asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that No. 40845 Private William Gardiner, of the Royal Scots, severely wounded while serving with the Highland Light Infantry in France in June, 1917, received a final award in November, 1919, on the decision that the shrapnel wound in his leg was likely to give no further trouble; that this decision was reaffirmed at various subsequent examinations till, in January, 1937, he had to undergo an operation, in the course of which shrapnel was removed from the bone in one leg; that he had another operation in September, 1937, and 17 weeks hospital treatment in 1938; that since then his condition has steadily deteriorated, and that nevertheless no award has so far been proposed to supplement that based on a decision subsequently shown to have been in-accurate; and will he have this case re-examined?

As I have already explained to my hon. and gallant Friend after a further very recent review of the case, the last period of treatment definitely established that Mr. Gardiner's crippled condition is due to osteo-arthritis. My medical advisers cannot relate that condition to the very small foreign body which was removed from his leg in 1937, or otherwise to war service. A recent examination showed that the wound in the leg is not of itself giving rise to any appreciable disablement.

In view of the fact that the original award, which I under- stand was under £50, was on the understanding that there would be no further trouble from shrapnel, and that in fact an operation to the man had to take place, would my hon. Friend see whether the case could not be considered by some other court to see if something could be done?

I am just as anxious as my hon. and gallant Friend that justice should be done, and I shall be very much obliged if he will see me after Questions and we will go through the case together in my room.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether in this, as in other similar cases—and there are a multitude of them —where there is an element of doubt, the-benefit of that doubt should be given to the applicant rather than to the Ministry?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the benefit of the doubt is given to the applicant. This is not a question of doubt at all as far as my medical officers are concerned. Probably the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the fact that I have no power to award any pension unless I have a certificate from the medical men of the Ministry to the effect that the disability is due to war service, and this House of Commons approved that.

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Home Security whether he is satisfied that the distinction between the "All Clear" and the warning signals in the case of air raids is sufficiently marked?

Yes, Sir. I think the distinction is sufficiently well marked, particularly if people bear in mind that the first signal is always the warning signal and that the signals which follow should invariably be the "All Clear".

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many Members of this House who had experience of air raid warnings in Spain, and that there it was found that the use of two different kinds of note was infinitely better than merely different lengths of blast on the same note, and that in the case of the "All Clear" tall buildings and drift cause a die-away which makes the" All Clear "warning sound like the original warning?

Yes, Sir. That matter was very carefully considered, and prolonged research and experiments were made before the existing apparatus for giving the signals was approved. As regards the use of different notes, it is, I think, the fact that many people find difficulty in memorising a particular tone, but no one whose hearing is clear can fail to distinguish between a note sustained for two minutes and a shorter note. There was, I confess at once, in the early hours of yesterday morning a good deal of confusion. That arose from circumstances which have been fully investigated and which should not recur. In fact, a telephonic communication at one point in London was mistaken for a warning signal. A siren was sounded and persons controlling signals round about were left in doubt as to whether they might themselves have made a mistake. The result was that over a considerable period warning signals were given. When the mistake was discovered a well-meant but unfortunate attempt to correct the mischief simply exaggerated the confusion. [Laughter.]I am being perfectly frank with the House. I realise the great importance of making these matters absolutely clear. I think that faulty synchronisation has a great deal to do with the confusion because imperfectly synchronised signals, although each individually is a sustained note, may give an impression of a fluctuating note. I am doing everything possible to secure better synchronisation.

While realising that the human factor may sometimes break down, will the right hon. Gentleman go into this question with technicians to get the maximum difference between the warning note and the "All Clear" note?

That is exactly what I have been doing. There are various possibilities in the direction of intensifying the difference, and these will certainly be fully explored in the light of experience.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his full reply, before he closes his mind to this matter, will he call for reports from the air-raid wardens all over London, because my impression is a very general impression, and perhaps their information might influence him?

The impression is the one I formed myself.

Would it not be possible to co-operate with the B.B.C. in order to have the "All Clear" signal given from Broadcasting House, as I am informed that a number of people in shelters were waiting for a signal from the B.B.C.?

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has considered the possibility, while having the signals which we have already been discussing, of some signal being given to the millions of people who have the telephone—the "All Clear" signal, at any rate?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether proper principles have been worked out as to the magnitude and direction of a given threatened attack which will warrant a warning over a given area, particularly in view of the fact that one unidentified aircraft was held to justify the warning system given over half the British Isles?

That is rather a different question. My responsibility begins when communication of a prearranged kind is received from the Royal Air Force, but I do know that a very careful plan has been worked out, and it does provide for adjusting, in the light of experience, the areas over which warning is to be given, following the detection of aircraft in small numbers and in large numbers, as the case may be. To that I would only add that we have taken the view, for the present at any rate, that it is better to err on the side of safety. With regard to the other question put to me by my hon. Friends behind me, I can only say that every possible expedient will be considered, if experience should show that the existing system requires improvement?

Will the right hon. Gentleman keep to one form and not bring in other agencies, such as broadcasting and the telephone, because that multiplies the possibility of error of the human factor?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is very much in mind.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why the danger signal should not be as loud as the calling off signal?

May I ask whether the Prime Minister will make a statement with respect to the sittings of the House?

Apart from two Bills which we expect shortly to receive from another place, all the business which is immediately necessary is before the House. I think we shall be able to dispose of the outstanding business by Thursday, when I shall propose the adjournment of the House until Wednesday of next week. I shall, of course, make a further statement on business at a later date.

While realising that it is the desire of Members of the House not to be here when there is no work to be done, may I ask whether there is to be a continuing understanding that should the circumstances require it we may meet earlier?

Certainly.

If we have to meet earlier than next Wednesday, will the Prime Minister see to it that the notification calling us earlier is done in a more systematic manner than occurred last week? Very many Members who live a considerable distance from London did not get the notification in time, because they were away, probably in their constituencies, doing other business, and they were unable to come on the date set apart, with the result that when they did arrive it was too late, the House had adjourned and they had to travel back to Scotland the same night and be called back again two days later. Cannot some method be adopted other than broadcasting? Could not telegrams be sent to the homes of Members of Parliament so that they may know when Parliament is to meet?

Will the Prime Minister ask Herr Hitler to communicate with Mr. Speaker as to what steps he proposes to take?

The House may be assured that every effort will be made to cause as little inconvenience to hon. Members as possible, if the occasion should arise for our meeting earlier. Of course, we have to work at very short notice. I am quite aware that considerable difficulties must have been caused in individual cases on the last occasion.