asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give up-to-date figures of the total number of prosecutions instituted by his Department and the number of persons involved for violating the several orders and regulations of his Ministry; how many of those are employers; how many employers and workmen, respectively, have been imprisoned; and how many of the prosecutions were against males and females, respectively?

The available records indicate that up to the end of June, 1942, the number of persons so prosecuted was 4,160. Of these, 3,801 were male workers, 323 female workers and 36 employers. No employers were sentenced to imprisonment; the number of workers so sentenced was 354.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sometimes, in these cases, one court will fine a man 15 or 20 guineas for not carrying out his directions, while another, in close proximity, will fine a man two guineas for exactly the same offence, and can he do nothing to avoid that sort of thing?

I do not think that the duty of correcting the idiosyncracies of magistrates should be thrown on to me.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will alter the instructions now issued to exchanges all over the country with regard to transferring girls for work from one district to another in order to ensure that girls are not sent away when there is useful work available in their own areas; is he aware that numbers of girls have been sent south from the Clydeside area who could have been found work nearby, and at the same time girls are sent to Clydeside from the Midlands; and whether he will take action to remedy the grievances complained of?

Under the general plan for making the most economic use of labour, mobile women as they become available are placed in the areas where the shortage of workers is most acute. This may mean that they have to leave areas where they could get work, but where also the most important vacancies can be filled by immobile women, older men and part-time workers. In accordance with this principle young women have been transferred from Scotland to the Midlands. Apart from a very few cases of women with special qualifications, Employment Exchanges do not transfer women from the Midlands to Scotland, and I have no evidence of such transfers taking place.

Can the Minister tell the House to whom, these women can appeal when neither they nor their parents desire that they should be torn from their homes in Scotland and taken to England?

They have the right of appeal to the appeal boards; all workers have that right, and they are told their rights when they are being transferred.

Would the Minister consider advising the boards to take into serious account cases where a young woman acts, in the evenings and at weekends, as domestic help to a widowed mother, and is necessary at home for that purpose?

I have given instructions that the boards are to exercise care, but I must remind the House that with the tremendous call-up that lies ahead to carry out the strategy of the war, about which no one is more keen than my hon. Friend who put the last Supplementary Question, these things must be made tighter.

That means to say that I am not just as keen as my hon. Friend is about the war. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the part he is playing at the moment in taking these girls from Scotland is causing grievous discontent?

War is bound to cause some discontent, but I do not admit the imputation of general discontent. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my gratification at the marvellous response of the women in Scotland in coming to help in the war effort. They do not seem as desirous of staying in Scotland as the men are of keeping them there.

There is an explanation of that— look at some of the men they are coming to in England.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory position of young Scottish girls sent from Dumbarton and Clydebank to work in England; that the boards to which they are supposed to appeal have inadequate powers and do not serve the purpose and are overruled by the National Service officers; and will he take steps to strengthen the appeal boards or otherwise to secure that only in suitable cases girls are sent away from Scotland and only to suitable jobs in England?

Young women transferred from Scotland to England are placed only in suitable vacancies on urgent war work. I have had very good reports of the welfare work done for these women by my Department. In regard to the second part of the Question, there is no statutory right of appeal against a direction given under Defence Regulation 58A (1). I have, however, arranged that women who are directed to employment in industry may appeal against the direction to a local appeal board constituted under the Essential Work Orders, unless they are within the age groups selected and are liable for call-up under the National Service Acts when they may apply for postponement. I am satisfied that the boards serve their purpose well, and it is my policy to accept their recommendations in all save the most exceptional cases.

Will the Minister take it from me that this is causing terrible discontent, and can he not do something to make the appeal boards be more sympathetic?

I cannot answer general statements of that character. If any case is brought to me of unsympathetic treatment, I will certainly look into it, but I have taken the utmost precautions to see that cases are dealt with properly.

It is perfectly true that the Minister is ready to deal with specific cases when they are drawn to his attention—he even went to one board himself—but we want something to be done to make the boards more sympathetic.

In view of the fact that most of the applications concern women, would the right hon. Gentleman consider circularising women members of the boards pointing out that the constitution of the boards allows all members equal power with the chairman?

If necessary, I will look into that.

asked the Minister of Labour how many men at present employed by builders in Gloucestershire on work of national importance does he propose to transfer from their existing employers to McAlpines, Wimpeys, Higgs and Hill, Costains, Gee Walker Slater, Taylor Woodrowe and Company, and other similar firms?

I regret that I am unable to give the detailed information asked for, but plans have been made to transfer labour from works of less importance to those which for reasons of strategy are of first urgency. The numbers of those to be transferred and the places to which they will be sent will depend on the incidence of the vacancies. Men who would otherwise be called up for military service will be used in present circumstances wherever the most urgent works require labour.

Is the Minister aware that the result of this scheme will be that many small builders will be compelled to shut up, and would it not be possible for these small men to be used as sub-contractors?

That is a matter for the Minister of Works and Planning, but the scheme which I have now had to apply to accomplish urgent purposes which must be in the minds of hon. Members, involves taking labour immediately to get that job done.

Is the Minister aware that a number of men have been sent from Plaistow, West Ham, by the local employment exchange to work for McAlpines at Bath, and that they are only being paid 1s. 7½d. per hour, and have to keep two homes?

I suggest that the men should raise that matter with their union.

Is the Minister aware that these contracts are placed by the Air Ministry without consulting the Ministry of Works and Planning? Will he look into that matter?

I am afraid that is not a matter for me. These questions should be addressed to the Minister of Works and Planning.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to a shortage of bricklayers, joiners and plumbers on the housing scheme at Dumbarton and to the shortage of joiners and builders' labourers on the housing scheme at Clydebank; and what steps he can take to meet the shortage?

I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the petition sent to him by the hon. Member for Plaistow, on 12th July, signed by 850 members of the River Thames Lightermen and Bargemen's Union; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Yes, Sir. I have considered the petition in question and am writing to my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will instruct his Independent Women's Panel to take into account the hardships imposed on old people in the larger country houses by calling up their key domestic servants, as in the case sent him by the hon. Member for Newbury; whether these women's panels are appointed by his Department; and in what way are they independent of his Department?

The Women's Advisory Panels are already aware that they should give special consideration to cases in which the household includes aged and infirm persons. These panels are appointed by the Department in consultation with the chairman of the local employment committees and women's sub-committees attached to the employment exchanges. They consist of non-official members, not less than two in number, and are not subject to the instructions of the Department; they discuss cases, generally in a personal interview with those concerned, and are expected to make common-place recommendations in accordance with general guidance given to them by the Department.

Is the Minister aware that these panels are subject to the instructions they get from local employment exchanges and that in many cases, I do not say all, they are not carrying out the purposes for which they were formed? What is the good of these useless committees?

I do not accept that. I think that the discussions which have taken place on doctors' certificates in this House make it very important that even the Women's Panels should look at them with care.

Will the Minister explain to the House what is meant by "larger country houses," and "key domestic servants?"

Will the Minister make these regulations applicable to working girls who are the domestic help of aged parents in the evenings and at the weekends?

With all my long traditions I cannot discriminate between anyone.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the growing discharge from the Army of wounded and disabled men, he will investigate the probabilities of increasing the openings for them under the King's Roll Scheme?

The King's Roll Scheme is limited to disabled ex-Service men from the last war, and the question of its extension to disablements arising from the present war is under consideration in connection with the general plan of post-war resettlement, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) on 22nd January, 1942. The Interim Scheme of Training and Resettlement introduced last year provides facilities for men now being discharged from His Majesty's Forces on account of wounds or disablement.

Has the Minister at his disposal any special organisation of the Ministry of Labour so as to provide either employment or training for men who are discharged from the Forces because of wounds?

That scheme is being worked out. It would take too long in reply to a Question to give the details of the whole scheme, but the treatment for disabled men begins in the field hospital, almost as soon as they are wounded. Then there is vocational treatment, and they are then followed right through to their employment.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will call for an immediate review of all those cases where deferment from military service has been given on the recommendation of any trade or industrial committee affecting persons of an age below that now imposed as a minimum and whose cases were considered when no such minimum applied?

As deferment is only granted in these cases for a limited period, never exceeding six months, and as fresh application has to be made for the period of deferment to be extended, the cases are constantly under review.

asked the Minister of Labour the respective minimum ages at which deferment can be given in each of the trades and industries for which appropriate committees have respectively been established, together with the dates on which such age limits were imposed?

The age limit of 30 at registration applies to men in all occupations referred to in my reply given to my hon. Friend on 9th July, except accountants, film technicians and officials of Employers' Organisations and Trade Unions in whose cases the age limit is 25 at registration. The age limits have been introduced at various dates as necessitated by the man-power requirements of the Forces.

asked the Minister of Labour what exceptions there are to the rule that deferment should not be normally granted to any person under a certain age on the recommendation of an industrial committee; and what are the respective reasons therefor?

Exceptions are only made when the Advisory Committee concerned and my Department are satisfied that it is in the national interest to defer the calling up of the men in question. It is not possible to give details of all these cases, but they are confined to workers in key positions for whom substitutes are not for the time being available.

asked the Minister of Labour how many of those engaged in the publication and distribution of the paper, "Socialist Appeal," are of military age; and why those who are of military age have not been called up or, if unfit, transferred to work of national importance?

I cannot ascertain that any applications for deferment of military service have been made in this connection.

Will the Minister examine the position in view of the reports that men responsible for distributing and publishing this newspaper are of military age? Will he look carefully at the case in view of that?

If anyone gives me the names of those who are distributing or publishing it I will look into the matter, but I really cannot act on these general statements.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has any statement to make as to the Government's intention regarding independent tribunals to hear pensions, etc., appeals?

As the answer to this Question is of considerable length, I propose, with your leave, Sir, and that of the House, to answer it at the end of Questions.

This Question has again been fully and carefully considered by His Majesty's Government, who remain definitely satisfied that at the present time it is not possible to set up tribunals in sufficient numbers to deal with all the appeals which would inevitably be made. On more than one occasion I have referred to the lack of suitable personnel both for the number of tribunals required and for the additional work which would fall upon my Department. The position in this respect is daily becoming more difficult, and the necessary staff could be obtained only by diverting to this work persons at present engaged upon, or available for, work of immediate national importance.

Careful consideration has also been given by His Majesty's Government to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) that pensions appeals should be heard in the county courts, but, apart from the difficulty which the judges would have in undertaking this serious addition to their already heavy labours, the suggestion does not find favour with any of the bodies which have been consulted as representing the interests of the persons concerned. I have myself discussed this matter not only with my Central Advisory Committee, but also with the British Legion in England and Scotland and with the Trades Union Congress on behalf of civilian claimants to whom a right of appeal would no doubt be extended. Each of these bodies has expressed a strong preference for my proposal to wait until it is possible to set up tribunals on the old lines. I think these views will carry very great weight with the House.

There is one other suggestion which has recently been made to me, namely, that a beginning might be made with one or two tribunals, in order that some appeals might be dealt with. His Majesty's Government have thoroughly examined this proposal from all points of view, but feel equally unable to accept it, as they are convinced, both on general grounds and in the light of past experience, that nothing can give rise to greater dissatisfaction than the appearance of giving a right of appeal which cannot be effectively exercised by all would-be appellants on an entirely equal footing. His Majesty's Government have, therefore, come to the conclusion that they cannot, go beyond the undertaking already given in their name that a full scheme of tribunals shall be set up at the earliest moment when circumstances make this possible. I would again remind the House that statutory tribunals in respect of the last war were not established until late in 1919. Everyone will agree, however, that members of the Armed Forces should not be prejudiced as regards the effective date of a successful appeal because of delay in the establishment of tribunals and I am glad to be able to announce that, subject to satisfactory evidence as to the degree of disablement, a successful appeal by a member, who within six months of discharge made representations to the Ministry as to its failure to grant a pension, will be made effective from the date of discharge.

In cases where no representations were made within six months of discharge, the effective date of any award will be the date on which such representations were first made. Where entitlement arises from a modification of the provisions or the interpretation of the pension instruments, the date of such modification will be the earliest effective date. To defer the setting up of tribunals will, therefore, not prejudice the claimant and will leave staff available for other spheres where they can make a greater immediate contribution to victory.

In conclusion, I would add two points: Firstly, I am taking full advantage of the arrangement under which cases where there is serious doubt or difficulty on a medical question can be referred to an independent expert nominated by the president of one of the Royal Colleges. In no case have I rejected the opinion ex- pressed to me by one of these experts. Secondly, I have asked my War Pensions committees to hear representations from applicants where claims have been rejected. I give careful consideration to the submission of these committees and I think that this arrangement is proving helpful to all concerned.

May I ask the Minister not to ask the House to believe that the British Legion or his Advisory Committee are agreeable to the statement he has made? In regard to the latter part of his reply, where the Minister refers to what he called the independent medical referees, may I ask him, since he cannot go the whole way, to meet the demand in this House and in the country to the extent of placing these medical referees under the pay and direction of the Lord Chancellor, instead of their being under his pay and direction?

With regard to the first part of the question, the British Legion in England and Scotland have expressed dissatisfaction as regards referring these cases to the county courts and agree with me that, if they can be set up, it is far better to have a full set of tribunals in operation to deal with these cases quickly, although it is true that they made representations to me in favour of having one or two tribunals to commence work immediately. I stated in my reply that the Government have given full consideration to that suggestion and are of the opinion that it is far better to have a full set of tribunals so that we can deal with these cases quickly, instead of having dissatisfaction between one appellant and another. With regard to the second part of the Question, the medical referees are entirely independant of my Department and are under no pressure from me. I do not think any alternative system to that of asking the Presidents of the Royal Colleges to make these nominations would be more satisfactory.

Is it not a fact that, whereas the Presidents of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians nominate these medical men, it is the Minister who takes the executive action of appointing them, and it is he who pays them?

No, Sir. I accept the nominations of the two Presidents without question. I do not ask them to send someone else; I accept whatever nominations are made. These independent medical referees are entirely independant of my Department.

How can the Minister possibly justify the distress of soldiers and relatives who are waiting for a final decision? Some have already waited for three years, and they see no possible end to this. Is it not a fact that the Advisory Committee, the British Legion and everyone else concerned have pressed on the Minister the urgency of setting up these tribunals? Will he not reconsider the matter?

The hon. and gallant Member knows very well, as a member of my Advisory Committee, that no one is more in favour of tribunals than myself. He knows the difficulty, which has been explained to him time and time again, and he must surely realise that it is not a question of trying to burke the issue. I have announced to the House that these tribunals, without the reservation of "after the war," will be set up as soon as possible. I can assure the House that I shall do everything I possibly can to find the personnel and set the tribunals up as soon as possible, but I am determined, for the sake of the appellants, not to set up makeshift tribunals which will not give fair judgment in these cases.

In view of the special difficulties in Scotland—the long distances which have to be travelled—will the Minister give an assurance that a tribunal will be set up in Scotland very quickly?

Those with whom I have consulted on these matters in Scotland say they want at least four tribunals, to meet my hon. Friend's difficulties in regard to travelling. I can assure him that Scotland will not be forgotten, and that Scotland will have a full complement of tribunals as soon as I can find the necessary personnel.

How long does the Minister imagine it will take before the tribunals will be set up, and how are these people to receive sustenance until their appeals are heard?

I can give no idea how long it will be; all I can do is to give the assurance that they will be set up as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that unfortunately an increasing number of persons die as time goes on and that this leaves widows in an impossible position? The longer the delay, the more impossible it becomes for this class of persons to obtain any benefit from the tribunals when they are set up. Will he not reconsider the matter?

I agree with every word my hon. Friend says, but surely my definite assurance that these tribunals will be set up at the earliest possible moment should be sufficient.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says that he proposes to set up these tribunals as soon as possible, not after the war, but during the war? If the reason for not setting up the tribunals now is because of a shortage of personnel, how does he anticipate that the position will become easier as the war continues?

I am not in a position to predict what will happen as the war continues. The reason why I made the statement that we should set up the tribunals as soon as possible, without any reservations about "after the war," was because previously it was announced that they would be set up as soon as practicable after the war. I wanted to let hon. Members know that they would be set up as soon as possible. One cannot say what the fluctuations of the war will be, but maybe medical personnel can be spared from the Army; I do not know, but we hope that that may be the case. I want to be in a position to engage these people and set up these tribunals as soon as possible so that we can get on with the job.

The Minister will remember that a year or so ago some hon. Members, including myself, asked him to get on with this matter of appointing an appeal tribunal, and now he makes this statement, which means nothing at all. Will he reconsider the whole matter, otherwise we shall have to take action in the House?

I do not mind what action the hon. Member takes. The House of Commons is here to discuss these questions, and, so long as we are, surely we can discuss them fairly and squarely. I made the same statement 12 months ago that I am in favour of tribunals. All kinds of expedients for substitute tribunals have been suggested, but, as one who has had considerable experience of this kind of work before I was Minister of Pensions, I say, in fairness to the appellants, that you must have the right type of tribunals and the right type of men and women to deal with the cases, because an appellant will suffer if we have an incompetent tribunal. I have explored every avenue and have listened to every suggestion, and I can assure hon. Members that it is not a lack of desire on my part which has prevented this from being done, but because I am up against a set of circumstances unparalleled in the history of this country.

If there are not enough doctors now, how are you going to have enough doctors to treat the wounded when you open a second front? It is absolute hypocrisy.

Can the Minister at least give the House an assurance that every possible preliminary plan has been made—in the regions and so forth where the tribunals will be set up—and can he say that the only thing which is outstanding is the appointment of the people to sit upon the tribunals?

The answer to that question is in the affirmative. That is the only thing which is outstanding. In answer to the hon. Baronet, I can assure him that there are no wounded men waiting for their appeals to be heard. They have their pensions.

Is it not the case that much of the Minister's difficulty arises from the fact that he limits his selection of personnel to a very few people, instead of taking the great masses of the people and the great numbers of local doctors into consultation?

I am limited to those who have sufficient knowledge to enable them to deal with these questions. It is necessary to have a legal man to preside—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and to have a medical man a member of the Board, and medical men must be employed by the appellant and by the Minister in order to present the cases.

I would be prepared to preside over one of these bodies, and I would undertake to make a better job of it than any legal man.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is the policy of the Government to make any differentiation between the treatment of widows of men killed in action and other surviving parents in so far as allowances towards children's upkeep are concerned?

The rates of pension and children's allowances paid to widows of men killed in action are laid down in the Royal Warrant, and I have no power to vary them.

Does the Minister think it just, with regard to the allowances for free milk and free vitamins given, under certain income limits, to children, that they should cease when the husband is killed?

This is a matter for the Minister of Food, who is sending the hon. and gallant Member a considered reply.

I put down this Question to the Prime Minister. It was transferred, without my having anything to do with it, to the Minister of Pensions. What am I to do?

The ordinary procedure when a Question is put down is to send it to the Minister responsible.

asked the Minister of Pensions what diseases are providing the Majority of borderline cases in connection with pension appeals by disabled ex-Service soldiers?

The statistics of my Department do not distinguish between borderline cases and those which fall clearly for acceptance or rejection.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, when members of the Fighting Forces are discharged from his care as no longer capable of service, they are put in touch with any organisation which may train them for post-war life; and whether he will adopt such an organised policy, carried out progressively, to simplify replacement in civil life after the war?

A scheme for the training and resettlement of disabled persons has been put into operation by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, full particulars of which are given in a pamphlet issued by his Department. Contact is made by one of his officers with a disabled member of the Forces and the doctor or surgeon in charge of the case while the patient is still in hospital and before his discharge from the Forces.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether persons whose incomes were above £350 but below £450 per annum at the time when the Government circular was issued permitting lime mortar to be used in the erection of shelters, and who had air-raid shelters erected to such specifications with a loan from their local authorities, can be released from the payment of interest and principal in cases where the shelter proves to be defective because of the use of lime mortar?

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of domestic air-raid shelters, although erected in accordance with Home Security Memorandum No. 14, prepared in April, 1940, which provided for the use of lime-cement mortar, later proved unsatisfactory; and whether he will give an assurance that in any case in which the cost of the erection of such a shelter was made with an advance to the owner by a local authority he will take appropriate steps to enable the local authority to make a remission either in the amount of principal and/or the amount of interest payable in respect of the advance?

I am aware that a number of domestic surface air-raid shelters which purported to be constructed in accordance with Air Raid Precautions Memorandum No. 14 proved unsatisfactory. The specification in that Memorandum did not authorise the use in mortar of lime ungauged with cement, although it was so construed by a number of people. In fact, given proper materials, workmanship, and conditions, lime mortar containing no admixture of cement does not, I am advised, necessarily produce unsatisfactory results; still less is it correct to assume that building in lime-cement mortar is inevitably an undesirable method of construction. If private shelters built either in lime mortar or lime-cement mortar have proved defective, that is a matter between the houseowner and his builder. I have no power to release persons who obtained loans from local authorities under Section 29 of the Civil Defence Act, 1939, from their obligation to repay such loans, and I regret that I cannot see my way to give an assurance of the nature of that referred to by the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. N. Bower).

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that many of the local authorities erected air-raid shelters from similar specifications, and that they have also proved defective and have had to be reinforced?

Yes, I am aware that some difficulties arose, but in some cases it was due to bad workmanship. My difficulty is that if I once entered into this line of territory, I simply do not know where I could draw the line administratively.

Will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider making a free issue of Morrison shelters to these unfortunate people?

The houses might not in all cases be suitable; but, while I can give no undertaking whatever, I will look into that aspect again.

asked the Home Secretary the reasons which have led his Department to institute a shift system by which firemen are on duty continuously for 48 hours out of 72 hours?

This system of duty has been in operation over part of the National Fire Service for a considerable time. The reason for extending it generally in England and Wales is that its adoption is in the interests of the operational efficiency of the Service.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of firemen take great exception to this system, on the ground that they cannot engage in part-time war work in their spare time?

Yes, but the firemen are engaged primarily for fire-fighting purposes. While I appreciate their point, and understand it, this system has been in operation for a long time—in some areas before the nationalisation of the Service. I have given it very careful consideration, and I think that operational efficiency requires this policy to be pursued.

Cannot the Home Secretary find some system which will obviate the necessity of duty for 48 hours at a time? As he knows, nature compels one to close one's eyes during some part of a 48-hour period.

My hon. Friend should not assume that I keep the men awake for 48 hours at a time. They have facilities for sleeping. I must apply the policy gradually, because I want adequate accommodation to be provided before I apply it fully.

Is it not a fact that the Fire Brigades Union much prefer 24 hours on and 24 hours off? Would the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to that fact?

I am aware of the views of the union, but I am afraid I do not agree with them.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has noted that Bristol is raising an anti-blitz and anti-invasion force and calling upon men between 18 and 60 and women between 19 and 49 for this force; and whether this plan will be extended to other areas?

No special force is being raised in Bristol. As my hon. Friend will be aware, power has been taken to meet the recent expansion of the Home Guard and the needs of the Civil Defence services arising from the release of whole-time personnel to industry by compulsory direction to part-time service. Directions are being given in Bristol and elsewhere by the local officers of the Ministry of Labour and National Service on requisitions received from the Home Guard authorities and the local authorities respectively.

Are the authorities inquiring of men and women who join up for this service whether they approve of unequal rates of compensation for war injury? I have inquired, and they do not approve. Could the right hon. Gentleman repre- sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Pensions that they are not legislating in accordance with the will of the people?

The answer to the first part of the question is that I do not know. The answer to the second part is that if my hon. Friend has points of view to convey to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Pensions, it would be more convenient if she would do so direct.

I thought they would be much more powerful if they came from the right hon. Gentleman.

He is not allowed to do things like that.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to make any statement about the incidents in Holloway gaol on 1st July; and what information was supplied to the Press by the prison authorities?

Yes, Sir. I arranged for a special inquiry to be made by Mrs. Earengey, a Justice of the Peace, who is Chairman of the Visiting Committee at Holloway Prison, and Miss Lilian Barker, of the Prison Commission. Their report makes it clear that after four women had been told on 1st July that they were to be transferred that afternoon to Aylesbury Prison, some of the other detainees encouraged them to make, by way of protest, a demonstration of passive obstruction, and arranged to help them by seating themselves in the common room in such a way that it would be difficult for the prison officers to reach and remove those who were to be transferred, and would compel the officers to use some measure of physical force. One of the women had to be carried out by the women officers, and the others then went without resistance.

The inquiry makes it clear that the prison officers performed their duties properly, and without the use of any unnecessary force. There is no gound for any criticism of their conduct in carrying out a disagreeable task, which was forced upon them by some of the women detainees, for the purpose of staging a demonstration. The reply to the last part of the Question is that no information was supplied to the Press by the prison authorities.

Why was it necessary to remove these four women at such short notice?

It was a move in connection with the comfort of another detainee. After all, the preparations for removal from one prison to another do not take long, and I think there was adequate time. It is an arguable point whether a little more time might have been given, but the time was adequate for the purpose. People have no right to argue as to which prison they should be in.

Does my right hon. Friend think it reasonable that people who have been detained in these circumstances—

rose—

I am afraid I must give notice, as I have done already, that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the excellent work done by men employed by the builders' emergency organisations in Gloucestershire in rescue squads; and what steps he proposes to take in order to have adequate rescue squads available in view of the proposed transfer of all these men under 41 years of age to McAlpines, Wimpeys, Higgs and Hill, Costains, and other similar firms?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of the valuable service which is being given by these men as part-time members of the local rescue parties. But here, as elsewhere, the needs of whole-time industrial work of the greatest urgency must take precedence over part-time Civil Defence duties. Losses must be made good either by volunteers or by the direction, under Regulation 29BA, to part-time duty of men not required or not available for industrial work elsewhere.

Will my right hon. Friend at least see that men over 41 are taken out? Otherwise this service will completely break down.

asked the Home Secretary (1) why persons known to be actively engaged in frustrating the war effort, like the producers and distributors of a paper called "Socialist Appeal" are not interned under Regulation 18B, whilst many persons who are only suspected of lesser offences or with subversive sympathies are kept in custody;

(2) whether his attention has been called to the continued subversive activities of a paper called "Socialist Appeal "; why this paper is allowed to continue; and whether he will have a copy of all recent editions placed in the Library, so that Members may see to what extent activities subversive of the war effort are still allowed?

As I explained in the course of the Debate on 21st July, I am not at present satisfied that the circumstances are such as to require action on my part in respect either of this paper or of those responsible for its production and distribution; but a watch is being kept upon their activities, and I shall not hesitate to make use of the powers entrusted to me if I am satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interests of national security. I cannot accept the comparison which my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to draw in the latter part of the Question.

Has this paper been warned? Also, is it not a fact that the Minister or his predecessor gave instructions that all papers which are not allowed to be exported should be put into the Library of the House, and that this custom was followed until quite recently?

On the last point, I am not aware of that; but I will certainly look into it. I am not anxious to elevate all these naughty newspapers to a position of dignity in the House of Commons, but I will look into my hon. and gallant Friend's point. With regard to the question of warning, there is no obligation under Regulation 2D—if that were used—to give a warning. I think, in view of statements made in this House on Tuesday and today, that the paper will realise that it is under observation; but I do not propose to give any formal warning.

Can the Home Secretary say how much the circulation of this paper has increased since this House took notice of it?

I am bound to say that I think the value of the advertisements it has been given, not only in this House but by front-page reproductions in the newspapers, must run into five figures.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that it is impossible to speak over the telephone to the office of the Chief Commissioner for Wales at Cardiff; that the telephone number is not in the directory; that the Cardiff exchange refuse to put anyone through; and will he take steps to see that this office is put in the same position as other Government offices?

The telephone number of the office of the Regional Commissioner is not given in the telephone directory, but it is available to all local authorities and others in the Regions who are likely to require telephone communication with the Regional Commissioner for necessary official purposes.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether I am one of the "others" or not, because on Monday last I wanted to speak to them and failed completely? The girl in the exchange at Cardiff said that she was not permitted either to give the number or to put anybody through.

For the personal information of my right hon. Friend, I am quite prepared to make him one of the others forthwith, but I think the House should realise that normally the public should deal with the local Civil Defence authority. Otherwise, there is the risk of the telephone lines becoming jammed at a moment when they might be badly wanted for operational purposes.

Does my right hon. Friend think that this bit of an office in Cardiff is more important than the Home Office or any other Government Department which you can ring up at any time?

I would not admit that for a moment, but the presence of one's telephone number in a directory is no in- dication of importance or otherwise. Indeed, the absence of a number sometimes indicates that an important person does not want to be disturbed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the clerk of a local authority in Surrey refused to give an evacuee the name of the Member of Parliament for the constituency so that the evacuee could communicate with him?

That does not seem to bear any relation to the Question on the Paper.

asked the Home Secretary how many aliens of enemy origin who came to this country during the period, inclusive, 1933 up till the outbreak of war, and from the outbreak of war until the latest available date, are still in the United Kingdom; and how many in each of these categories are interned?

Figures of the numbers of aliens who are registered with the police are collected each year and classified according to nationality, but to obtain particulars showing in what year each of these registered aliens came to this country so as to enable the alien population to be classified according to length of residence here would be an extremely laborious task which it has not been possible to undertake under war conditions. The total number of aliens of enemy nationality at present interned, including those interned in Canada and Australia, is 7,849. Of the aliens of enemy nationality who have come here since 1933 a large proportion are refugees from Nazi oppression, and many of these have been released from internment in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper of October, 1940.

asked the Home Secretary whether contractors carrying out demolition work on air-raid damage sites in London are under any obligation to grant holidays with pay to their workpeople; and what representations he has received on this matter?

The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The demolition contractors undertaking the work in question are required to observe the usual fair wages clause which requires the employer to observe conditions of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised in the trade in the district where the work is carried out.

Is the Home Secretary aware of any union that has taken up the matter regarding the granting of this principle to men at work?

I cannot say, but it is better that these matters should be discussed between the unions and the employers.