asked the Minister of Labour the number of boys who have been sent to prison for refusing to go down the coalmines.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 14th December, 1944, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Norton (Major Peto).

Is there no possibility of coming to some arrangement whereby these young men can volunteer for some other form of service?

The Question only asks for the number.

asked the Minister of Labour whether local appeal boards have power to recommend cancellation of directions to coalmining in cases where applicants have shown exceptional diligence and military aptitude in pre-Service training corps.

In order to ensure the impartial operation of the ballot for coalmining, I do not accept appeals based merely on the grounds of an appellant's alleged special suitability for the Forces. The question of a recommendation on this point by a local appeal board does not therefore arise.

Does not this mean ignoring facts of great personal importance, and also of great importance to the war effort?

No, Sir. Mining is essential for the war effort, and coal must be got. If Members of this House now claim that men can escape their liability for mining, the war effort must suffer.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will arrange that when a youth called up for the Army expresses preference for the coalfields and a cadet called up for the mines expresses preference for the Services, they may be allowed to exchange so long as both are physically qualified.

No, Sir. With the exception of certain skilled tradesmen, youths of the requisite physical standards who express a wish to undertake coalmining as an alternative to service in the Forces are allocated to the mines. Members of pre-Service training units are not excluded, as such, from the coalmining ballot and to allow a cadet to avoid his obligations by means of an exchange, even if it were practicable, would impair the impartiality of the ballot.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will consider abolishing the practice by which employers in many districts compel employees to produce medical certificates when off sick for one or more days, for which a charge is made by the doctors, and under which evidence of sickness is not accepted by the magistrates in prosecutions for absenteeism by his Ministry under Essential Work Orders unless supported by medical certificates, or else relieve employees in such cases of the cost of medical certificates.

I have no power to prohibit employers from asking for medical certificates in support of absence. With regard to the charge for certificates, special arrangements have been agreed with employers' organisations, trade unions and the medical profession under which a certificate in standard form can be obtained for one shilling.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this charge for medical certificates is causing hardship, particularly in cases where the man is on health insurance benefit and is receiving only 18s. per week; and in view of the fact that in many cases the charge amounts to much more than 1s. a week, will he try to assist in this matter?

The question of medical certificates and the charge for them, is really a matter for the Minister of Health. It is dealt with under the National Health Insurance scheme.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to consider the very serious problem that arises from the fact that when the average man feels sick, he does not run at once to the doctor, because he hopes to be better again in a day or two; when he is absent from work, the right hon. Gentleman's Department prosecutes him, and when he is taken to court, he is asked for a medical certificate? Will the the right hon. Gentleman not do something in this matter?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some employers of labour are carrying the matter a bit further than the certificate, and are actually asking that the first bottle of medicine shall be taken to the works after it has been received from the doctor? Is that not going a bit too far, after nearly six years of war?

I only hope that the employer takes the medicine.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Food does even worse?

Can my right hon. Friend say why employers are not recognising National Health Insurance certificates as evidence of incapacity?

I am afraid that in some cases National Health Insurance certificates are not conclusive evidence either way.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that an agreement was reached between the Warehouse Keepers' Conference, representing the Liverpool Warehouse Owners and the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers, having for its object the elimination of the objectionable casual system of employment in the warehouses of the port; that the employers concerned have now repudiated the agreement; and how he proposes to deal with this new situation in an effort to enforce Government policy as to the discontinuance of the casual labour system in the Port of Liverpool.

I am aware that negotiations for the conclusion of such an agreement, though not broken off, are at present in abeyance, and I am considering how the outstanding difficulties can best be removed.

asked the Minister of Labour if, in cases where under the Control of Engagement Order proposed in Cmd. 6568, an unemployed person hears through personal contact of a vacancy he will be allowed to request his local exchange that he may accept such engagement.

Yes, Sir. Whether such a request could be acceded to would depend on all the circumstances of the case. In this connection I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) on 18th January, regarding the aim of His Majesty's Government in administering labour controls after the defeat of Germany.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that these men in the Forces fear that peace will bring them a form of State direction infinitely worse than that which they have been under for the last five years?

As a matter of fact, this matter has been explained to the Forces, and I am advised that the announcement that they are to be helped in this manner is immensely popular.

Is the Minister aware that I met a large number of members of the Forces only last week, and that I found the overwhelming majority were in favour of being able to take the jobs which they wanted?

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is considering introducing women labour into the building industry after the war.

The extent to which women should be employed after the war in the building industry is a matter for the industry itself to consider. It is not contemplated that I should be given powers to determine this question.

In view of the fact that women are now doing work of a comparable nature, will the Minister discuss the matter with the two sides of the trade, in order to have it ventilated?

Certainly.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will not continue industrial conscription into peace time?

Certainly.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will identify the trade union organisations which are supplied by his Ministry with lists of vacancies notified to the Appointments Department.

The trade union organisations concerned are the National Federation of Professional Workers, and the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen.

Would it not be to the advantage of all concerned if the commercial fee-charging agencies could also be supplied with these lists?

No, Sir. People are on the list because they represent special technicians—as in the case of architects and other professions, whose organisations know the ability of their members, which fee-charging agencies, in the case of industry, do not.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that fee-charging agencies are not excluded merely because they charge fees?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of Labour if, as part of his demobilisation plans, arrangements will be made with the big banks that local managers should give advice to ex-Servicemen desirous of setting-up in business on their own account.

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for this suggestion. I attach great importance to the provision of facilities to enable ex-Servicemen to get the best available advice and I will consider my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal.

Is it not a fact that managers of banks are disqualified from giving advice on the setting-up of businesses, and, moreover, if the advice were followed might it not easily result in serious loss to the man who had set up in business?

asked the Minister of Labour whether, since the Appointments Department was reorganised at the beginning of last month, there has been any change in its function as regards restrictions on engagements.

No, Sir. It is not and never has been our intention that, in general, the engagement of persons for employment in administrative, managerial or executive capacity should be controlled after the termination of hostilities in Europe.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange that, in districts where redundancy of labour is already in evidence or likely to occur in the near future, persons seeking release from the operations of the Essential Work Order will not unduly be refused permission to leave their present jobs in order to return to business or former occupation; and will he discuss this point with other Government Departments affected.

While the needs of war production and of essential services are still so pressing it is not possible to alter the present practice. I would remind my hon. Friend that national service officers take account of all relevant considerations when considering individual applications to leave scheduled employment on grounds of hardship.

Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate the difficulty which arises in a district where such a situation exists, of justifying the retention of some people in work, and the retention of others on unemployment benefit?

I know that difficulties arise, but I cannot relax the Order until the war is over.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now give an assurance that officers who were compulsorily commissioned in the Indian Army will be enabled, if they wish, to transfer forthwith to the British Service.

The matter is still under consideration with the War Office and I am not yet in a position to add to my earlier replies on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for India how many members of legislative assemblies are now subject to village or house restriction and therefore not able to attend their respective assemblies; and the approximate total number of members of legislative assemblies who cannot fulfil their duties owing to the imposition of legal penalties or restrictions.

The desired information is not available here. The hon. Member will appreciate that his Question does not apply to the persons referred to in my reply to his question on 1st February, since the Provincial Legislature in Bihar, as in five other Provinces, is not at present functioning.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is undesirable that members of public bodies should be debarred from exercising their civic functions?

They debarred themselves by their own action.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further information as to the date when the proposed visit of a group of Indian industrialists to this country is likely to take place.

I understand that after further discussion with the group it has now been decided that they will leave India for their visit to this country early in April.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the composition of this group?

It is a small body of leading Indian industrialists. They have, of course, arranged their own composition.

Will special care be taken to see that these Indian industrialists have accommodation and proper arrangements for travelling where they wish, when they do arrive?

I am sure that everything necessary will be done in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for India how many women are now employed in mining; what are the present rates of payment; and whether steps can now be taken to bring such employment to an end.

I am asking the Government of India for up-to-date figures of the number of women employed in mining. Rates of pay for women working underground are the same as for men. They vary according to a number of factors and average about 12 annas per day in the types of work on which women are mainly employed. In addition they receive attendance bonus and grain concession of an average value of 6 annas per day. The question of the continued employment of women underground is under the Government of India's consideration and I expect shortly to be informed of their conclusions.

Does it not work out that the women, in fact, get from 1d. an hour upwards for their work? Could the right hon. Gentleman say, in general terms, whether there has been a reduction in the number of women employed?

I cannot say, but I will try to get figures. As to the rates of pay, they compare favourably with those of other industries in that part of India.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the view of women Members of Parliament, that women should take part in every occupation?

Can the right hon. Gentleman answer a question which I have asked him on two other occasions—whether expectant mothers are prohibited from going underground?

Yes, Sir. I understand that expectant mothers are prohibited from working for a month before and a month after delivery, and that they receive maternity benefit during that time.

Are representatives of these women included in the industrial group coming to this country?

Is there any intention of abolishing this abominable form of industrial slavery?

Work in the mines is entirely voluntary, and the Government of India are just as anxious as we in this House are not to continue that work any longer than is necessary. But coal deliveries at present are one of the most serious limiting factors of India's war effort.

May we take it that women can, and do, take their babies down the mines a month after birth?

I do not know. There is no reason why they should. Maternity pay is continued for a month after the birth, and the women are forbidden to work at any rate during that period.

Are not the owners of these mines among the most prominent supporters of Congress, and ought they not, therefore, to be very friendly with hon. Gentlemen on the Labour benches?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to amend the regulations regarding taxi-cabs, so that the drivers may be completely enclosed, as is the case with omnibus drivers.

So far as the Metropolitan Police district is concerned, there is nothing in the prescribed conditions as to construction of taxi-cabs to prevent the enclosure of the driver's compartment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the taxi-drivers themselves believe that the reason the driver's compartment is not enclosed is that the Home Office refuse to accept the design of a cab which includes such a feature?

I think my answer will make it clear to them that they are under a misapprehension.

Will the right hon. Gentleman so amend the regulations that Members of this House will have the opportunity to get a taxi to go home at night?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now consider doing away with blacking-out of private homes, offices, and all public buildings.

I have this matter constantly under consideration, but I do not yet see my way to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

May I ask my right hon. Friend the Prince of Darkness, whether he has looked into the allegation that I made on the Adjournment before Christmas, that the Air Ministry's buildings, eight storeys high, on Kingsway, were fully lighted two hours after black-out? Has he officially advised the Air Council, and, if so, does he think that they are carrying out their obligations?

I have no doubt that the Air Ministry have noted my hon. Friend's observations. As to the rest of his speech, I thought I had dealt very faithfully with it at the time.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the black-out were done away with a vast amount of black-out material could be saved, and used for other purposes?

That is a factor which is taken into account; but we must bear in mind that if the black-out were fully abolished, it might be easier for the enemy, by Heinkel aircraft, to drop fly-bombs on my hon. Friend's constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that public exhortations to save electric current lose much of their effect in places where street lamps remain lit throughout the day; and whether he will cause local authorities not to light street lamps at all whenever, owing to the shortage of labour or material, the lights cannot be turned out.

I have been asked to reply. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government decided that in this, the sixth, winter of the war some alleviation of the street lighting position was not only permissible but desirable; and on 19th January I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) that, in some areas, there could be no alternative in present circumstances between continuous lighting and no lighting at all. Local authorities are well aware of the need for the utmost economy in all forms of fuel and, as the Government's concession does not involve a serious increase in consumption, I should hesitate to fetter their discretion by further controls and Orders. The fact that, owing to wartime difficulties, continuous lighting is sometimes unavoidable does not justify in any way waste or extravagance in the use of fuel by individuals.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make it clear that this Question, when it was put down on the Order Paper, was addressed to him? Does his unsuccessful attempt to "pass the buck" to the Home Secretary mean that he is in disagreement with the Home Secretary and, if so, will he refer the matter to the War Cabinet?

Answer.

rose—

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent men and women in the Forces have exercised their right to appoint a proxy for voting.

I regret that detailed statistics about this matter are not available, but my information is that approximately four-fifths of those who have completed declaration cards have appointed proxies.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the case of Mrs. Key, aged 54, of Burslem, who was sentenced to 14 days imprisonment for harbouring her son, an Army deserter; and, as there was evidence that she had endeavoured to persuade him to return to his unit, if he can see his way to remit the remainder of the sentence.

My information is that Mrs. Key had been harbouring her son for over three years, from September, 1941, until his arrest as a deserter in January, 1945. I have had inquiry made, following upon representations by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and have reviewed all the circumstances of the case, but I regret that I can find no sufficient grounds to justify me in recommending any remission of the sentence passed by the justices.

Is it not a fact that this woman endeavoured on many occasions to persuade her son to return, and that he refused to do so; and is she not a highly respectable woman? Surely, she was simply displaying her maternal instincts, which perhaps rather ran away with her reason. Therefore, should not this case be regarded with some compassion?

I believe it is fair to say that this lady did try to persuade her son to go back to his unit, but he was with her for three years, so she does not appear to have been very successful. If I remit this sentence, which I believe is 14 days, I am myself, by administrative action, amending the law. If the law is to be amended, it should be amended by Parliament.

Does my right hon. Friend not think that this case is analogous to the law which does not require wives and mothers to give evidence against their husbands and sons; and would it not be wise to consider whether the violation of natural feelings should be used as a punishment? Should not the man be punished, instead of the mother, who is being used as a kind of hostage?

That is a perfectly fair point, but it is a question of the law. For the law I am not departmentally answerable—that is a matter for the Secretary of State for War.

Why is it that, while this woman has committed an offence by harbouring her son, in her own house presumably, for over three years, nobody knew that he was there all that time?

I have not the least idea.

Could not my right hon. Friend inquire? If the son was in the house for three and a half years, somebody else must have connived at it. Should not that person be blamed, instead of the mother?

She did not inform the authorities, so that of course she must have connived at it.

I said "somebody else."

What do the Government expect the woman to do—denounce her son? Is not this the sort of thing that you condemn families in Germany for doing, under the Gestapo? Would it not have been better for the mother to have sent her boy to hide in the orchard, near London, where the right hon. Gentleman hid during the last war?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's wish, as usual, to be rude. It does not worry me. It is the nature of the law which is involved; and the law is not a matter for me, but for the Secretary of State for War.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the handicap to their development imposed on police forces affected by the Orders made under the Defence (Amalgamation of Police Forces) Act, 1942, owing to the present temporary basis of such forces; and whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the matter.

I regret that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend on 7th December last.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been appointed Chairman of the Racecourse Betting Control Board; who are the other members; what was the date of the last published report of the affairs of this Board; and, if Parliament can now be informed, in accordance with the Act that set up their organisation, what has been done, and at what cost.

Since the death of Sir Clement Hindley, no appointment has been made to the chairmanship of the Board, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair) is acting as Chairman. Apart from the Chairman, the Board consists of 11 members, the names of whom I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. A report of the proceedings of the Board, together with a statement of their accounts, has been presented annually to Parliament, in accordance with the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928. For reasons of economy, the reports for the years subsequent to 1939 have not been printed, but I understand that my hon. Friend has now been supplied by the Board with copies of these reports.

Is it not rather peculiar that a Parliamentary Paper, which should be laid annually, is not laid, for reasons of economy? Are there other examples in which it is incumbent to lay papers and in which papers have not been laid?

Quite a number. Because of the need for economy, difficulties arising from the war effort, and the shortage of paper, that is quite common in these days.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Library of the House there is a copy of the Report of the Racecourse Betting Control Board?

I believe that that is so, and I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for drawing attention to it.

Is there a list of documents which have not been presented to Parliament?

I could not say. There is a considerable number of Departments involved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the excessive consumption of gas and electricity between the hours of 8 and 10 a.m. is largely due to the continuance of summer time in midwinter; and whether he will arrange for reversion to Greenwich mean-time from October to February, inclusive.

I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power that any increased consumption of gas and electricity in the morning is more than offset by the saving in the evening; but, as I pointed out last week in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carnarvon (Sir G. Owen), the overriding consideration in favour of this special wartime arrangement has been that it has facilitated the work of supplying the needs of the Armed Forces.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in Summer Time, between the hours of 8 and 9 a.m., it is dark and that, between those hours, people have to cook, dress, go to business, and children have to be got ready and sent to school; and is it not absolutely certain, especially during hard weather such as we have had recently, that an undue amount of fuel must be consumed?

It is true that there was darkness during part of that period, but it is not true of any part of the period at the moment. The fact is that, on fuel consumption, the evenings balance the mornings, and there is nothing in it from the point of view of fuel economy.

Is the Minister aware that the imposition of this measure imposes a great hardship on the production of foodstuffs, and especially on milk production; and will he give an undertaking that the iniquitous infliction of Double Summer Time is not going to be reimposed?

That is really another point, but that aspect of the matter will be fairly considered.

As regards fuel consumption in the morning and evening, is it not the case that lights are left on in the mornings longer than is actually necessary, whereas in the evening they are not turned on until actually required?

I have taken advice from the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Departmentally, they are the experts, and they tell me that my presentation of the facts is correct.

Is not the main question that the peak load occurs in the morning?

There is a peak load in the evening.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government will now consider implementing the policy declared in 1931 by introducing legislation to allow British women to retain their nationality on marriage to an alien.

It is not possible for His Majesty's Government to introduce such legislation without prior consultation with the Dominions. No suitable opportunity for consultation has occurred, but the matter will not be overlooked.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will undertake to try to see that this matter is placed on the agenda at the next Imperial Conference?

I will do my best, and I would certainly like it to be there, but, of course, it must depend on how much pressing business there is before that Conference.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is right that this long-standing grievance should continue because the people of Eire do not want women to have the rights which other countries have secured; and is it desirable that women married to Allied nationals should be in a worse position than women married to enemy nationals?

I am not sure if my hon. Friend has made a correct statement of the facts about Eire, but I think the House will agree that it is desirable that citizenship of the nations of the British Commonwealth should stand on the same basis if we can possibly do it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the valuable expert testimony given by magistrates, probation officers and others, as to the conditions which should prevail in remand homes, he will publish the evidence given at the recent London inquiry, with such excision of names as he thinks advisable.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) on 7th December. I then said that the inquiry would be searching and comprehensive, and the report would include a fair and adequate review of the evidence given. When hon. Members have read the report, I am sure they will agree that these promises have been amply fulfilled and that there would be no justification for the labour and expense which would be involved if—contrary to the usual practice—the evidence were published as well as the report.

As the Minister bases his negative reply on labour and expense, will he place one copy of the evidence in the Library, and give another to the Press Association?

No, Sir. I should not be willing to give a copy to the Press Association, and I am very doubtful about putting one in the Library.

Why?

I think one might get partial extracts in that case. It would be fairer for hon. Members to see the report, when they can judge for themselves. I cannot understand why I am being pressed to take an unusual course.

Will the Minister keep his mind open upon this subject until we have seen the report, and then, if we think right, we can make representations to him upon it?

My mind shall remain as much open as the mind of my hon. Friend.

Is it not most unusual for such evidence to be published; and is the object of hon. Members to question the impartiality of the tribunal, or to make party capital out of the report?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report will be published?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what party is responsible for the provision of red lights or other measures to ensure the protection of the public against accidents due to accumulations of debris, repair materials, etc., left at night on the streets near bomb damage.

There are a number of legal requirements regarding obstructions in the street which it is impracticable to specify as they vary from place to place. London local authorities were asked in December to arrange for their contractors to remove rubble or to light any heap of material or rubble left on the highway. Private owners carrying out repairs to their own homes will also, I hope, take all possible steps to avoid the risk of accidents.

Can we take it that the contractors, in the case of private owners carrying out their own repairs, are legally liable for the prevention of these accidents; and is the Minister not aware that there is considerable confusion as to who is actually responsible?

I do not think it would be wise for me to express an opinion on what is essentially a matter of law.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the penalties able to be inflicted on persons who maltreat children entrusted to their care; and, in view of the indignation thus created whether he will consider revising the scale of penalties which it is possible to impose for various types of crime to bring them into line with modern social views and ethics.

Under the existing law, a person convicted of ill-treating or neglecting a child is liable on summary conviction to six months' imprisonment or a fine of £25, or both, and on conviction on indictment to two years' imprisonment or a fine of £100, or both. Such complaints as reach me have been to the effect either that, where a mother's neglect is due to ignorance or lack of training, imprisonment is an inappropriate sentence, or that, in some particular case, the Court has not made full use of its existing powers and has imposed a sentence which is much below the maximum authorised by law. I can find no ground for any alteration of the existing law, which is contained in an Act passed by Parliament in 1933, but I fully share the feelings of indignation which any deliberate maltreatment of children naturally and properly excites, and if in any such case Magistrates fail to carry out their duty of imposing an appropriately deterrent sentence—while I have no power to intervene or to call them to book—I recognise that it is right that public attention should be called to the matter so that the magistrates may realise that their action is condemned by public opinion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the country has bees gravely shocked by the three cases brought to light recently, the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children tell me that they had over 1,000 cases last year, many of which it was impossible to get reported in the Press, owing to lack of space, and very many of which they consider were very inadequately dealt with; and will he, therefore, consider what steps should be taken to see that benches which do not deal adequately with these cases, should have this matter drawn to their attention?

On the Press reports, and the representations of the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes), I asked that inquiries and a report should be made. I have not yet received it, and it would not be right for me to express an opinion upon the merits of the case, but I must warn the House that this issue has to be faced—whether the courts are to function as courts of law, independent of the Executive, or whether the House wishes to get into a position in which the Home Secretary gives instructions to the courts.

Would it not be extremely improper for the mind of the bench having to try one of these cases in the immediate future to be inflamed into indiscretions, abuses and excesses by the clamour of popular feeling?

I think there is point in what my hon. Friend says. The courts must be judicial and find the proper penalty, and any undue tendency towards hysteria in this matter is to be deplored.

Will the Minister realise that heavy sentences are an entirely inadequate substitute for proper inspection?

Is it not a pity that attention should be diverted by particularly hard cases, when the real problem is the way in which orphan children, or those who are under guardianship, are being dealt with?

I think I told my hon. Friend last week that that is why the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health and myself had asked the Government to institute an inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what authority the boy Dennis O'Neill was boarded out at Bank Farm; and when the boarding-out conditions were last inspected.

This boy had been committed to the care of the Newport county borough council and the council, I am informed, arranged in June, 1944, for him to be boarded out at Bank Farm, Minsterley, Shropshire. I understand that the boy was taken to his foster home by an officer of the education authority when he was placed there in June, and was visited by another of the authority's officers on 20th December, 1944. I have already called for a full report on the case.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this boy was taken away from his home on the alleged ground that he was in need of care and protection, and in those circumstances how does it come about that he was placed where the care and protection afforded him were evidently no greater than he got at home?

I have called for a report on the case and I ought not to express an opinion before I have considered it, but in the meantime I would inform my hon. Friend that the responsibility for its inspection under the law is the responsibility of the Newport county borough council.

asked the Prime Minister if he will cause a Command Paper to be published showing, on the information of British representatives, the amount of malnutrition and lack of commodities essential for health in France and the freed portions of Belgium and Italy; how far this is due to allied military requirements of ships and rolling stock; and the steps being taken to relieve the situation.

The responsibility for the provision of commodities essential to health for liberated territories during the military period is one for the Combined United Kingdom/United States military authorities. In making their preparations, these authorities have, naturally, had to take into account the severe limitations imposed by shipping, port capacity, and internal transportation. These factors have greatly increased the difficulties of dealing with the situation, and it has, therefore, not yet been possible to maintain, or even to reach the full standards aimed at in all cases. But the reports received do not indicate any serious malnutrition, except in certain areas where it existed before liberation. In areas where fighting has recently taken place, it is particularly difficult to restore the disrupted distributive system. The combined military authorities are, however, making special efforts to effect such improvements as are possible in present conditions. At the present time, I do not think there would be any advantage in issuing a White Paper on these matters.

Could not an hon. Member of this House be allowed to go to France to see for himself?

In view of the fact that independent evidence completely contradicts what the right hon. Gentleman says, and is to the effect that millions of people are on the verge of starvation and in a worse state than they were under German occupation, how can the right hon. Gentleman refuse to publish information, and is it not the case that members of the Forces would not want to avail themselves of leave trains or N.A.A.F.I. supplies, if they were doing so at the expense of starving French babies?

The question is based on an assumption which is entirely groundless.