asked the Secretary of State for War whether all the men recently repatriated from German prisoner-of-war camps are to be allowed their discharge from His Majesty's Forces?

It is likely that most of those repatriated, after examination by a mixed medical commission, will be discharged from the Army. Those who are found to be fit for further military service of the kind permitted by the Geneva Convention will be retained.

Are we to understand that these men, who have suffered so much, will not be entitled to their discharge if the War Office decides to retain them?

Hon. Members can understand exactly what I said, namely, that if their medical condition justifies it, they will be discharged, and that most of them will be. Those who are fit will be retained for such service as the Geneva Convention permits.

Were they not repatriated because they were wounded, and too sick to be in any Army?

Some have improved in condition after being repatriated. But, as I said, the majority will be discharged.

asked the Secretary of State for War by what authority supplies of beer, which had been prepared for the reception of repatriated Service-men landing at Leith, were withdrawn?

It was decided by the military authorities that it was more convenient, and in the case of sick and wounded better from a medical point of view, for the beer prepared for the ex-prisoners of war landing at Leith to be sent to the reception stations and medical centres, and served with the evening meal rather than handed out on the quay or in the train.

Why did the B.B.C. rush in so eagerly on this subject? Is the whole matter not explained by the desire of the brewing industry for self-advertisement?

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the organisation entitled "Combined Services Advisory Bureau," which invites members of the public to put any claim for damage in respect of accidents in its hands and which purports to exist only for the benefit of those who have served in His Majesty's Forces, has the official sanction of his Department; and if not, will he take steps to make that clear to the general public?

I understand that the certificate of registration of this body has been returned to the Registrar of Business Names, and has been cancelled.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the British Claims Commission will accept responsibility to British claimants for the assessment and settlement of claims arising out of personal injuries and material damage caused by American Army vehicles in the United Kingdom in the same manner as agricultural claims arising out of American Army exercises?

I have nothing at present to add to the reply given by the Minister of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) on 10th November.

Will my right hon. Friend explain the reason for the distinction between the two?

No, Sir, not at present.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in view of the decision of the Moscow Conference that the annexation of Austria by Germany on 15th March, 1938, is null and void, it is now proposed to treat those at present in this country who were citizens of Austria before that date as Austrians and not German subjects?

As my right hon. Friend has explained on previous occasions, it makes no difference to the treatment or status of an alien in this country if his nationality is described as Austrian instead of German. His treatment depends upon whether or not he is whole-heartedly sympathetic with the allied cause and willing to assist our war effort. If he is, he can obtain exemption from the special restrictions applicable to aliens of enemy nationality.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Austrians feel deeply humiliated at being wrongly described as Germans? In the light of the Moscow Conference and what was decided there, will he give the matter further cosideration?

The hon. Member's Question was read as dealing with the treatment of these people. As I have explained, it makes no difference whether they are described as Germans or Austrians. But as regards registration with the police, I will take note of the hon. Member's point.

asked the Home Secretary why, as the medical and nursing services provided in Holloway prison are adequate for prisoners there confined, supplemented where necessary by arrangements for operation or other treatment in London hospitals, it is necessary, for medical reasons, to remove Sir Oswald Mosley and Lady Mosley for detention in that establishment?

My right hon. Friend proposes to make a statement on this case at the end of Questions. This will cover the point raised in my hon. Friend's Question.

Can I have an answer to the specific Question on the medical side? I represent this institution in Parliament; it is in my constituency and I think it would be better if I could have an answer now.

I am sure the hon. Member will have an opportunity of putting a Supplementary Question at the end of Questions.

The Home Secretary.

On a point of Order. In view of the very important character of the statement which is now to be made, should it not be made upon a Motion for the Adjournment?

A Minister can make a statement in any way he pleases.

Further to that point of Order. This is a very special question. This is something different from an ordinary statement, and it seems to me that it could only be considered the most cowardly evasion on the part of the Government if they did not make the statement on the Adjournment. I therefore ask you whether it is not possible to get this statement made to the House on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Further to the point of Order. May I submit that, in view of the controversy and the abuse to which I have been submitted from quarters with which the hon. Member is associated, is it not due to me and to the House of Commons that this statement should be made at the earliest practicable moment? There is a Question on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest), and I am answering that Question and certain other considerations as well.

In view of the importance of this matter, I would ask permission to make a somewhat full statement. As the House will be aware, Sir Oswald Mosley was detained some 3½ years ago, in May, 1940, because my predecessor was satisfied that his British Union activities were prejudicial to national security, and that it was necessary to exercise control over him. The decision to release him does not imply that the Government take a different view of the potentialities for mischief of any revival of this organisation. The Order applying Defence Regulation 18AA to this organisation remains in force and prohibits any renewal of its activities.

The case of each of the individuals detained under Regulation 18B has to be determined in the light both of the facts of the particular case and of general conditions. In view of the improvement in our national fortunes, it has been possible without endangering national security to release a large number of former members of the British Union on the ground that their detention is not necessary in present circumstances. The improvement in our national fortunes would not by itself, however, have justified the immediate release of Sir Oswald Mosley: as the leader and most influential person in the movement, he would have been the last to be released.

From time to time representations have been made to me as to the state of his health, and it accordingly became the duty of the prison medical authorities to advise me as to the nature and degree of the risk to his health which his continued detention would involve. For this purpose it was arranged that there should be consultation between the prison medical authorities and Lord Dawson of Penn and Dr. Geoffrey Evans. A consultation accordingly took place between the Medical Commissioner of Prisons, two prison doctors and these two medical practitioners. The opinion of these five doctors was unanimous: it was that if the patient remained under the conditions which are inseparable from detention, there would be substantial risk of the thrombo-phlebitis from which he is suffering extending, and thus producing permanent damage to health and even danger to life. This complaint is of long standing, and the question was not whether the appropriate medical treatment could be given in a prison establishment, but whether there was a reasonable chance of checking serious deterioration of his health unless the patient were allowed a greater measure of freedom for outdoor exercise and varied occupations than is possible in a place of detention. The opinion of all these medical men was that, if the matter were considered purely on medical grounds, release from detention was essential for the purpose of checking the extension of his complaint and providing any reasonable prospect of recovery.

On receipt of this authoritative medical advice, there were only two courses open to me. First, I had to consider whether I ought to take the responsibility of detaining this suspect to the permanent damage of his health and possibly to the danger of his life. On this point I can only say that, while considerations of national security must come first, I am not prepared, subject to this overriding consideration, to let anyone die in detention unnecessarily. This policy is based not on the inexpediency of making martyrs of persons who do not deserve the honour, but on the general principle that those extraordinary powers of detention without trial must not be used except in so far as they are essential for national security.

The alternative course was to consider whether there should be substituted for detention some system of control approximating to house arrest. Under the provisions of Regulation 18B the Secretary of State is empowered to suspend an Order of Detention subject to conditions imposing various restrictions. Failure to comply with any conditions so imposed renders the person concerned liable not only to prosecution for an offence but also to be brought back to detention. Knowing that severe restrictions could be imposed and enforced and that the Detention Order itself could be re-imposed at need, I came to the conclusion that my right course was to substitute for detention a stringent system of control and that release subject to the restrictions I had in mind would not entail any undue risk to national security in the circumstances of the present day.

In reaching this conclusion, I kept two considerations prominently in mind. First, conditions imposed on a person released from detention, however stringent those conditions may be, cannot provide as effective a method of control as confinement. The release under such conditions of a person who would otherwise be detained can, therefore, be justified only if there is some exceptional reason, such as the medical considerations arising in the present case. Secondly, while it is right that account should be taken of medical considerations, especially when, as in the present case, there is a risk of permanent injury to health or danger to life, such considerations cannot be paramount. They must be subordinate to considerations of national security. My justification for taking on medical grounds a course which would not otherwise have been taken, even at this stage of the war, is that I was satisfied that no undue risk to national security would be incurred by the release of this man, subject to stringent conditions, in the circumstances obtaining at the present day. Had a similar question arisen at an earlier date, when the dangers to be apprehended from any attempt at interference with our war effort were much greater than they are to-day, the position would have been different.

I have authorised the release of Sir Oswald Mosley in the belief that in present circumstances adequate control can be maintained over him by the restrictions which I have imposed. But let there be no misunderstanding. If for any reason, whether because of evasion of any restrictions imposed on him or because of any change in the situation, it became necessary, on grounds of public security, to bring him back to detention, medical considerations would not be an obstacle to the course dictated by the national interests.

The restrictions which I decided to impose as a condition of his release are as follow: He is to reside at a specified house in the country and is prohibited from travelling more than seven miles from that house; he is to report in person to the police monthly; he is not to associate or directly or indirectly communicate with any person who has been a member of the British Union, other than members of his family or his wife's family; he is not to associate or directly or indirectly communicate with any other person for the purpose of promoting or assisting in the promotion of political activities; he is not to publish or cause or permit to be published any book, article, newspaper, news-letter, periodical, pamphlet, leaflet, poster or circular; he is not to make any public speech; he is not to give any interview to a journalist or other person for the purpose of publication. In short, as regards public activities, he is still subject to the same kind of restrictions as are imposed on persons in detention. These restrictions were communicated to him at the time of his release.

In the case of Lady Mosley, medical considerations were not in question. But one of the main reasons for the detention of Lady Mosley was the risk that she might act as an agent for her husband if, while he was detained, she were left at liberty. With the release of her husband this ground for detention ceased to operate, and, having regard to this consideration together with the consideration affecting his health, I thought it right that both should be released from detention subject to the same restrictions.

I mention—merely to dismiss it as an absurdity—the suggestion made in certain quarters that the decision to release at this date on medical grounds a man who stands for a doctrine almost universally detested in this country and whose influence is greatly diminished, indicated that there is a weakening on the part of the Government or myself in our determination to root out the evil cancer of Fascism. If I were to allow myself, in the exercise of the drastic power of detention without trial entrusted to me by Parliament as an exceptional war-time measure, to depart from the judicial frame of mind and to be influenced—not by considerations of the public safety—but by personal dislike or political opposition, I should no doubt be able to give entire satisfaction to many of my present critics, but I should be abusing the powers afforded by Regulation 18B and betraying the trust reposed in to me by Parliament that those powers would be exercised in a judicial spirit and solely for the purpose of national security. Any departure from these principles of administration would involve grave danger to the maintenance of constitutional democratic government and might set a precedent which in other circumstances no one would regret more than many of my critics of to-day.

Is it not clear that if a statement on those lines had been issued at the same time as the release of Sir Oswald Mosley the public would have got a very different impression of the whole matter; and is it not the case that the news was released to the public in the manner most prejudicial to the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's own Department?

I caused to be issued at the time a statement in which there were two points. One concerned the health grounds, and the other was that proper security restrictions would have to be put on him. If people did not believe me, I cannot help it. Secondly, if ever there was a power exercised by a Minister, which is both exceptional and on which Parliament has a primary responsibility for seeing that the Minister does his job well, this is that power, and as the House was meeting within a few days I thought—and I hope I was not wrong—that my first duty and my first obligation were to Parliament.

May I ask whether the decision to release Sir Oswald and Lady Mosley was made on the right hon. Gentleman's own individual responsibility or whether the Cabinet was consulted before it was done?

The responsibility is mine. The Regulation places the responsibility fairly on me. This is one of the awkward jobs that go with the office of Home Secretary. Any Home Secretary contemplating this decision would have been most foolish if he did not inform his Cabinet colleagues and consult them about it, and I did so.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether Sir Oswald Mosley is not Enemy No. 1; and whether he would have been released if he had not been a millionaire; and may I also ask my right hon. Friend whether he will allow five doctors from this House to examine Sir Oswald Mosley?

If I may say so, that question, with the insulting implication in the middle, is hardly worthy of an answer.

In view of my right hon. Friend's statement, which shows quite clearly that there was no immediate urgency for a few days about the release of Sir Oswald Mosley, may I ask him why he did not wait until Parliament was in session, in order that he might make a preliminary statement to Parliament instead of, as it appears, flouting the House of Commons?

I have often been attacked on this side of the House for being unwilling, in effect, to transfer my responsibility, either to a Committee of this House or to a committee outside. This responsibility is placed upon me, and just as I could not transfer my responsibility to Parliament for my action, if I keep people in, so I cannot do so if I let people out. Parliament has its remedy if it is dissatisfied. It can always get rid of a Minister. That is open to Parliament, but as long as I am discharging this function, I shall discharge it judicially, on my responsibility, and answer for my actions in the House.

May I ask a question which may appear somewhat technical? Is it not a fact that phlebitis in its various forms needs absolute quiet and rest; and how can it be said that a person suffering from that illness must have greater freedom of movement and opportunities for exercise?

I am not a doctor, but I understood that it requires both things—rest, and also vigorous exercise. I can only say that it is not for me to pronounce a medical opinion. It was for me either to accept this formidable body of medical opinion, or to take the responsibility of saying that these medical men were not telling the truth or were not competent. I did not feel that I could do that.

I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he received representations. Has he at any time received representations with regard to this man, apart from the medical representations?

I have received representations about all sorts of people, and my hon. Friend would be surprised at where some of the representations come from.

Following the highly unsatisfactory reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given, I want to ask him whether there is another case in this country, where such medical attention and such concern and care have been shown to anyone as in this case? Was such attention ever shown to Terence MacSwiney or Mr. Gandhi?

There have been other cases, both of 18B British subjects and enemy aliens, who have been released on health grounds, and who would not otherwise have been released.

But did they get such medical attention?

But the medical attention is not wholly mine. As far as the prison doctor is concerned, certainly they all get the same medical attention. Let me remind the hon. Member, who is very indignant about this, that in the early days of the war there were very similar arguments against the war, both by his friends and—[Interruption].

rose—

While I am on my feet hon. Members will please sit down. This is becoming a Debate, and I do not think it should go any further.

Is it not clear that this matter cannot be properly discussed by process of question and answer, and may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether, in all the circumstances and for the purpose of clarification, it would not be more appropriate to have a Debate on this matter?

If there is a general desire in the House for a Debate on this matter, time can be provided. May I remind the House, however, that a message is expected to be received shortly desiring our attendance in another place? I have also to inform the House that before then it will be necessary for me to espy Strangers in order that a statement can be made in Secret Session. Therefore, I suggest that if further discussion is to take place on this matter, it should take place as a Debate, rather than by way of question and answer.

On a point of Order. I am not aware that under the Standing Orders of this House—and this is a matter upon which I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker—we are compelled automatically to disturb or suspend our proceedings when there is a knock at that door. If this House so decides, it is within its prerogative to continue to discuss this matter either by question and answer, or in debate. It is a matter for the House itself to decide I understand that this is the position.

Further to that point of Order and quite apart from the merits of the Debate, does not the form which this has taken show the undesirability of making such important pronouncements, except on a Motion for the Adjournment? May I respectfully submit that although on many occasions you, Mr. Speaker, have given Ministers great latitude in this matter, it is clear that Parliament is being injured by the abuse to which it is being subjected; and further may I suggest to the Government, again without regard to the merits of the matter, that as there is such universal interest in it—I use the word "interest" advisedly—it is to the good of Parliament that Parliament should adequately discuss the subject at the earliest possible moment? Further, ought we not to resist knocks on the door in order to discuss it?

In reply to the point of Order, while it may not be laid down in the Standing Orders, it would be regarded, I think, as an act of gross discourtesy if we refused to acknowledge the knocks at the door.

asked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to prevent the police acting in future as agents provocateurs, as they did in the case against Dr. Goldsmith, which was heard at the North London Police Court on 16th November?

The limits within which the police are justified in giving opportunities to a person to commit an offence in order to obtain evidence against him are set out in the Report of the Royal Commission on Police Powers and Duties, which recognised that there are certain types of case in which it would be impossible for the police to carry out their duty of enforcing the law without the adoption of such methods. The police are, however, well aware that the Courts will always scrutinise most narrowly the evidence of any witness who can be represented as having encouraged or procured an offence which would not otherwise have been committed, and no action on the part of my right hon. Friend is required to remind the police of the great care which must be taken in cases of this kind. I may, perhaps, add that I am not aware of anything in the case to which my hon. Friend refers which need cause anxiety to a doctor who accepts in good faith a statement made to him by one of his patients.

In this case were not three men encouraged by the police to go to a doctor and make a statement which they and the police knew to be false? Is not this a most undesirable procedure?

I think there is a clear distinction, which is well understood by the police, between incitement to commit an offence, which is wholly wrong and which is a disciplinary offence, and the employment of subterfuges in order to obtain evidence where habitual offences are reasonably suspected and there are no other means available to the police of procuring the necessary evidence.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the action of the police in this case was justified?

We have noted the view of the learned magistrate, and any necessary action will be taken.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really think it is necessary to employ these offensive Gestapo methods against anyone in the medical profession? Does he not know that it is intensely resented that this should be done and that it is possible to find out what a doctor is doing otherwise than by this unfortunate procedure?

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the remarks of the learned magistrate who tried the case, and does he not think it most unfair to the police themselves that they should have to take this kind of action?

I have said that we have taken note of the remarks of the learned magistrate and that any necessary action will be taken.

Are we to understand that the Government recognise the employment of agents provocateurs in these cases, because that is what they are doing in a number of instances, and provoking the very evils which we are endeavouring to avoid?

I have made it quite clear that the police would not countenance the employment of agents provocateurs. It it not a case where there was incitement to commit an offence.

asked the Minister of Food (1) on what basis the Scottish quota of turkeys for Christmas from Northern Ireland is to be distributed;

(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the protest made by butchers and poulterers in Edinburgh in regard to the proposed distribution of turkeys imported from Northern Ireland; and why the capital of Scotland is to be deprived of its fair allocation of these birds?

asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that many retail butchers in Surrey have had their applications for Irish turkeys refused on the ground that they were situated outside the Metropolitan police area; and whether he will arrange for a more equitable distribution?

As the answer is long, I will, with the permission of the House, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is it the case that retail shops in the home counties outside the Metropolitan Police area can supplies only if they are multiple shops?

If the hon. Member will read the answer, which is very comprehensive, he will appreciate that the matter with which he is concerned is limited to a very small proportion of all the supplies of turkeys.

asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Price Regulation Committee for the North Midland region urging an enforceable controlled maximum price for wines and spirits and stating that this was pressed a year ago without action taken; and whether, in view of the ring stated to have been formed to the knowledge of this committee for still further public exploitation, he will inquire into this with a view to imposing such provisions for control as will effectively protect the public against this ramp?

I have seen reports in the Press of an announcement on this subject attributed to the Chairman of the North Midland Region Price Regulation Committee. If the Committee will furnish my Department with the information stated to be in their possession, I shall be glad to inquire into the matter as my hon. and gallant Friend desires.

Is it not a fact that 12 months have elapsed since they made their representations and that nothing has been done up to now to stop this ramp?

The hon. Member had better put that Question down.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what special facilities are allowed to agricultural workers to obtain clothing and boots; and whether, having regard to wear, tear and exposure to weather, such facilities are calculated to be adequate by reference to current civilian standards?

In addition to the ordinary civilian ration, agricultural workers received 10 extra coupons in the last rationing period and will receive a further 10 during the present period. They can also obtain oilskin clothing and milkingsmocks coupon-free against certificates issued by a county agricultural committee. High priority is granted to agricultural workers in the allocation of the limited supplies of rubber boots, for which buying permits are issued by the county agricultural committees.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries, as it is clear that there is a great hardship to agricultural workers?

I am not quite clear what the hon. Baronet wants me to inquire into. I have given particulars as to the treatment accorded in regard to coupons and clothing to agricultural workers. I have them very much in mind and I have no evidence that the arrangements are proving inadequate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether agricultural workers obtain sufficient clothing for replacement?

Perhaps the hon. Baronet will give me any evidence that he has.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take immediate steps to apply to the court for an order to close the Jays Campbell group of retail furniture shops who have been convicted of a long series of price-control overcharges, resulting in fines ranging from £50 to £2,470, which have had no effect because of the large profits derived from illegal trading?

Between April and November, 1943, five convictions, under the Goods and Services (Price Control) Acts, were obtained against one firm and four convictions against another in this group of furniture dealers. I am advised that, until proceedings are instituted for further offences and convictions have been obtained, the courts cannot make closing orders under the Act of 1941. If such proceedings are instituted, I shall certainly consider asking the Attorney-General, or, if the proceedings are in Scotland, the Lord Advocate, to take action.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the victims of these parasites are mainly people who have been bombed out and have lost their furniture, or young married people, and is he also aware that this group—

The hon. Member is giving information and not asking for it.

asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have now considered the view expressed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure in paragraph 48 of its Third Report, that the question of financial assistance to women workers shortly before, during and after confinement, requires immediate attention; and whether he will introduce emergency legislation to enable women workers to draw unemployment benefit for two months before confinement and for a suitable period thereafter, to be determined on medical advice, in order to safeguard their health and that of their children?

Inquiries have been instituted by the Government through a number of sources to ascertain the extent to which women engaged in industry do in fact remain at work to a late stage in pregnancy or return to work too Noon after childbirth. It is anticipated chat these inquiries will be completed in time to enable a full statement to be made as to the information obtained and the Government's decision early in the New Year.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make concerning the military situation in the Dodecanese Islands?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the situation in the Dodecanese?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on the operations in the Dodecanese?

Perhaps my hon. Friends would be good enough to await the statement which it is proposed to make on the next Sitting Day.

May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question on what he said about the reply to certain Questions on the Paper relating to the Dodecanese?

Perhaps it would be better if the hon. Member waited until the Secret Session to ask his question.

It is not on the merits of the matter but merely to know from the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that these matters would be referred to at the next Sitting, how it is possible, since Questions will not be permissible at the next Sitting?

Questions are already on the Paper. It is not possible to give a full answer at Question time. A full statement will be made in the course of the Debate.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will define the duties and functions of the Minister without Portfolio and his relationship to the Minister of Reconstruction in the War Cabinet?

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir William Jowitt) will assist Lord Woolton in carrying out his duties as Minister of Reconstruction.

In what way do these duties differ from those of an Under-Secretary or Parliamentary Secretary when the Minister is in another place?

Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied that there is any necessity for the continued existence of the Minister without Portfolio now that he has even less of a portfolio than before?

Is it the intention of the Government in the Debate on the Address to make a fuller statement on the matter?

Certainly, if the matter is raised in Debate there will be a full opportunity of discussing it.

In the Government's own statement on the Address, is it intended to make a fuller statement so that this very important office may be considered in all its implications?

May I have an answer to my question?

I should like to see it on the Paper.

Is it not possible for them to hound all the Labour Ministers out of the Cabinet?

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give time for the consideration of the Petition which was presented in the House on 2nd November, 1943, in which 4,090,000 persons prayed for an increase in payments made to old age pensioners; and what is the Government's policy in regard thereto?

There will be opportunities for discussing this question in the course of the forthcoming Session. As at present advised, I do not think it is necessary to fix a day for the purpose.

Have the Government any policy in regard to this matter, and, if so, when will an announcement be made?

Perhaps the hon. Member will wait for the statement.

asked the Minister of Health whether he can furnish an estimate of the present annual increase in the number of persons of old age pension age, that is to say, of men over 65 years of age and women over 60 years of age?

The increases in the number of men over 65 were, during each of the past two years, estimated at about 50,000 and 60,000 respectively. These figures represent an average percentage increase of about 3¼ per cent. per annum. Comparable figures for women over 60 were about 93,000 and 102,000 and 2.9 per cent. respectively.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will explain the Ministerial chain of responsibility for urgent post-war housing and state which Minister will be directly or mainly responsible for this action?

The primary responsibility will continue to rest with the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Ministry of Works giving to these two Departments technical advice on design, methods of construction and building materials. The proposals for a post-war housing programme must, of course, be co-ordinated with the rest of the Government's plans for reconstruction in the years immediately following the end of the war, and this will be one of the duties of my noble Friend the Minister of Reconstruction.

May we understand that in that case the Minister of Town and Country Planning is not concerned?

The Minister of Town and Country Planning is not primarily concerned with this particular function.

Are we not compelled to understand that no Minister is actually and directly responsible for post-war housing?