under Lord Burn-ham's arbitral award of 8th December, 1927, relating, to Carmartbenshire, all teachers then paid on Scale 3 were to remain on that scale, and I am not aware that any teachers in the county will shortly suffer reduction by being transferred to Scale 2.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the teachers in all industrial areas are to come down from Scale 3 to Scale 2 on 1st April of next year, and is it not a fact: that the teacher getting £432 will suffer a cut of £111, or 23½ per cent.?

The answer is as I have given it. I am unaware of any such circumstance as my hon. Friend has mentioned.

rose—

Sit down!

On a point of Order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, when you are seated and I rise to put a supplementary question, that hon. Members opposite should shout "sit down" and create disorder?

The nature of some of the hon. Member's supplementary question did not encourage me to call upon him to ask any more.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give an undertaking that when the financial condition of the country is again secure he will reconsider the case of the teachers' salaries, and that the present cuts are not to be regarded as permanent?

asked the President of the Board of Education whether the 15 per cent. reduction in teachers' salaries is proposed by the Government as an emergency cut only and without prejudice to the rates of pension to which they are entitled under existing salaries; and if it is intended to reinstate them in their remuneration when the financial conditions of the country justify a return to the present standards of pay?

The reduction in teachers' salaries is occasioned by the national emergency, and is not to be regarded as the view of the Government of what should be proper rates of remuneration of teachers under less abnormal conditions. The position should be reviewed on its merits when the financial position of the country allows. As regards superannuation, I would refer my hon. Friends to the written answer which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman).

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider departmentally, as announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, whether there are any great injustices in these cuts, and, if so, will he submit his opinion to the Cabinet?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all Members of this House have been circularised by the Association of Local Education Authorities to the effect that they consider the imposition of the cut upon the superannuation or pensions for teachers to be a gross injustice?

With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir G. Hamilton), of course the undertaking of the Prime Minister will have the fullest and authoritative consideration of the department. With regard to the second question, I am aware of the expression of opinion which the circular mentioned contains.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would have been more equitable to have taken the pre-crisis rates of salaries and wages as a datum line from which to deduct a uniform cut?

If the financial position of the country gets worse, will further cuts be made?

Am I to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the Government will take the initiative in restoring these salaries, just as they have taken the initiative in reducing them?

I think that any Government when in power can safely rely on the initiative being taken by the teachers' organisation.

May I ask the Minister whether in the conversations which he has had on this subject with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will live up to his name of "Fighting Mac"?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that considerable sums of money are lying in British banks as unclaimed bank balances; and whether, in view of the present financial stringency, he is willing to appoint a small committee to investigate the matter with the view to all unclaimed balances being taken over by the State?

I am not aware of any evidence that the amount of unclaimed bank balances is considerable, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by the appointment of a committee to investigate the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking or at least find out how much money is unclaimed in this way, and would this not give a real opportunity to the banks to practise the economies that are being practised by other people, instead of economising by giving other people's money to the State in this time of crisis?

Is it not a fact that every year all the British banks go into the question of outstanding deposit moneys and endeavour to trace the descendants, which inquiries to my knowledge have gone back in the last few years to 1825?

Is it not the case that a previous Government set up a committee to go into this question, which made a report to the Cabinet on the matter, and cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer continue that inquiry and find out whether anything can be done in this matter?

I do not think any further inquiry would add to the information which came before that committee in 1919, and they said that from the point of view of the State these unclaimed balances were of no or of little concern.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this matter was last before the House the present Prime Minister walked into the Lobby and voted in favour of this being done?

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this policy used to be known as "Bottomley's Bloomer"?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of securities has been offered to the Government by the leading banks, insurance and investment houses, for use in defence of the pound sterling; and how much of it has been accepted?

No such proposal has been made.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any attempt was made to discover how much might be obtainable or could be procured?

That is a question that I cannot answer.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say that the information is not available or that he refuses to answer?

I think I might say "Yes" to both those questions.

Are we to assume from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that it is only policemen, civil servants, soldiers, sailors, and teachers who are expected to come to the aid of the State in its hour of trouble?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of the overseas loans raised on the London money market during the present calendar year; and whether the Treasury was consulted with regard to these loans?

There are no official returns of capital issues. Those compiled by the Midland Bank show for the period January to August, 1931, a total of £36,721,000 in respect of overseas issues for British possessions and £9,236,000 for foreign countries. There is no obligation to consult the Treasury with regard to such issues.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the latter part of my question, as to whether the Treasury was consulted?

I have done.

Then, in view of his speeches as long ago as February, warning us of the difficulties ahead of us, did he not take any steps to check this export of capital?

Most of this, by far the greater part, has gone to the Governments of the British Dominions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do anything in the matter?

I have given the answer already, and that is that the Treasury have no authority to interfere.

rose—

We seem to be having Debates on every question.

But I wish to know—

We shall never get through half the questions if we go on at this rate.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has taken or proposes to take any steps to prohibit the purchase of foreign currencies by British nationals except for bona fide trade or other approved purposes?

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary gave yesterday to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any other step than that indicated in the reply?

Like the answer given to a supplementary question yesterday by my hon. and gallant Friend, I have nothing at all to add.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any money left in the Colonial Development Fund for potential employment?

It is estimated that of the £750,000 voted by Parliament as a grant in aid of the Fund for the current financial year approximately £560,000 will be required for schemes already sanctioned, leaving a balance of about £190,000 available for further schemes, if sanctioned.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action has been taken to give effect to the recommendations of the May Committee in regard to the increased revenue which might accrue to the Exchequer from wireless licences?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to adopt any of the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure with regard to revenue allocated to the British Broadcasting Corporation; and, if so, which?

The position as between the Exchequer and the British Broadcasting Corporation has been reviewed in the light of the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure. I am able to announce that the Corporation has agreed to forgo, out of their proportion of the revenue from wireless licences under the scale now in force, the sum of £50,000 for the period up to the 31st March, 1932, and the sum of £150,000 in the course of the financial year 1932. The result of this arrangement is estimated to give the Exchequer, in respect of the current financial year, £646,166 out of a total licence revenue of £2,050,000: and in respect of the year 1932–33 £775,000 out of £2,250,000. In addition 10 per cent. of the total revenue is retained by the Post Office in respect of the cost of collection, and therefore out of a total revenue from licences next year of £2,250,000, public funds will receive £1,000,000.

Do the estimated savings include any provisional or other estimate for reductions in the salaries of the directors of the British Broadcasting Corporation, or, alternatively, is it proposed to apply the marriage bar which operates in the Civil Service?

The remuneration of the officers and officials of the British Broadcasting Corporation does not come within the purview of the Exchequer, but I am able to announce that reductions will be made on the same scale as apply to the Civil Service.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that this is a very good example of a successful nationalised service?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the risk of loss to the Treasury in connection with the repayment of the £80,000,000 credit, he has considered the effect of imposing a 10 per cent. export tax on gold?

No, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is kept informed every day as to the amount of the £80,000,000 credit still standing to our credit?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to cut by 10 per cent. the royal annuities?

I would refer the hon. Member to the recent announcements in the Press from which he will observe that His Majesty the King and the other members of the Royal Family are by their own wish participating in the movement for the reduction of national expenditure.

May I ask if that refers to Royal annuities amounting to £106,000, given to six persons, as follows—[Interruption.]

We cannot have this information given at Question Time.

I am trying to get information. Did the statement which was made in the Press refer only to His Majesty's household, or did it include these annuities, which I desire to read now in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may inform—

The hon. Member has had the answer to his question.

Only to one section, not to the section in regard to annuities.

This is not a time for giving information, but a time for eliciting information.

What I want to know is whether it applies to annuities—[Interruption.]

Answer!

I will look into the matter.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated cost to the State of the railway travel of all public servants, including Members of Parliament and officers in the fighting forces; and what the figure would be if they all travelled third class?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the saving effected by the provision of third-class tickets instead of first-class tickets for the free railway travel facilities of the Civil Service; and whether, in view of the national emergency, he will recommend such proposals;

The answer to those questions is that the matter is now under examination.

(by Private Notice) asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if any special steps have been taken to explain to the troops at Aldershot the reasons for the reduction in pay that they are to be called upon to suffer as a result of the Economy Bill?

A letter was sent to all Commands and was reproduced as an Army Council Instruction in the following terms:

"I am commanded by the Army Council to inform you that the present state of the national finances has necessitated the adoption of widespread measures of economy throughout the country. In these measures the Army and all the Services of the Crown have been called upon to bear their share. The Army Council are confident that all ranks will he ready to make the sacrifices demanded of them in order to contribute to the restoration of national prosperity."

Are we to understand from that reply that all ranks have willingly and without protest accepted these cuts?

The sacrifice has been accepted by all ranks in a spirit that is worthy of the best traditions of the Army.

Will steps be taken by the Army authorities to consider questions of hardship involved, in the same way as is being done in the Navy?

The Army Council have taken careful note of every case of hardship that is involved, and a special committee of the Army Council has been set up to inquire into them and to see how they can be dealt with.

Are the soldiers themselves being consulted? [interruption.]

I did not hear that question.

(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any further statement to make as to the unrest in the Navy with regard to the reductions in pay?

In consequence of the decision which I announced yesterday the following Order was issued to the Fleet:

"The Board of Admiralty is fully alive to the fact that amongst certain classes of ratings special hardship will result from the reduction of pay ordered by His Alajesty's Government. It is their direction that ships of the Atlantic Fleet are to proceed to their Home ports forthwith to enable personal investigation to be made by the Commander-in-Chief and representatives of the Admiralty with a view to necessary alleviation being made. Any further refusals of individuals to carry out orders will be dealt with under the Naval Discipline Act. This order is to be promulgated to the Fleet forthwith."

Will the House be given an opportunity to discuss this matter, and, if so, when?

All questions relating to the business must be addressed to the House.

May we take it that this statement about hard cases does not apply only to the men of the Atlantic Fleet, but to the men in other ports and other commands—that it applies to the whole Service?

Obviously. One fleet is not going to be picked out for special treatment.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether these cuts in naval pay are among the cuts which were agreed provisionally by the members of the late Cabinet?

It is not very easy for me to answer about the late Cabinet, but the instructions which I found at the Admiralty when I arrived there were to make these cuts.

rose—

Tell the truth.

Withdraw!

Is it in order for an hon. Member opposite to make imputations?

Imputations are always out of order.

Withdraw and apologise!

No, I will not.

On this occasion I suffer from the same infirmity as the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown). I could not hear.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, first, that the men of the Fleet were defended faithfully with regard to their position by his predecessor; secondly, that the Cabinet of the day were warned specifically by the Admiralty, the Sea Lords, and their political representatives of the danger of what has since taken place; and thirdly, he has said that instructions were left that the cuts were to be made—has he not been aware that it was left for the details of any procedure to be taken to be discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I have no doubt that while the right hon. Gentle- man was First Lord of the Admiralty he would do, as everyone in that position would, his best to defend the interest of that great Service.

I am the only person who can speak for the communications that passed between the Admiralty and those who were considering this question. The advice given to us by the Admiralty was that the men would loyally accept these cuts provided two things were done. One was that there were cuts all round in the public services; and, two, that an adequate cut was made in unemployment pay.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will add to the answer, first whether he denies the truth of the points put in my first two questions; and, secondly, whether what he now indicates was the view expressed by the Admiralty was because they were asked to say whether they thought they would be able to put the cuts into operation, that they expressed their doubt, but said that, on balance, they thought the loyalty of the Service would prevail.

That is perfectly true. Every Department was requested to make its observations about certain proposals made regarding cuts. The Admiralty replied in the terms, so far as I can charge my memory, that there were two conditions attached which were essential in offering cuts to the men in the Navy, and under these conditions they said that they felt perfectly certain that the men would loyally accept them.

May I ask the Prime Minister if he can inform the House whether, when the communications were received from the Admiralty, they were accompanied with any protest from the First Lord as the head of the Service?

The hon. Member must deal with the Department.

Arising out of the earlier reply of the First Lord, may I ask if he can inform the House whether the manoeuvres about to be engaged in have been entirely suspended, and, if so, whether the interpretation which is to be drawn by the police, teachers, civil servants and others is that a strike—[Interruption].

I want to ask that the Papers should be laid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—because the Prime Minister has quoted from them. It will be within the recollection of the House that the Prime Minister said that the statement in the Admiralty reply was a certain thing. Secondly, I take it that he was quoting from the reply of the Admiralty, and consequently I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Papers in connection with this matter will be laid?

If the hon. Member puts that question to me, I cannot tell him whether there are any papers.

May I submit that the Prime Minister, in his reply, said that there were requests or recommendations made. May I submit that those recommendations, requests, or memoranda must have been made in writing, and therefore there must be a document. If that is so, has it not always been the common practice of this House for documents like those to be produced by the Government as a White Paper?

May I make the position clear. I did not quote, I only charged my memory.

I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the contradictory statements, not only on this particular matter, but in a previous answer this afternoon, when there is a great public controversy about what certain people have done, I should very much like to make my own position as an individual clear on this matter. We were all colleagues, and we were all in it, but if there is to be a public controversy, I want the Prime Minister to get permission for all of us to be able to read whatever documents we are responsible for, and to be able to make our own statement in regard to this controversy.

I only intervened to-day on account of the questions which reported statements of fact according to my right hon. Friend opposite. I replied. "What was' the gist of the communication?"

Then there was a, document?

The hon. Member must know perfectly well that that is not affected by the rule. It is not a question as to whether there was a document, but as to whether the document was textually quoted. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite know that each one of them has the right to go to the Cabinet Secretariat and ask to look at the records that exist during the term of their office.

That is not the question. I have the whole of the Cabinet papers in my possession. Every Cabinet Minister has the right to have the documents concerning Cabinet matters during the time that he is a member. I do not want to stand apart, nor do I propose to publish or say anything as an individual, but statements are being made in this House about the unanimous decisions of the Cabinet which are not true, and all that I ask is whether we are to be allowed to publish documents that we ourselves put forward in this controversy, and make our own statements as to what took place in the Cabinet. If we are not to be allowed to do that, then I think that Ministers in this new Government ought not to be told what to gay as to what we did or what we did not do.

Keeping to the specific point before us, hon. and right hon. Members must not put questions indicating their knowledge of the situation inaccurately, because they compel us to reply. If the right hon. Gentleman had not put the question he did to-day, I would not—[Interruption.] He put a question whether so-and-so and so-and-so had not been done by the late Government—[Interruption.] Hon. and right hon. Members can look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning regarding the question put by the late First Lord, and in reply to that question I gave the information which I gave.

At the beginning of Questions to-day, a statement was made in regard to unemployment benefit, and so on. A statement was made by the Minister of Labour which could only have been supplied to him by some member of the late Cabinet, and as he could not have got from anyone except one of my late colleagues what the attitude of the Cabinet was as to transitional benefit and a means test, I only want to know whether I have the same right to stand here and say what happened in the Cabinet?

This Debate is, strictly, entirely out of order. There is no question before the House.

I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, when is the opportunity for an ex-Minister to make his statement as to why he resigned from a particular Government [Interruption.] Every Minister who resigns individually has a right to make his statement in this House. The difficulty of the position just now is that the Cabinet broke up, certain members of it are in a new Government and certain statements are bandied across the Floor of the House as to what was unanimous and what was not. I only want to know if I am to have the right to give the story of the happenings in the Cabinet from my point of view?

It is clearly not for me to give a Ruling on that. We have had several Debates since 8th September, when this question was fully discussed.

Yes, only it goes on from day to day.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of my colleagues in the House, I should like to say, on the point raised by the Prime Minister, that I should never have dreamed of putting the question in the form in which it was put, but for the reply in the House to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman found instructions in his Department for the cuts to be put into operation. In those circumstances, it was only due to myself and my colleagues in the late Government to make it plain that the men were defended, warnings were given, and, secondly, that instructions had not been given for the cuts to be put into operation at the Admiralty when we left.

On a point of Order. I wish to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the squabble which has arisen in the last five minutes arose out of the special request to you from my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that the established right of back benchers in this House should be conceded on this point, that where a Cabinet document has been quoted, Members have a right to ask that that document should be printed in extenso, and that the House should have the opportunity of seeing it. I put it to you that the use which the Prime Minister made of this document was a quotation making certain specific statements that the Admiralty could only accept a cut on the Navy if a substantial cut were made in unemployment benefit. That is, I submit, a quotation and not a mere casual reference to a document, and I ask you that you rule that it is necessary so as to preserve the order in this House, that that document shall be printed for the use of Members.

I have often ruled on similar questions, and I rule now, that if quotations are made from a document, the demand can be made for its production in this House. That is a rule which has always been in existence for years, but if there is no document, it cannot be produced.

On a point of Order. It is not a question, I submit, of there being no document; there was no quotation. The Prime Minister prefaced his remarks in my hearing by saying: "So far as I can charge my memory." No words whatever were quoted from any document.

I said that if there is a quotation from a document, it must be produced.

Is it not the case that the Prime Minister when talking on this matter used the following words to describe the medium by which the various intimations were carried to and from the different Departments—"According to the communication "—he used the word "communication"—[Interruption.] May I give my point?

I cannot allow the time of the House to be taken up with this.

My point of Order—

The point of Order does not arise. I have given my Ruling on this question, and I have nothing to add to it.

Your Ruling was that if a, document were in existence and were quoted, it ought to be printed for the use of Members of this House. I am submitting to you that by the Prime Minister's own words there are docu- ments in existence, that he made a, particular quotation from the communication that, passed between the Admiralty and himself, and, consequently, on your Ruling, the document should be printed.

I have already answered that question.

On a point of Order. Are we to assume that the Prime Minister can first of all refer to the existence of a document, and that, secondly, he can quote the broad effect of a document, but that, if he refrains from actually textually quoting any particular sentence from it, therefore he is not bound by the Rules of the House to produce the document? I suggest that that is exactly what has taken place.

asked the Minister of Health the average cost of maintaining a man and his wife and two children in an institution under the control of a Public Assistance Committee?

The specific information desired by the hon. Member is not available. Details showing the average weekly cost per inmate in general Poor Law institutions administered by late boards of guardians are contained in Table 13 (c) of Part I of the Local Taxation Returns, England and Wales, for the year ending 31st March, 1929. (A copy of this publication can be obtained at the Vote Office.) Later information as to these institutions as administered by Public Assistance Committees is not yet available.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the cost is more than 32s. 9d. which would be the amount of unemployment benefit?

I have told the hon. Member that the information for which he asks is not available.

to ask the Minister of Health how many areas have now been cleared under the Housing Act, 1936; and how many houses have been constructed up to date under this Act?

On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if you called Question 26?

I called upon the hon. Member to ask Question 26 and also upon the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) to ask Question 27, and, as there was no response, I was bound to call the next question on the Paper.