asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the meaning and purpose of the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Order (S.R. & O., No. 141, of 1944); and why the Order did not include an explanatory memorandum.

The Regulation to which my hon. Friend refers abolished one of the existing fire areas in the London Civil Defence Region, authorised the Secretary of State to transfer such parts of that fire area to two other fire areas as he may determine, and made certain consequential and transitional arrangements for disciplinary proceedings, etc., during the transitional period. As the effect of the Regulation seemed readily ascertainable on the face of it, I did not think an explanatory memorandum was necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the repulsion felt by those required to watch the flogging of prisoners; and if he will now relieve doctors from undertaking this duty and consider the abolition of flogging.

As long as the law authorises corporal punishment, it is essential, in the interests of the prisoner himself, that the flogging should be supervised by the prison medical officers, and I am not prepared to amend the statutory provisions in the respect suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Should not medical officers be doing better work than this?

I do not think I had better enter into the pros and cons of this matter by way of question and answer. It is highly disputable.

What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take in regard to the recommendations of the Committee which considered the whole question of flogging?

My recollection is that the report came before Parliament and that Parliament took its decision.

Has the right hon. Gentleman abandoned or does he intend to resurrect the Criminal Justice Bill of his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare), which dealt with this matter?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the statements and actions of Kenneth Rawlings, rector of St. Michael's Parish Church, Lewes, which are contrary to the definite war policy laid down and being carried out by the Government and are subversive of our war effort, he will intern Rawlings under Regulation 18B.

I have no reason to think that this individual falls within any of the categories of persons whom I am empowered by the Regulation to detain, or that, even if he did so fall, it would be necessary to exercise control over him. Opposition to the policy of the Government is, of course, not in itself a ground for detention.

In view of the fact that more than half the signatories to the petition of this reverend gentleman are conscientious objectors, will the Minister take steps to see that they are scrutinised from the point of view of subversive action?

I cannot see any need for that. What this gentleman has done has been to ask people to agree with a speech made by the Bishop of Chichester in another place. I cannot see that that is an action which warrants my attention. After all, somebody must uphold the liberty of the subject, if it is only the Home Secretary.

Is it not the case that this particular clergyman is a perfectly sincere pacifist of the old-fashioned sort, and that he is in no way tainted by Fascism or anything like that?

I understand that that is so.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the active intervention in the West Derbyshire by-election of a lady of Russian nationality; and if he will take steps to prohibit such activities on the part of individuals other than British subjects.

My information is that the lady in question is a British subject, having acquired British nationality by marriage:

When did this lady acquire British nationality?

I have not the least idea.

Then will the right hon. Gentleman find out?

It does not matter at all. This lady is a British subject, and even if she were not, I am not quite sure that I can control her actions.

If this lady had intervened on behalf of the other candidate, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman have asked the Question?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to the removal of the movement restrictions which at present exclude many aliens from fireguard duties.

I have now made an Order amending the Aliens (Movement Restriction) Order, 1940. Under this amending Order those foreigners who have since 1940 been subject to curfew restrictions will be relieved of the restrictions as from 6th March, 1944. This will largely increase the number of foreigners liable for fire guard duties. As regards the possession of bicycles and other vehicles permission has already been granted to a large number of individuals and the exemption from the prohibition of possession will now be made general instead of particular. Aliens who are subject to the special restrictions imposed on aliens of enemy nationality, and certain other aliens who are subject to individual restriction orders, will not be affected under the new Order. In Aliens' Protected Areas the existing restrictions will continue to apply and a new Order consolidating some of those restrictions has been made.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for this announcement and these concessions, which will be appreciated and warmly welcomed by a large number of aliens in this country who desire to render service to the cause of the Allied nations, will he consider extending the provisions to cover all aliens who have been, or who may be, accepted in the Civil Defence, Ambulance, First Aid and National Fire Services and the Home Guard?

I cannot answer for the Home Guard; I can answer only for the Civil Defence Services, and I will certainly give the matter consideration. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I must have the right to say that certain aliens must be subject to special restrictions and that I cannot apply this to the aliens in restricted areas in the existing situation.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that this Order applies to Scotland?

I think it does.

It does.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state the decision of the Government on the question of double summer time for this year.

The Government have decided to make no change in the existing Defence (Summer Time) Regulations which have been in operation in 1942 and 1943. These Regulations provide that double summer time shall run from the night following the first Saturday in April to the night following the second Saturday in August. Accordingly, the period this year will be from Sunday, the 2nd April, to Sunday, the 13th August. There are, of course, many arguments on both sides, but in reaching this decision, the Government have been influenced by the advantages of double summer time in accelerating production and transport and in saving fuel, as proved in the last three years. The Government feel that it is impossible to forgo these advantages in this crucial year. Indeed, but for agricultural considerations, which the Government has had very much in mind, there would have been a case for extending the period of double summer time to a later date than the middle of August.

As we have already advanced the clock two hours in a relatively few years, how long will it be before we advance it a further 10 hours, so that all our watches will point out the right time?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any figures of how many men and women in this country have been discovered to be wearing Service uniforms to which they have no claim by service of any kind, or to have assumed the titles of military ranks without any claim to such distinction.

No figures of this kind are available, but my information is that this conduct is not so prevalent as to cause any special concern to the Service or police authorities.

asked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the statements made on the occasion of the nearing before the National Arbitration Tribunal of the application for reinstatement by the former deputy town clerk of Finsbury, he is prepared to cause an inquiry to be made into the administration of the borough of Finsbury.

The statements on both sides made before the tribunal have been brought to my attention but do not, on the face of them, appear to afford ground on which I am empowered to direct an inquiry under the powers which are available to me. I may, however, inform my hon. Friend that an extraordinary audit of the borough council's accounts is now in progress, and statements have been made publicly before the auditor which appear to cover some of the same ground as those to which my hon. Friend refers. When the auditor's decision is given there is a statutory right of appeal either to me or to the High Court and I should wish to await the outcome of any such proceedings and the consideration by the council of the statutory report which the auditor is required to make before coming to a decision on my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Having regard to the fact that the mayor dismissed the deputy town clerk, because the deputy town clerk refused to requisition a building which was involving the mayor in some financial embarrassment, is there not a prima facie case for an investigation?

No, Sir. I think not.

asked the Minister of Health whether his Department and the local authorities concerned were Consulted about the site of Butlin's camp built on the Welsh coast; and if he has given his approval of the siting of this camp.

So far as my Department is concerned, the answer to both parts of the Question is "No, Sir." I have no information whether any of the local authorities concerned were consulted in this matter.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that another Government Department made arrangements for building this camp temporarily, as a war measure, and have now agreed that the person who built it shall have it handed over to him at the end of the war? Was that done with the consent of my right hon. Friend, or of the Welsh Board of Health, or of any of the local authorities?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will put the first part of his question to the other Department concerned. I have given him all the information I can.

I gather, then, that this was done without any consultation with the local authorities or the Ministry of Health?

I have not said that. I said that it was done without any consultation with my Department. I have no information whether the local authorities were consulted.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider the advisability of taking part in the organisation of recreations and the maintenance of decent holiday facilities for people who need quietude and rest?

That is a different and much wider question.

Was not this matter dealt with at the request of the Admiralty?

I am afraid that I cannot tell my hon. Friend.

In view of the great developments which will follow on the institution of holidays-with-pay, will my right hon. and learned Friend see that, so far as it concerns him, no isolated action is taken until public policy has been decided?

A matter of this kind does not concern me until further stages have been gone through.

In view of the importance of this matter, I wish to give notice that I intend to raise it on the Adjournment, at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he can give an assurance that local authorities, who have acquired or have entered into commitments for the acquisition or use of lands for the erection of either temporary or permanent houses or other urgent public works, will not be financially prejudiced under any legislation which may be promoted by His Majesty's Government with regard to the acquisition of land for public purposes.

It will be for Parliament to decide what provisions should apply to land owned by local authorities under legislation for the acquisition of land for public purposes; but I shall, in accordance with promises already given to them, consult local authorities regarding any legislative proposals affecting them.

Cannot my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that in any financial facilities likely to be made available to towns those which are enterprising and go-ahead are not penalised?

The matter is not so simple as that. It is a complicated question and can best be discussed when the Bill is before the House.

Will my right hon. Friend, then, advise towns not to go ahead?

No, Sir.

Was the right hon. Gentleman's Department consulted on the case about which I have asked the Minister of Health a Question?

I should like notice of that.

asked the Minister of Pensions the number of amputation cases repatriated from Germany, in October last, and the number who have now been satisfactorily fitted with artificial limbs.

407 amputation cases, including a few members of the American and Canadian Forces who were being repatriated to their own countries, were sent to the United Kingdom from Germany in October last. Artificial limbs have been ordered for all British cases ready for the fitting of limbs, but I regret that precise figures of those completed to date are not available.

Is it not a fact that some of these poor fellows were provided with artificial limbs in Germany?

Yes, Sir, but not of anything like the quality that we desire our men to wear.

asked the Minister of Pensions the time taken to effect delivery of artificial limbs from dates of measurements, in 1939 and in 1944; and will he take steps to ensure that adequate labour and materials are available to prevent undue delays.

The time taken to effect delivery varies considerably according to the nature of the limb. It is difficult, therefore, to give any precise information, but it is the case that the time of delivery generally is longer than before the war. The present position is causing me some concern and discussions have taken place with my contractors who are making serious efforts to improve the position. There is, however, some shortage of skilled labour and I am considering with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service what can be done to make available to those contractors additional skilled workers.

Is it not a fact that it used to take from six to eight weeks, and that it is now taking from 16 to 18 weeks?

No, Sir. I would not agree to the latter figure. We are doing everything we possibly can, but the shortage of skilled labour is a serious matter. I hope to overcome that difficulty very shortly.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will provide similar accommodation and facilities at limb fitting centres in the provinces to those considered necessary at Roehampton, which are not available to the majority of amputation cases.

Roehampton, which is the Headquarters of the Ministry's Limb Service, deals with rather more than one-third of the total number of amputation cases and it follows that the accommodation there must be on a larger scale than in provincial limb centres. Subject to this the service in the provinces is comparable with that at Roehampton and, as I informed the hon. Member in reply to a question on 20th January, I keep constantly in mind the need for providing suitable and adequate accommodation in all limb centres.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many entitlement claims, previously rejected, have been reconsidered to date as a result of the provisions of the recent White Paper; how many of these have been admitted to pension; how many have been rejected; and how many are still under consideration, respectively.

Up to 12th February last, the number of entitlement claims, previously rejected, which have been reopened under the terms of the recent White Paper is about 29,000. Of these, somewhat more than 7,500 have been admitted to pension, about 20,000 have been rejected and approximately 1,350 are still under consideration.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how it comes about that some of these cases which have been allowed a pension get their arrears back to the time when disability occurred, while others only get the arrears back to the Royal Warrant?

Those who get the arrears back to their claim for pension were the cases where it was found that there had been material aggravation. Those who get their pensions dated back to the date when the House approved the new Regulations are those whose cases are merely aggravated. Therefore they only come under the new Regulations.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many claims to economic supplementation of pension have been made to date as a result of the provisions of the recent White Paper; how many of these have been granted; how many have been rejected; how many have lapsed; and how many are under consideration, respectively.

Rather more than 8,200 applications have been received, of which about 4,350 have been found to satisfy the necessary requirements, approximately 2,700 have been unsuccessful and 300 have lapsed. About 900 cases are still under consideration.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is prepared to review the decision in respect of the application for a gratuity made by the widow of the late Commander E. D. Michell, D.S.O., R.N., who was killed at Tripoli on 14th March, 1943, through the explosion of a grouting machine in circumstances of which he has been informed.

As death in this case was due to an accidental explosion in a military workshop, I regret that I am unable to add to the normal pension and allowances the special gratuity which is granted to the widow of an officer who is killed in action or while on flying duties.

As this man was engaged in work connected with the war, in a place which was a scene of military operations, surely the widow is entitled to a gratuity just as much as if her husband had been killed in action?

No, Sir. There is a lot of misunderstanding about this gratuity. The old traditional institution granted it many years ago to the widows of men actually killed fighting in action. It was considered by a committee presided over by Mr. Baldwin in 1922, which recommended that, because of the tradition, it should be continued. But as it created an enormous number of anomalies—indeed the very great one that it did not apply to the rank and file—it was decided by the Government of that day that it should not be extended. That is the law at the present moment, and I can only carry out that law.

asked the Prime Minister if he will have a public inquiry made into the growth and effects of monopoly development, cartel and trade arrangements; the arrangements made by the I.G. German combine in this country before the war; the arrangements made for the agencies of I.G. to continue business in the British Empire during the war, with a view of steps being taken to safeguard the national interests in the future?

No public inquiry will be made; but the subject is being carefully studied by the Departments concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister stated in America that he had always been against monopolies? In view of the increasing evidence which is being produced in all parts of the world, and in view of the evidence contained in the recent publication "Germany's Master Plan," may I ask when the Government are going to take active steps to allay the suspicion which prevails in regard to monopoly development?

I do not know about the suspicion. The matter is under active consideration.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the report of a speech by Mr. Biddle, the United States Attorney-General, on the effect of cartels on the British war effort and in America; and will he take steps to see that monopolies are not permitted to interfere either with the British ar effort, or with reconstruction when the war is over?

I have not seen that speech yet.

Does the right hon Gentleman consider that it is a satisfactory method of dealing with the problem to leave it to different Government Departments? Is not this matter so important that there should be a Cabinet decision and a direction given to the Government Departments?

In due course.

Does not the Deputy Prime Minister realise that there is great public concern, and can he give us an assurance that, if he cannot set up a special committee, the Cabinet itself is studying the matter and will report in due course?

The matter is being considered by Ministers, in connection with the general question of post-war economy.

When the right hon. Gentleman, speaks of "the Government," to which Department, dealing with this matter, does he refer?

The matter is primarily one for the Board of Trade.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Prime Minister, with a view to reconsidering policy in connection with this matter?

Will the Deputy Prime Minister bear in mind that it is not a question of "due course," but of the right course?

asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the protest sent to him by the Rawtenstall Town Council against the continued absence of their Member of Parliament in Australia, the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Cross); and what reply has been tendered.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has seen the letter from the town council and has had an acknowledgment sent to it. On the general question, there is nothing to add to what was said on behalf of the Government in the recent Debates. The particular issue is obviously one between a Member and his constituents.

May we take it that all that the Rawtenstall Town Council received was an acknowledgment of their letter? Would it be too much to ask the Prime Minister to send them a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT SO that they can read the Debate on this issue?

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that Professor Fleming has made no financial profit from his discovery of penicillin, the new drug which has saved the lives of thousands of our soldiers; and whether a grant will be made from public funds to the author of this discovery.

I am aware of the circumstances, and also of the fact that others have played an important part in showing the full value of Professor Fleming's original observation and in developing it as a discovery capable of practical application. The question of financial rewards for medical discoveries has been carefully examined on earlier occasions, with the conclusion that any such system, even if desirable, could not be administered equitably in practice. The policy of His Majesty's Government is to support medical research work in progress, and not to offer payments on the basis of results.

Is the Minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply recently stated in this House that the discovery of penicillin was as vital to the Allies as the most secret weapon we were producing? Is it not a curious thing that we should give grants to people who produce lethal weapons, but refuse them to the inventors of a drug which has saved thousands of lives?

I have given my hon. Friend the line which has always been taken by the Government in this particular matter, and I think he will realise the difficulty of attributing to one individual a result which may have come from the researches of many people.

Do the Government propose to increase their grants for medical research?

asked the Minister of Supply whether penicillin is a proprietary article; whether the discoverers have been recompensed and will be pensioned; and whether he will undertake that this drug shall not be commercialised but only manufactured under Government auspices.

Penicillin is not a proprietary article. It is at present being manufactured only under Government auspices and manufacture will be controlled so long as that is necessary in the national interest. As regards the discoverers, I would refer to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) to-day.

If the discoverer is not pensioned as he really should be, should not the hospital where the discovery was made benefit, and not the commercial interests?

I do not think that is for me to answer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture why dogs brought to this country by U.S.A. air-crews as mascots are ordered to be destroyed in cases where the airmen are willing to meet the expense of keeping them in quarantine.

No instruction has been issued by my Department requiring imported dogs, which their owners are prepared to place in quarantine, to be destroyed, and, as far as I have been able to ascertain, no such Order has been issued by any other authority.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the reports signed by the whole of the crew of a Flying Fortress that they offered to pay for the cost of keeping their mascot dog in quarantine but it was destroyed, although a dog belonging to another Flying Fortress crew was spared on the personal intervention of President Roosevelt? Can he give some explanation?

Everything we see in the Press is not necessarily correct.

Is he aware that the communication, which I think he has seen, was personally signed by each member of the crew?

That does not alter the fact that I have stated in the answer, that so far as I have been able to ascertain no such Order has been issued by any authority. I cannot say more than that.