asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether reductions are to be made in the entertainment allowances of admirals and other flag officers; and, if so, what is the percentage cut proposed?

The special reductions to be made in the emoluments of naval officers and men from the 1st October affect basic pay only and not allowances. I may add that table money is granted to flag officers to meet expenses which their duties unavoidably impose upon them and that it is now paid at pre-War rates.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this reduction was recommended as far back as the Geddes Committee, and in these times, as an example of economy, could not something be done to cut down certain table allowances?

That has already been cut down.

Is the right hon. Gentleman correct in saying that the cut takes place as from the 1st October?

This has nothing to do with the cut. It is a question about table allowances, and we made a cut long ago, and they are now at pre-War rates.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has considered the communication sent to him from the Transport and General Workers' Union regarding the proposed reduction in wages of the locally entered workers at His Majesty's dockyard, Gibraltar; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

This question deals with the periodical review of rate of bonus in the light of the prevailing cost of living. A reply explaining the circumstances was sent to the union on the 28th instant.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state when the cost of living basis of calculation came into operation for the workers at Gibraltar?

No, Sir. Not without notice.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge that it ever applied, and why it is now being applied to those workers at Gibraltar when it had never applied before?

If the hon. Member wants further information, I shall be grateful if he will put a question down.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the pensions to he paid to men of the Royal Navy who have already served from 12 to 20 years will be based on the new rates of pay or whether adjustments will be made so that pensions will be paid on the basis of the rates of pay paid to them, over the period of their qualifying service for pension?

The reports received from the committees presided over by the Commanders-in-Chief as well as representations made by Commanders-in-Chief on foreign stations are now under consideration, and I hope to be able to issue a Fleet Order on this subject at a very early date.

Are we to understand that this is to apply on the subject of the pension?

Covering the whole of the matters which we have reviewed as a result of the inquiry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the police force have been informed that under the new cuts pensions will not be cut, and will he see that the same principle applies to men in the Navy?

I am not prepared really to make any statement as regards any changes that may be made in orders issued to the Fleet except in the form of a Fleet Order which goes to the Fleet first. Part of the trouble is that the men did not receive in the first instance their information in the proper Service way, and I want to avoid any trouble of that kind in the future. The question of police pensions has not escaped my attention.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the regulations lay it down that subjects not approved by the welfare committee may not be brought forward again for six years; and if, as this period is excessive, he will take steps to lessen it to three years?

The Board propose to consider carefully whether and how far the welfare conferences fulfil the purposes for which they were instituted and what changes (if any) are necessary in the methods open to men of the Royal Navy for making representations as to their service conditions. In this inquiry the effect of the time limit to which the hon. and gallant Member refers will, of course, be included.

asked the First Lord Lord of the Admiralty, if he is aware that the new title of paymaster-lieutenant (W) has recently appeared, and if, as this distinction between ex-cadet officers and those who have risen from the ranks is invidious, he will take steps to abolish it?

Paymaster-lieutenants (W), paymaster-lieutenants (S) and paymaster-lieutenants (C), who are promoted to these ranks from commissioned writers, commissioned supply officers and commissioned cooks respectively, are not interchangeable, and differ from ex-cadet officers in the scope of the duties they are qualified to perform, the emoluments to which they are entitled and the regulations for their advancement and retirement. It has therefore been found desirable to distinguish them by an appropriate title. The only other alternative would be to have an entirely separate list.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we quite appreciate that difficulty, there is a great deal of feeling among the men so promoted that it does not tend to help men coming from the lower deck, and, as the Admiralty is about to change the principle with regard to mates, will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking this branch of the Service also into consideration when that is done?

For the reasons which I stated in my answer, I think those men cannot appear in the general lists without distinctive marks, and it is better that they should appear with those distinctive marks in the Navy List than that separate lists should be kept for them.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, when the proposed reductions in the bonus of Admiralty workpeople take effect, the remuneration of these Government servants will be less than the rates paid for comparable employment under private firms; and whether, in view of this fact, the proposed cuts will be reconsidered?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before deciding upon the proposed reduction in the industrial bonuses of Admiralty workpeople, any steps were taken to ascertain how these Government servants would be affected in comparison with workpeople in similar employment under private firms; and whether he will give instructions that the matter shall be properly discussed by the appropriate joint council before any further action is taken?

A special meeting of the Shipbuilding Trade Joint Council for Government Departments was held on the 11th September at which the Chairman explained the reasons for the proposed cuts in the industrial bonuses of Admiralty workpeople. In order to give the trade union side of the council an opportunity of consulting their constituents, the meeting was adjourned till the 22nd. When the meeting was resumed, the trade union side declared that they could not agree to the proposed cuts. Disagreement was registered accordingly and the council was informed that the cuts would be made from 1st October. If the trade union side considered the reductions were inequitable, it was open to them at that time to ask for arbitration but they did not do so. When these reductions take effect, the general level of wage rates in Admiralty industrial establishments will not be lower than in the shipbuilding and engineering industries, and Admiralty work-people will still retain certain privileges which men in these industries do not share, such as the grant of 11 days' leave with pay annually (including public holidays) and the prospect of pensions or gratuities.

By whom has the information been given to the right hon. Gentleman that the wage rates in the Admiralty will be equal to those in outside employment in the shipbuilding trade?

I derived the information from various sources, including the award of the arbitrator on the last occasion on which the matter went to arbitration.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make further inquiries so that he may inform himself that they will be 3s. per week below the rates paid in outside employment?

I do not see the necessity for further inquiries, and I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's statement as to the comparative wages inside and outside Admiralty yards.

Will the Board of Admiralty reconsider their attitude, especially in regard to the privileges of the staff?

I do not know whether the hon. Member thinks that it is unfair, when they have 11 days holiday for which they are paid, whilst their brethren outside if they get any holiday are not paid for it.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council was called together to consider a reduction of the standard bonus for Admiralty workpeople from 14s. per week to 12s. and appropriate reductions of the industrial bonuses to other Admiralty workpeople; that when the joint council met the trade union side, upon proceeding to discuss the matter, were informed that the meeting had not been called to argue the merits of the proposal but merely to secure the assent of the trade union side; that this assent was refused, and the trade union side were then informed that the proposed cut would operate from the 1st October; and, seeing that these proceedings gave no opportunity for the negotiations promised before effecting this economy, will he have further inquiry made into this matter?

I cannot accept the hon. Member's account of these discussions and refer him to my reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Captain Hall).

Having been present at the particular meeting and relating what transpired there, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if any discretion was given to the officers under his control, so that discussion might take place and the arguments for the trade union side be listened to and an answer given?

The whole case was discussed and the Admiralty arguments were put forward on the first occasion. The trade union side then asked that they should have an opportunity of consulting their constituents. That was given, and they came back and said that they could not agree, and the disagreement was registered and the usual procedure taken.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his officers stated quite clearly that they had to make a statement and that it had to rest there? No discretion was given.

May I give notice that it is my intention to raise on the Adjournment the question of Admiralty wages in view of the unsatisfactory reply given to-day?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is intended to proceed with the construction of the new naval fortified base, dockyard and arsenal at Singapore in view of the financial situation?

No alteration is contemplated in the decision taken last year to postpone all expenditure upon completing the equipment of the docks and for defence works. In arriving at this decision, which was in accord with the recommendations of the Imperial Conference, full consideration was given to the urgent need for economy.

Is the right. hon. Gentleman not aware that the situation to-day is very different from what it was on the last occasion, over a year ago, and are we to go on with this £10,000,000 scheme?

Yes, I am aware that the situation is worse than it was 12 months ago, but the question of how far you can make economies, and whether any economy would be made by stopping these contracts, was fully considered at that time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government is investigating the gold resources of the British Empire with a view to their development; and if they have information or reports on any considerable undeveloped gold-bearing formations in West Africa or elsewhere?

The numerous Government geological surveys and departments throughout the Empire are continually engaged in investigations which include gold resources. The Government have no reports for publication.

Will the research department find out how they manage to bury this gold in Paris and New York, once it has been dug up?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the latest available figures as to the amount of money deposited in this country to the credit of foreigners; the amount of deposits by people of this country in foreign countries; and the value of our foreign investments?

In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. G. Oliver) on the 22nd September. As regards the second part, there is no official record of such deposits. As regards the third part, while no official figures are available, there are well-known unofficial estimates such as those in the "Economist" of the 22nd August, 1931.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Bank Charter Act, 1844, and the Currency Act, 1928, require the Bank of England to separate its general banking business from the issue department and to allocate to the Treasury profits less any losses made by the issue department; that the obtaining and disposal of the £50,000,000 credit secured by the Bank of England in July last for exchange purposes was outside the specific functions allowed by the above Acts to the issue department and of the nature of general banking business; and whether, in these circumstances, he will require that the costs and losses arising from this transaction should be met by the Bank of England and not by the taxpayer?

I am, of course, aware of the provisions of the Acts referred to in the first part of the question. I cannot accept the suggestion that the operation was of the nature of general banking business, as it was directly designed to conserve the gold reserves of the country which are concentrated in the issue department of the Bank. In these circumstances any loss or profit arising properly falls to be dealt with in the manner laid down in Section 6 of the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928.

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman point to any statutory or legal authority for putting on the issue department functions which are not already accorded to it by Statute, and by that means putting on the taxpayer losses that arise out of a banking transaction?

The hon. Member knows that he is raising this question on the Adjournment to-night. It will be more easily discussed then than by way of question and answer now.

May I put another question which is very relevant to the discussion, namely, whether the permission or authority of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, an officer of this House appointed to prevent charges which are not authorised by Statute being put on the taxpayer, has been received, or whether the advice of the Law Officers has been attained?

I really am entitled to ask for notice of a question like that.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the saving which will be effected by his proposed reduction in expenditure on land valuation during its initial stages?

The estimated expenditure of the Inland Revenue Department for the current year in connection with the valuation under Part III of the Finance Act, 1931, was £290,000. It is proposed to reduce this by about £150,000.

Would it not be better if this expenditure was completely wiped out?

Will it not be complete waste of money to make a valuation of land before the currency is stabilized?

Are we to take it then that the Government are going practically to put an end to the entire work of this Department so that taxation cannot be imposed next year?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount that would be saved in the costs of labour, stationery and printing if the plan was adopted of having a résumé report of Members' speeches instead of a full verbatim report of Members' speeches printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

The estimated total annual cost of producing the OFFICIAL REPORT of Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons) is approximately £35,500, of which £28,000 is for paper, printing and binding. It is difficult to estimate the net saving which might result from the adoption of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, in view of the additional cost of preparing résumés of hon. Members' speeches.

Would not the mere proposal cause economy by causing a reduction in the expenditure of gas?

Could the matter not be dealt with by the hon. and gallant Member who put the question ceasing to make speeches in this House?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the alterations proposed in the rate of Entertainments Duty involve taxation on 3d. and 6d. charges for admission to entertainments of 33⅓ per cent. and 25 per cent., respectively; that there is no increased tax proposed for the 4s. and other highly-priced charges; and whether, in view of his expressed intention to secure equality of sacrifice, he will consider some rearrangement of the total estimated yield of the tax to lighten the burden on the poorer classes?

I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the discussion of the Entertainments Duty proposals on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill when these matters can be debated.

Do the statements of tact incorporated in the question indicate the position as it now is?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are Amendments on the Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with the position.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to publish the evidence given before the May Committee?

I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave to his supplementary questions on the 14th September.

Are we to take it that the evidence which was given before this Committee, which has brought about the change in the circumstances of the country, is not to be published, and that the people are not to know what has led the Committee to put forward their recommendations?

The question was gone into very thoroughly and the hon. Member put a number of supplementary questions upon it, and a very full answer was given.

On a point of Order. This particular report has led to a considerable amount of confusion and inquiry in the country. Is it not advisable, if not necessary, that the Government of the day should publish what is, after all, the report of a particular committee?

No point of Order arises there.

But this was a House of Commons Committee.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the final columns of the tables in Command Paper 3954 give the total increase in the taxes now proposed over those of the year 1929–30 and not over those of the year 1930–31?

In considering the sacrifices which various classes of the community are called upon to bear in consequence of the events of the last two years, one must take into account sacrifices imposed in 1930, as well as those which are being imposed in 1931.

If the object of publishing this White Paper is to give a clear indication of the extra charges imposed on the various taxpayers by the present Budget, why is this attempt made to conceal those charges by including charges imposed two years ago?

We have to take into account the two years. We have to take into account the heavy direct taxation imposed previously and not only that which is being imposed this year.

Then this does not indicate a sacrifice during the emergency. This is a sacrifice for all time.

No, the emergency surely is an emergency resulting from the trade slump, which began in 1929.

There is nothing to conceal, and would the hon. and gallant Member arrange to furnish the House with comparative figures?

There is nothing whatever to conceal, and the hon. Member knows that perfectly well.

Is there any precedent for propaganda by the manipulation of a White Paper?

asked the Minister of Labour what economies are proposed in the fees and first-class allowances paid to chairmen of committees, inspectors, and others connected with the administration of unemployment benefit?

The fees payable to chairmen of Courts of Referees are being reduced by 10 per cent. as from 1st Ocober, 1931. The other members of Courts of Referees and the chairmen and members of local employment committees are unpaid. In all these cases third-class fares only are paid. No change has up to the present been decided upon as regards the allowances for subsistence and loss of wages which may in certain circumstances be claimed. The remuneration of the umpire and deputy-umpires and of the staff of the Department is governed by the general decisions applying to the Civil Service. The only other persons in connection with the administration are the staffs of trade unions and other associations administering arrangements under Section 17 of the Act of 1920.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he will sanction the construction of the proposed new road from Caerau to Cymmer, Glamorganshire, in order to relieve unemployment in the depressed area, particularly in that the Maesteg Council was instructed to prepare plans for the purpose?

I am not in a position to give a definite decision until I have received the county council's response to the Circular which I caused to be issued to all highway authorities on the 15th September, inviting them to review their commitments in the light of the present situation.

Will the hon. Gentleman be prepared to receive a joint deputation from the Glamorgan County Council and the Maesteg Council?

asked the Minister of Transport if the scheme for the high-level bridge at Carmarthen is to be proceeded with; and, if not, what alternative methods does he propose to employ to deal with the traffic problem over the Towy at Carmarthen?

I am unable to state the position with regard to the scheme for a high level bridge at Carmarthen until I have received from the county council the information asked for in the circular letter addressed to all highway authorities on the 15th September with respect to limitation of expenditure. Traffic will continue to make use of the existing bridge.

asked the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to announce the decision of the Government upon the Elephant and Castle traffic improvement scheme?

I am not in a position at present to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member's question on the 23rd September.

In view of the uncertainty, will the Minister expedite a decision in the matter?

I should be glad to do so, but I would say that the total cost of the scheme is £2,000,000, of which three-fourths will have to be devoted to the purchase of the property. That is not a scheme which I should regard with any favour.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to give any information?

I have nothing further to add.

asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any reports upon the working of the electric control signals in Oxford Street; and whether he is satisfied that the experiment has proved successful?

I am satisfied that the experimental system of control of traffic in Oxford Street by means of light signals has proved its usefulness in increasing the flow of traffic and relieving congestion. Observations were taken throughout three days as nearly comparable as possible, the first on a date before the regulations were made, the second after the regulations had been made but before the light signals were working, and the third ten days after the signals came into operation. The observations, though necessarily limited in their scope, showed a progressive improvement. The average speed on journeys taken by the test vehicles in Oxford Street showed an increase of nearly 50 per cent. between the first day and the last, the saving of time being about four minutes on each journey. During the more congested afternoon hours the increase in average speed was no less than 90 per cent. and the saving of time on each journey nearly eight minutes. I have now asked the London Traffic Advisory Committee to consider and report upon the representations which have been received with regard to the regulations.

Does the hon. Gentleman propose to apply the same procedure to other congested areas in London?

It is proposed to recommend those areas to look into the matter and decide whether they will adopt it or not.

Has it been found possible to dispense with the services of any of the police on point duty?

I should require notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Transport if he proposes to withdraw the grant indicated to the Surrey County Council for the work at Egham connected with the construction of a by-pass road and the preservation of Runnymede by the National Trust as a place of historic interest?

I have recently received the Surrey County Council's proposals for the curtailment of road expenditure in their area, which includes the Egham By-pass Road. Until I have considered these proposals, in conjunction with those of the other highway authorities, I cannot say how far it may be possible to proceed with this or other particular schemes at the present time.

Will the Government, having deprived us of our liberties, enable us to preserve the places where some of them were born?

asked the Minister of Transport what grant he proposes to make towards the scheme for the widening of Ocean Road, South Shields?

An offer of a grant of 60 per cent. of the estimated cost of widening Ocean Road, South Shields, was made in May last. The town council decided not to proceed with the scheme on this basis, and the offer was accordingly withdrawn.

In view of the increasing amount of unemployment in the borough, will the hon. Member consider a further application for an increased grant?

I think it would be better if the application were made first.

asked the Minister of Transport if he can now state the decision regarding the proposed Dartford-Purfleet tunnel; and whether, if alterna- tive suggestions are to be considered, he will consider a high-level bridge, such as the Tyne or Forth Bridge?

As I explained in the course of the Debate on the Economy Bill on the 28th September, it has been decided, after consultation with representatives of the county councils of Essex and Kent, to postpone the construction of the Lower Thames Tunnel. I hope, however, to arrange with these local authorities for all necessary measures to be taken for safeguarding the line of the tunnel and its approaches. No question arises of considering alternative suggestions.

Is this an indication of a slowing-down policy, with regard to necessary works?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this tunnel was agreed to in 1924—seven years ago?

asked the Secretary for Mines whether the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Mr. Llewellyn Jones, of Collycroft, Bedworth, Warwickshire, a relief deputy at the Keresley Colliery, have been brought to his notice; and whether, in view of the importance of carrying out all the regulations of the Mines Act in the interests of the safety of the men employed, he will cause an inquiry to he made into all the circumstances of the case?

I am making detailed inquiries and will communicate the result to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

In view of the fact that a serious accident has occurred in this area since, will the hon. Member see that the investigation is very thorough?

I can promise that the investigation will be thorough. There are certain points which I have not yet been able to cover, but I hope the investigation will be completed in a day or two.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in regard to the extraction of oil from coal, the work proposed to be carried out is to be upon a laboratory or a commercial scale; and can he say what systems have been chosen?

I presume the hon. Member refers to the extension of work at the Fuel Research Station, East Greenwich, first announced in this House by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell) on the 5th May last. As then stated the proposal is to develop laboratory scale experiments already made to "a small commercial scale to cover the hydrogenation, cracking and refining of tar oils." I would suggest that, as technical questions are involved which are not easily dealt with by way of question and answer, the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member wishing to have further information on this subject, should apply

asked the Postmaster-General why the first delivery of letters each morning in the Turf Hill area of Rochdale is not completed before nine o'clock?

I am having inquiry made and will write to the hon. Member.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, as in the year 1929–30 the income from Press telegrams fell short of the expenditure by £207,000, any steps are to be taken to reduce this loss in future?

Extensive changes in methods and equipment now in progress will, I hope, assist in a reduction of the general loss on the telegraph service, including that on Press telegrams. If the hon. Member has in mind the question of an increase of the Press telegraph tariff, no proposals in this direction are under consideration at the moment. Any such change would require legislation.