asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the case of ex-Lieutenant Verity, of 8, Orrell Road, Wallasey, Cheshire, who was invalided out of the Army suffering from tuberculosis, directly attributable to military service, with 100 per cent. disability and full pension; whether he is aware that, after repeated medical examinations, the Ministry of Pensions changed the nature of the disability from tuberculosis to neurasthenia, and reduced the percentage of disability to 30 per cent., against which Mr. Verity appealed to the Medical Appeal Board, who decided that he was not suffering from neurasthenia: whether he is aware that this officer's pension has now been reduced to 40 per cent. disability pension, though he is quite unable to follow any employment, his health continually breaking down; and whether, under all the circumstances, he will restore Lieutenant Verity's full pension until his health is satisfactorily re-established?

After most careful examination and consideration my medical advisers reached the conclusion that this officer is not suffering from tuberculosis now and has not suffered from this disease at any time since he relinquished his commission. Disablement by neurasthenia has, however, been admitted as due to service and was assessed at 30 per cent. by a medical board last February. Against that assessment the officer appealed to a medical appeal board which confirmed the diagnosis of neurasthenia and raised the assessment to 10 per cent. While this assessment must stand, I can assure my hon. Friend that any treatment necessary for the neurasthenia will be provided by my Department.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this officer appeared before the medical board the neurasthenia was wiped out, and nothing was said as to what his disability was?

That is not my information. My information is that he appealed against the first award on the ground that he was suffering from tuberculosis, and the Medical Appeal Board confirmed the diagnosis of the first.

Realisinģ that this cannot be decided by question and answer, I give notice that I will bring the matter up on the Adjournment oil Monday next.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether an error has been made in the reassessment of allowance payable to Elizabeth Hadfield, aged 77 years, dependant of the late Gunner Charles Hadfield, No. 676,803, Royal Field Artillery; and whether he is aware that the allowance has been reduced from 12s. per week to 6s. per week, whilst the circumstances are exactly the same?

I very much regret that this award was incorrectly reduced. Pension at the rate of 12s. a week has been restored with effect from the date of the last payment at that rate.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the Great Harwood War Pensions Committee strongly protests against the abolition of the pay office on the ground that it will be a very serious inconvenience to the disabled ex-service men, and will also involve considerable expense in travelling to and from Blackburn; that, in addition to the expense, it is two hours' railway journey; and whether he will reconsider his decision re retention of office, or allow- compensation for loss of time and travelling expenses?

The volume of current work at Great Harwood is too small to justify the retention of a separate office there. Payments will in future be made by postal draft, and voluntary workers will be organised to interview and advise pensioners locally.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. Richard Nicholson, V.C, particulars of which were extensively given in the Press of 18th June; whether he is aware that this soldier won the Victoria Cross in the Egyptian War of 1882–83; that he enlisted in the Great War in October, 1914, obtaining admission in the Durham Light Infantry at Leeds, when nearly 70 years of age, by dyeing his hair; that he was in France before Christmas, 1914, served until December, 1918, and was wounded three times; that he had six sons killed in the War, and his wife died whilst he was on active service; that his pension has now ceased, and he has gone to the Kirkham Workhouse, possessed of 10 medals in addition to the V.C.; and will he inquire into this case?

When I saw these Press reports I immediately had inquiries made. The records of my Department and of the War Office were carefully searched, but no trace could be found of a case corresponding to the particulars given, nor is there any record of the Victoria Cross having been awarded to a soldier of this name. The whole story appears to be a complete fabrication.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to give the same publicity to his answer as was given to the original statement?

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that on the decisions arrived at in some 10 cases by Lord Shaw's Commission the findings of the Commission in many thousands of other cases will be largely based, he is able to say that the first and second interim Reports of the Commission will be made available for Members of this House and for the general public; and will he say was there any verbatim Report of the proceedings of the Commission taken?

I am in communication with the Commission regarding this matter, and I hope to be able to reply to the hon. and gallant Member at a later date.

Should I put down a question for next Monday?

Say next Thursday.

asked the Chief Secretary whether the payments to be made on the awards for malicious and criminal injury when re-assessed by Lord Shaw's Commission will be made pari passu by the Governments of each country; and whether, after the first payment made by the Government of Great Britain, no further payment will be made until the Government of Southern Ireland has made a payment of at least a similar amount?

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a supplementary question addressed to me on the 11th instant by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith.

Are these payments to be made pari passu, one Government making one payment and another another at the same time, or is one Government to make all the payments in the first instance?

All payments in the first instance ought to be made by the Provisional Government. If the Provisional Government is not able to make the payments, then we shall have to consider whether some of the money which would in any case be paid by us ought not to be devoted in the first instance to meeting, in part at any rate, the cases of those who obtain decrees from the Commission.

What is to be done by persons who have not got decrees?

I did say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to consider special cases in regard to persons who are in great distress.

What about persons who have got awards in undefended cases, whose awards have not been considered by the Commission?

I would like to have notice.

asked the Chief Secretary whether, to expedite the rehearing of awards made under the Malicious Injuries (Ireland) Act, he will press for the appointment of sub-commissions to sit at convenient centres in Southern Ireland, and each to consist of one member nominated by the British Government, one member nominated by the Provisional Government, and as Chairman a member or ex-member of the British Bar, selected by the Chairman of the present Commission from a list submitted to him?

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the President of Lord Shaw's Commission for awarding compensation for malicious injuries in Ireland has gone to the United States; whether he can state when the President may be expected to return and resume his duties on that Commission: and, having regard to the large number and extreme urgency of the cases to be investigated, what steps he proposes to take during the absence of the President of the Commission to ensure that the trial of these cases shall be continued?

The Chairman of the Commission is about to go to the United States, and will be absent for approximately two months. The Commission have, however, made good progress in the appointment of investigators and assessors in accordance with their terms of reference, and it is hoped that these appointments will be completed before the departure of the Chairman. During his absence the Commission will of course continue in existence with undiminished powers; and there is therefore no reason to suppose that any delay in the decision of cases will be occasioned by his absence; on the contrary, it is to be anticipated that the assistance of the investigators and assessors referred to will very greatly expedite the despatch of the work of the Commission. No grounds exist, therefore, for the taking of any special steps during the absence of the Chairman, nor, so far as can be anticipated, for the suggested appointment of sub-commissions.

Will those investigators take the cases singly or in groups?

The matter rests with the Commission, but if a question be put down, I may be able to give an explanation.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to how long these inquiries will take?

I have no idea at all. It will take a long time as there is a great number of cases.

Are these unfortunate people to remain penniless while inquiries are proceeding?

If my Noble Friend had paid attention to my former replies he would not have asked that question.

I have heard the replies. Is he aware that there are a great many men who are penniless and cannot get satisfaction from the Government in spite of what is said in this House?

How long will Lord Shaw be in America?

I have already answered that question.

Do I understand that the awards will continue to be made by this Commission during the absence of Lord Shaw in America?

Yes.

asked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that the conditions laid down in Section 8 of the Revised Terms of Disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary are not being carried out; that constant applications to the tribunal for dealing with individual cases of hardship produce no result: that the disturbance pay as laid down in Sub-section (a) is not awarded: and that great hardship is being caused by this neglect to carry out the terms of disbandment; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this state of affairs?

I am satisfied that the conditions laid down in the Revised Terms of Disbandment are being carried out; but if the hon. and gallant Member will let me have particulars of any case in which the contrary is alleged I will have inquiry made. The tribunal is sitting three or four days a week and is dealing with the cases as quickly as possible. Very few applications have been received under Sub-section (a), but there have been a considerable number of applications under Sub-heads (b) and (c) and in a large proportion of all these cases grants have been recommended. The last two parts of the question do not arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even when claims have been allowed after long delay they are sent over to Ireland to be paid, which occasions further delay, causing great hardship to these people?

I am not aware of any delay in any case, but, if there is, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that I will see that it is dealt with immediately.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in order to present undesirable persons travelling between Great Britain and Ireland, he will recommend as a temporary measure the institution of a rigid passport system between the two countries?

The question of the supervision of passenger traffic between Great Britain and Ireland has been recently discussed in detail with the chief officers of police concerned, and the result of the conference goes to show that measures can be taken at the ports of entry which will provide at far less cost and inconvenience as effective a safeguard of the interests of the community here as would not be secured by any system of passports which would be incompatible with the maintenance of a considerable volume of traffic between the two countries. The measures, which, for obvious reasons, I cannot describe in detail, are in operation, and their working is being carefully watched. It is considered that these measures are adequate to the existing situation, but, of course, if circumstances require it, they can and will be strengthened to any degree necessary, irrespective of the inconvenience which would result in the intercourse between the two islands.

Will these measures be put into operation on both sides of the Channel?

These particular arrangements are, I understand, in operation on this side, and, of course, certain measures are taken also in Northern Ireland.

Before the right hon. Gentleman puts any measures of this kind into operation in Northern Ireland, will he consult the Northern Authorities?

I have no doubt that these matters are discussed between the police authorities on both sides of the Channel.

Is a careful watch kept at other ports besides those communicating with Ireland?

At the present time we are not establishing a general system of passports, but we may have to do so. It would cause immense inconvenience, but one has to balance a certain measure of risk against a very much larger measure of inconvenience.

What is the good of watching the ports if undesirable people can come over here?

The hon. and gallant Member had better put that question on the Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many aeroplanes have been supplied to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland and of what type; and if the aeroplanes so supplied have been sold or lent to the Provisional Government?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many rifles, machine guns, field guns and other artillery have been handed over to the Government of the Irish Free State?

asked the Secretary of State for War how many rifles, field guns, and how much ammunition has been handed over to the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland since the 1st June, 1922; if any machine guns have been handed over and if any artillery of heavier calibre than field guns has been handed over; and, if so, whether these arms and ammunition were sold to the Provisional Government or lent?

I do not think it would be desirable at the present moment to furnish detailed information of the nature and quantity of the munitions handed over by His Majesty's Government to the Provisional Government to enable them to cope with the present emergency. All munitions handed over will be included in the financial settlement to be made later between the two Governments.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he thinks it necessary to conceal these facts?

I conceal them because the Provisional Government, to whom these weapons have been handed, is engaged in warlike operations against the rebels, who hold large districts of Southern Ireland, and there is no reason why these rebels should receive military information which would he a great help to them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any information with reference to the statement published by the Republican Publicity Department, that they have recently captured 50 machine guns from the Collins forces?

No; I have no confirmation of that statement, and I am sure that I would have been informed.

Will these guns and machine guns be returned to the British Government after the operations for which they are lent?

In some cases certain weapons have been lent and will be returned after use, but other weapons have been definitely handed over for the purpose of forming the army of the Irish Free State within the limits of the Treaty, and they will be taken over by the Government of the Free State, assuming that everything works out in a satisfactory manner and then the cost of the weapons will be debited to Ireland in the general financial settlement between the two countries.

Which category are the aeroplanes in? Will they be returned?

I do not know whether they will or not. I suppose there will be a small air force in the possession of the Irish Free State, if they wish to have one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Nothing can be less a menace to us than such an air force. If they choose to use the machines they have now in their possession. and pay us for them, and we can bring it into account in the ordinary way, I see no objection.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to put any limit upon the number of guns and other arms handed over to the Provisional Government?

Naturally, as far as I am concerned, acting on the authority which has been given to me by the Cabinet, I watch most carefully every issue of arms made. I should like to point out that it is the constitutional right of the Provisional Government to place contracts for war material. They have refrained from doing this, and I think it is much better they should take their supplies from us who have a large store on hand.

Have any conditions as to the use of these arms been imposed?

Are the rebels to get full swing?

I do not quite see what better guarantee as to their use could exist than that which has been afforded by the fact that they are actually being used against those who are in rebellion against the lawfully constituted Free State.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the numbers of the army that the Irish Free State is entitled to maintain under the terms of the Treaty; and what is the number of troops the Irish Free State Government are now engaged in raising?

In regard to the first part of the question, I would refer the Noble Lord to Article 8 of the Articles of Agreement for the Treaty which is published as a Schedule to the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922. I have no exact information as to the number of men who are being enrolled temporarily to meet the present emergency; but I would point out that the Irish Free State, like any other self-governing State, is entitled to call upon the whole of her manhood to assist in quelling an armed rebellion. The number of rifles in the possession of the Provisional Government are still well within the limits of the force contemplated under the Treaty.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware the Treaty does not state the actual numbers of the Army of the Irish Free State, but only the proportion?

I am perfectly well aware of that, as I took part in a Debate on the subject which lasted several hours, and I say the number of rifles in the possession of the Provisional Government is well within the limits of the view which we took as to what must be permitted under the Treaty.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question, which asks what are the numbers of the Army which the Irish Free State is entitled to maintain? On the Government's interpretation of the Treaty, what was the actual number arrived at?

That matter was very fully discussed when the Irish Free State Bill was going through, and if the Noble Lord would read up that Debate he would get a great deal of information on the subject out of it. As to what was considered a fair interpretation of the limit in this respect, it was stated on that occasion that between 30,000 and 40,000 men would be a fair interpretation.

Is it not desirable that the British Government should afford every support to the Provisional Government in quelling this rebellion?

I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the raising of this unlimited army in Ireland is not a grave menace to this country?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Committee over which the hon. Member for Chelsea presides is competent to award relief to Catholics as well as to Protestants; and how many of the applicants are Catholics?

I regret that the Noble Lord should have thought proper to repeat this question, which he addressed to me the day before yesterday as a supplementary, and to which I hoped I had suitably replied, and that he should think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) would consent to preside over a Committee which was debarred by sectarian considerations from giving relief to the victims of persecution and outrage. The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and the hon. Member for Chelsea informs me that relief is awarded to properly qualified Catholics in exactly the same manner as to Protestants. The members are: Protestants 152, Catholics 143, and 88 whose religion was not stated. I hope the Noble Lord will see fit to express regret for the imputation into which he has been led.

I assure my right hon. Friend I should not have put the question if he had the civility to reply to it the other day. It contains no imputation against the hon. Member for Chelsea; in fact it was at his request I put it down.

rose—

On a point of Order. Am I not entitled to put a question without getting a reply containing rudeness and levity?

I think the Noble Lord is a little unnecessarily touchy.

I know a gentleman when I see one.

The Noble Lord is entitled to put down a question—

I am entitled to put it down without being insulted.

The Noble Lord must not interrupt. He is entitled to put down the question, but this is a question which might easily have two meanings, and I think the Colonial Secretary was perfectly justified, the question having been put, in giving an emphatic disclaimer, which is what the Noble Lord really desired.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is a misapprehension upon this point? I, as Chairman of this Committee, was very anxious the Noble Lord should put down this question, in order that there should be no misunderstanding at all, as to there being any distinction made between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

The answer was unnecessarily rude.

rose—

Withdraw!

Not a word will I withdraw.

Shame! Withdraw!

The House will please allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.

I was, of course, ignorant of the arrangement between the Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), but, as a matter of personal explanation, I took great exception to the suggestion that I, as the Minister responsible, or His Majesty's Government in general, would endeavour to draw a distinction on the grounds of religious belief, between persons who were entitled to assistance in distress. I did regard that as a wounding and offensive suggestion—

I made no such suggestion.

which was also an absurd suggestion, and I am very much surprised that after the whole basis of that suggestion has been cut away, we do not get a more courteous response.

May I ask—

It is quite clear there has been a complete misunderstanding as to the purport of the Noble Lord's question. The Noble Lord was perfectly justified in putting the question down.

Why does not the Colonial Secretary say so?

The House sat until two o'clock this morning.

It is obviously a complete misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman entirely misinterpreted the question of the Noble Lord and the reason for which it was put down.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how much of the money allowed for civil aviation—subsidies, etc.—in the 1922–23 Estimates has not yet been allocated; how is it intended to utilise this sum; whether this sum is considered sufficient; whether he has recently received representations as to the serious position of the air industry; and whether he can make a statement as to the Government's policy?

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Sub-head of Vote 8, which relates to "Civil Aviation Subsidies"; if he refers to the Vote as a whole he will see that the allocation of the money included in it is given in fairly full detail in the Air Estimates. As regards the sub-head for subsidies of £207,000, £107,000 was provided for the purehase of machines to be supplied on hire-purchase terms to approved civil aerial transport companies. £100,000 was provided for subsidies in cash to such companies. It is possible that the subsidy grants earned and the requirements in machines may be less than the Estimate, but I am not yet in a position to say what savings will arise or how they will be allocated. In considering the allocation of any savings, the Air Ministry would most certainly have regard to the present position of transport companies—whose not unreasonable estimates of traffic have not been fulfilled—and of the aircraft industry.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been drawn to the activity of the American and Spanish Governments in providing commercial facilities and advice throughout South America; and whether, in view of this fact, he will reconsider the closing of the office of His Majesty's Commercial Secretary at Santiago, Chile?

Yes, Sir. I regret that it should have proved necessary to include the post of Commercial Secretary in Chile among those which have been closed in order to secure the required reduction in the cost of the Commercial Diplomatic Service. I can assure the hon. Member that all considerations bearing upon the relative importance of the various posts concerned were very carefully weighed before the decision was taken.

Is not this just the time when the representatives of British trade should be encouraged to continue in office?

Does not the information at the disposal of the Overseas Trade Department show that the South American market at this moment is especially important to us, and cannot this decision be reconsidered?

Is it not true that more money is invested in Chile by the British than by any other nation?

I do not know. This case has been most carefully considered, and I understand that it is not possible to reconsider it. I will, how-over, present the views of my hon. Friends to the Department concerned.

Cannot the reduction of these consuls be avoided by raising the consular fees?

That is a different consideration altogether.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of conversion of the building formerly used as a post office at Carlisle into a licensed public-house; whether he is aware that this building has been connected with a large hall known as the Lowther Hall; what sum was paid by the Control Board for the acquisition of these premises; and can he say if any, and what, profit has resulted from the trading carried on in them?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the territory in Mesopotamia for which the British Empire has accepted a mandate is coterminous with the territory of King Feisal's Government; if not, what form of Government exists outside Iraq; and who is responsible for maintaining order, by what means, and at what charge?

The area in respect of which the British Government has accepted a mandate in Iraq is not coterminous with the territory at present administered by King Feisal's Government. It contains some Kurdish districts, over which a certain measure of political control is exercised by British officers acting under the orders of the High Commissioner for Iraq. The position in these districts was explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Moseley on the 5th July, to which I would invite the hon. and gallant Member's attention. Civil administrative expenses in the Kurdish areas are met from local funds, but the cost of the Iraq levies, which are employed in these regions as well as in the territory under King Feisal's administration, is a charge upon Imperial revenues.

Suppose trouble were to arise in those parts, who is responsible for quelling it, and who pays for it?

I hope trouble will not arise in those parts, but we intend not to get entangled there, either in a military or financial sense.

Do I understand that King Feisal's levies are an Imperial charge? I thought they were not.

The Imperial troops in this country are an Imperial charge. The Arab army is a charge on the Iraq Budget, and the levies officered by British officers are an Imperial charge, and were dealt with in the Vote presented to the House.

How many troops are there in the area of Kurdistan, in which the right hon. Gentleman does not propose to get entangled in a military sense?

We have no troops there at the present time. There are a few levies, but no Imperial troops beyond the town of Kirkuk.

Are the levies employed in Kurdistan Arab levies or Kurds?

In some cases they are Kurds, and in some cases Assyrians.

asked the Prime Minister whether he can give a definite date for the termination of the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in accordance with the under taking given in February last that the office would cease within a few weeks?

No, Sir: I am not in a position to add to the recent replies that have been given to questions on this subject.

Did not the Colonial Secretary say that this office would cease in a few weeks. How much longer are we going to pay for an office that is a useless one?

I have looked at the answer given and it does not infer that. No doubt, my right hon. Friend thought the whole situation might be cleared up, but naturally there is need, if this office were disposed of, for someone to attend to these matters.

Would the Prime Minister give any time limit for the duration of this useless office?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give me a time limit for the troubles in Ireland.