asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider allowing rifle clubs approved by his Department to have the facility of acquiring all 22 rifles handed in to the police during the last few weeks.

Weapons surrendered to the police by the public are handed over to the Central Ordnance Depot, and I do not think it desirable to authorise any departure from this practice. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is prepared to consider applications from approved rifle clubs for 22 rifles which are surplus to the requirements of the Armed Forces.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his regulations permit the carrying in public of full bore rifles by rifle clubs formed out of the Home Guard

Section 4 (8) of the Firearms Act, 1937, authorises a member of a rifle club approved by the Secretary of State to have in his possession a firearm and ammunition when engaged as such a member in, or in connection with, drill or target practice. Whether the case described by the hon. Member would come within the scope of these provisions would depend on the circumstances, and I have no power to make any regulations on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire into the case, of which details have been given him, with a view to remitting on the grounds of youth, the sentence of three months' imprisonment recently passed on a boy of 15.

I am making inquiry in the case referred to and I hope to be able to inform my hon. Friend of my decision in the course of a few days.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British citizenship he has received from Polish nationals stationed in England; and how many have been approved.

Since the outbreak of the war 750 Polish nationals have applied for naturalisation, and 78 certificates have been granted.

Does the Home Secretary consider that these figures represent an honouring of the undertakings given by previous Governments to allow these Poles to take up nationality here?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has dealt with that matter more than once in the House.

Does the Minister, in considering such applications, take into account the qualifications of the Polish nationals, such as doctors, scientists and so on, with a view to determining whether they should be given special facilities to take out naturalisation papers?

I have to satisfy myself that the person who makes application for naturalisation is likely to make a good civilian subject of this country. That is the criterion I apply.

Can the Home Secretary say what applications have been received from Polish civilians?

I could not say that without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the desirability of developing the tourist industry on a large scale as soon as conditions permit, he will take steps forthwith to prepare legislation for the amendment of the Licensing Acts in so far as they hinder the conduct, development and improvement of the hotel and restaurant industry in Great Britain.

In view of the congested state of the Government's legislative programme I can hold out no hope of legislation on this topic.

Is the Home Secretary aware that a separate licence for hotels and restaurants was recommended by the Licensing Commission appointed by the last Socialist Government; and is he further aware that this reform has been recommended continuously for the last 30 years and nothing has been done about it?

The party to which the hon. and gallant Member belongs was in office during the whole of that time, and if they did not find time for it, I think it is a bit tough to expect me to.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Victuallers Protection Society are in the habit of circularising licensing justices and, as this practice is both unhelpful and discourteous to the licensing justices, if he will consider making it illegal or giving licensing justices' power to deal with such circulars as a contempt.

I am informed that it is not the habit of licensed trade organisations to circularise licensing justices, but that recently one such organisation sent to the chairmen and clerks of licensing justices in the Greater London Area a reprint from a trade paper of an article containing some adverse reflections on licensing benches. While I appreciate the motives of my hon. Friend in bringing to my notice the objections to this procedure I do not think this occurrence provides ground for any action on my part.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the eligibility for an overseas award of members of the N.F.S. Overseas Contingent.

Members of the National Fire Service Overseas columns will be eligible for Campaign Stars for service in Army operational areas on similar terms to the military Forces. Instructions for the submission of claims will be issued.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department where tenants are desirous of removing air raid cellar exits because they are an eye sore and in the way, if, in view of the shortage of the type of labour needed to do this work, he will issue instructions to local authorities to inform tenants that they may, if they so desire, carry out this work.

Since removal of works of this character often involves interference with the public highway, it would generally be desirable that the local authority rather than the owner of the premises should undertake the work. No instructions of the kind suggested would therefore be justified, but I would raise no objection to the owner executing the work where he had obtained the prior agreement of the authority

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases tenants were compelled to erect these underground shelters and payments were divided among the tenants, whereas now that they are to be removed the Home Office refuses to accept any responsibility?

If my hon. Friend can bring to my notice any particular instances, I shall be very pleased to inquire into them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authority have already stated that it is not their affair, but is a matter for the Home Office, and is it not also a fact that the Home Office are finding difficulty in touching any of the blitzed sites in Birmingham; would it not be inconvenient if these things had to be left for two or three years, as they will be unless permission is given for the tenants to remove them themselves at weekends?

I agree that unless these obstructions are removed from the highways it will be very inconvenient, and if my hon. Friend can give me any particular cases I will be glad to look into them and see whether something can be done to remove the obstructions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement on the action to be taken by the Government to stop Fascist propaganda in this country; and whether, in this connection, he has considered the activities of the organisation calling itself Vigilantes Action League.

I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the Government's examination of the problem of Fascist activity in this country. As regards the activities of the Vigilantes Action League, I propose, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a statement at the end of Questions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider examining not only Fascist but Communist propaganda?

I examine propaganda of all kinds, including that of the hangers-on of all political parties.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in this regard the question of community libel, and the preventing of libels of a group nature?

I am considering how far it may be necessary to strengthen the law with regard to seditious libel in order to deal with the kind of problem alluded to by my hon. Friend.

Will the Home Secretary express his disapproval of the Communist Party taking unto itself the duty of —

rose —

Thank you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity of answering the second part of Question 19.

Last night's meeting at the Albert Hall was attended by an observer, not a member of the police force, who has submitted to me the following report:

"This meeting, even had it not been interrupted by the Communists, would have been a complete exposure of the futility of the Vigilantes Action League. None of the speakers whom it had been announced Mr. Preen had hoped to get were present, and the only person on the platform, apart from Mr. Preen himself, who is a very poor speaker, was Mrs. Lumley, an official of the organisation. About 150 to 200 people appeared to have attended for the purpose of hearing the Vigilantes speakers. In the large spaces of the Albert Hall they looked even less and the result was to make ridiculous both the organisers of the meeting and the Communists who attempted to make out of it a Fascist bogy.

About 200 Communists were in the hall. They had come with the intention of occupying the 2,000 free seats advertised by the organisers, but these were, at the last moment, withheld, and they eventually paid to come in. They were, almost without exception, very young. They were clearly out for an evening's entertainment and the proceedings had the air of a student rag rather than a serious political demonstration.

As soon as Mr. Preen began to speak the Communists started to shout: ' Fascist' and ' What about the 2,000 free seats?' They kept up a running commentary on Mr. Preens remarks and on those of Mrs. Lumley, who appeared to be trying to say that she only wanted to talk about housing, that she had been homeless herself, that she was an ordinary hard-working woman and was not intending to make a political speech. It was clear that the Communists expected Mr. Jeffrey Hamm to speak, and there was a good deal of difference of opinion among them as to whether they should not stop barracking the preliminary speakers and wait for the more important ones. It was clear that they were an organised body. One or two of their leaders were shouting, 'Comrades, orders are that we are to keep quiet,' and there were references to the London District Committee and to discipline. The rank and file would not, however, be kept quiet and when Mrs. Lumley had been attempting to speak for about 10 minutes they surged round the hall on to the platform and occupied the seats behind the speakers table. Mr. Preenand Mrs. Lumley disappeared and the Communists were addressed by one or two of their leaders. Mr. Cruikshank, a member of the London District Committee of the Communist Party, moved a resolution demanding the banning of Fascism and the group sang the ' Internationale.' Meanwhile the original audience had retired to another part of the hall where it appeared to be carrying on a discussion of its own.

At this point the police intervened. Their entry was greeted by the singing of ' While Irish Eyes Are Smiling.' An attempt was made to resume the original meeting, but as soon as Mr. Preen and Mrs. Lumley returned to the platform the Communists started shouting again and returned to the platform. Eventually Mr. Cruikshank announced that the police had undertaken that if the Communists dispersed the original meeting would not be held. Somebody shouted 'Three cheers for the Police. 'These were given and the proceedings came to a more or less amicable conclusion.

Outside the hall the Communists held a meeting in celebration of their success. This appeared to be attended by a number of people who were unable to get into the hall."

Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's very amusing recital, and while agreeing that there is room for much amusement in connection with this meeting, may I ask him if he is aware that it is also a very serious thing that in this country a group of Fascists, whether small or large, should be in a position to take such a public hall as the Albert Hall for a meeting of this kind? I agree that it did not meet with much success, but is it not the case that its failure, its flop, arose from the campaign made in and around London, and in this House, against anybody participating in the meeting?

I believe that but for the agitation and the paper which was circulated — obviously not by the promoters of the meeting — it would have been an even greater flop than it was. The mere thought of anyone trying to address a meeting of 150 or 200 people in the Albert Hall, without the help of interrupters, would be in itself sufficient indication of the common-sense of the people who called the meeting.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his debunking effort this afternoon is one of the best way of dealing with everyone who tries to over preen his own feathers?

While thanking my right hon. Friend for the very good entertainment he has provided for the House this afternoon, may I ask whether we can take it that the obviously ridiculous character of this organisation will not cause him to relax his vigilance against more serious Fascist elements which may or may not be associated with it? Will he also remember that before the war a number of people laughed at Mosley and Ramsay, whose activities were responsible for the deaths of quite a number of our fellow-citizens?

:As I have suggested to the House before, what we require to do in this matter is to keep a sense of proportion, and to leave these people to the sense of humour of the British people. We shall not cure Fascism in this country by turning the Home Secretary into a Fascist, with powers to suppress opinion.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the literature issued by this body, in particular, to a document entitled, "An Open Letter to the Jewish People," which is one of the most virulent anti-Semitic documents I have ever seen? Would my right hon. Friend like the original of the speech that was to have been delivered by Mr. Preen, for his files?

Judging by the report of Mr. Preen's speech which I have seen, I do not think that an extended version would be a very great addition to the archives of the Home Office. I have in front of me the document, "An Open Letter to the Jewish People," which is being considered by the appropriate people, and on which I am taking advice. But I urge Members in all quarters of the House not to over advertise these people, whose numbers are as contemptible as their opinions.

While agreeing with what the Minister said about not over emphasising what took place last night on the part of this organisation, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us are concerned about the backers of the organisation? Many of us are concerned as to where Mr. Preen was able to get his money with which to pay for the Albert Hall. Further, I would like to say something which, I am sure, will receive support from all parts of the House, that is to express my own thanks to the police for the splendid way in which they looked after us.

:With regard to the question of where the money came from, I would like to know where the money for a good many parties comes from.

I suggest that we accept the Home Secretary's advice and do not advertise these persons by further questions in this House. I propose to get on with Business.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, when a disabled soldier's first marriage has taken place within the statutory period of 10 years from the incurring of the disability, wife's maintenance allowance will be payable in respect of the wife of a second marriage when the first marriage has been dissolved by death or a divorce in which the disabled soldier was the innocent party.

If the second marriage took place within 10 years of the end of the pensioner's war service an allowance in respect of the wife of that marriage would be payable.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the moderate amount necessary to remove the 10 years restriction on allowances in respect of pensioners wives, he is prepared to take steps with a view to removing such restriction.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that the rescinding of the regulation restricting the payment of family allowances to pensioners who marry within 10 years of the termination of their war service would cost less than £ 500,000, he will now abolish this regulation.

As stated in the answer to the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. George Thomas) on 31st January, His Majesty's Government consider that the claims made on behalf of ex-Service war pensioners who marry after discharge have been generously met by the existing provision for wife's allowance, and I regret that I am unable to recommend any extension of that provision.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply — [Hon. Members: "Why?"] —and for the substantial advance contained in the recent White Paper, may I ask if he is aware that this restriction penalises those who have had to wait longer for the blessings and joys of matrimony, and if he is unable to go the whole way will he remove the restrictions in respect of those who have suffered 100 per cent. disability?

The general argument put forward for the removal of this restriction was that men who deferred their marriage because of the war were put in a bad position as compared with those who married before, and the Government thought that to give 10 years grace was generally interpreting that fact.

Is the Minister aware that there are cases in which men have had to wait more than 10 years because of certain physical disabilities, and that after that time they are being grossly penalised by being refused a wife's allowance?

I do not think I can add to what I have already said.

Does not the greatest hardship arise when, although a first marriage qualifies for the wife's maintenance allowance because it takes place within the 10 years period, if that marriage comes to an end through no fault of the disabled soldier, no wife's maintenance allowance is payable in respect of any second marriage?

If it were given in that case it would create hardship in the other cases also.

asked the Minister of Pensions on what grounds a war widow is prohibited from receiving a pension if her husband died before 3rd September, 1939.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give further consideration towards extending the scope of Cmd. Paper 6714 to cover pensions to widows of men who died prior to 3rd September, 1939.

The widow of a man who died before 3rd September, 1939, as a result of service in the 1914–1918 world war is entitled to pension if her marriage took place before he sustained his disability. In applying to widows of that war the relaxation announced in Command 6714 it was necessary to fix an operative date which would be practicable in application. The hon. Member will appreciate the great difficulty in the majority of cases in attempting to determine, when death occurred more than six and up to 30 years ago, whether there was or was not any causal connection between death and war service. For this reason I am unable to recommend any extension of the new provision to cases of death before 3rd September, 1939.

Would the Minister be prepared to consider providing pensions to cases where there is conclusive proof of death arising from injury in the First World War?

I do not think I can go beyond the terms of the White Paper itself.

asked the Minister of Pensions if men with a disability resulting from war service may qualify for an allowance in respect of a wife, married after the 10-year period had elapsed, in cases where they had been formerly married within the 10-year period.

A pensioner who is undergoing treatment which prevents his working, or who is classified as permanently unemployable through his pension-able disablement, may receive an allowance for a wife irrespective of the date of marriage, but otherwise such an allowance is payable only for a wife married before the expiration of the 10-year period.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer means that a pension is denied to a man who has already qualified for it if his first wife dies and he remarries? Can he tell us what justification there is for such an extraordinary position?

The argument is the same as it is in the case of the 10-years limit — that the 10-years limit was thought to be a generous interpretation of the argument put forward that a man who deferred his marriage should have the same treatment as a man who married before the war.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that pensioners do appreciate the generosity that was implied in the new regulations, and that because of that generosity they are convinced that if he will only look into the anachronisms that have arisen he will be able to make the desired adjustments in these various particulars?

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the mystic figure of 10 years was arrived at, and what good reason there is for penalising a man financially because he is thoughtless enough to fall in love, say, 24 hours later than the State prescribes?

If a man deferred his marriage before the war, and the war lasted about six years, and 10 years is given to make up for those six years, it is a fairly generous interpretation.

asked the Minister of Health if he will circulate in the Official Report a summary of his Department's report on conditions at the children's home administered by the Public Assistance Committee of the Essex County Council at Stanway; how many children in this home were affected by the recent epidemic of ringworm; how long this epidemic lasted; and if he is satisfied that conditions in the home have now been substantially improved.

asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the recent report by an inspector of his Department on the children's home at Stanway, Essex; how long this home has been administered by the Essex County Council; whether he is satisfied that adequate steps are being taken to implement the recommendations of the report and improve the unsatisfactory conditions at this home; and whether he will circulate in the Official Report a list of the other children's homes maintained by this authority, with a note of the date when they were last visited by an inspector of his Department.

I have received a report from my inspector on the Children's Homes at Stanway. One of my senior inspectors has discussed it with officers of the county council, and is keeping the matter under review. The homes have been administered by the county council since 1st April, 1930. I believe that the council are actively and favourably considering the recommendations in the report. I am circulating in the Official Report further information on the matters raised by my hon. Friends, including information about the outbreak of ringworm.

Is this the first adverse report received from this Home?

I am not aware of any other report, but I will make inquiries.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that pensioners are experiencing inconvenience owing to delay in the return of artificial limbs sent to Roehampton for repair; and if he will look into the matter and do all possible to speed up repairs as men are often prevented from working as a result of these delays.

There has been some delay in the artificial limb making industry due, in the main, to an unavoidable shortage of skilled staff and premises, but as the result of action I have already taken with the co-operation of Ministry contractors I am glad to say that continuing improvement is being secured.

asked the Minister of Health what is the method followed by his Department in determining the age of people of whose birth no trace can be found, either at the place of birth or in the records of Somerset House; and whether the age of any of such persons is accepted from any record at any place of education which was attended by such a person.

If an entry of birth cannot be traced in the register of births it is for the Department concerned, for example, the Ministry of National Insurance or a Service Department, to determine what alternative evidence it can accept for its purposes, and my Department has no responsibility in the matter.

Have those who have been paid contributory pensions in the past had their ages guaranteed?

I cannot add to what I have already said. There is a formal way of determining the date of birth. If there are exceptional circumstances it is for the Department immediately concerned to discuss alternatives.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept as standard ages those recommended by Somerset House?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question down I will give him a reply.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that revaluations for rating were made during the war in respect of hereditaments which have not been structurally improved or altered since their values were originally entered in the present valuation list for the parish of Heacham, Norfolk; that these higher assessments, which differ from those on similar hereditaments in other parishes in the neighbourhood, have caused hardship to the ratepayers; and, in view of legal doubt as to the validity of such re-assessments, if he will consider amending the Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Act, 1940, in order to clarify the position.

The Court of Appeal has recently decided in the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers that the reassessments are valid. This decision is, I am advised, in conformity with some earlier decisions, but I understand there is a possibility that the case may be taken to the House of Lords. In any event there would be no possibility of legislation in the present Session.

asked the Minister of Health if, in view of the appeal to women to remain or go back into industry for a period, and the fact that day nurseries will be needed nearly as much as in the wartime period, he will consider granting a greater proportion of the cost than the 54 per cent. indicated in his Circular to local authorities, of 14th December, 1945, thereby enabling nurseries to be kept open without having to recover high fees from the mothers which may discourage them from working.

asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the Prime Minister's appeal to the women of this country to remain at work or to return to work, he will consider restoring the 100 percent grant for wartime day nurseries.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the appeal to women to remain in industry, he will reconsider his decision to cut down the grant for the maintenance of the wartime nurseries.

Welfare authorities have had power to provide day nurseries as a maternity and child welfare service since 1918. That service is normally assisted by the Exchequer only through the block grant. But for the abnormal circumstances, including the needs of industry of the present time, the special Exchequer grant promised from 1st April could not have been justified. The rate of that grant is broadly equivalent to that which is payable under Regulations which have been laid before Parliament for the analogous service of nursery schools and nursery classes, and I regret that I cannot increase it.

Is the Minister aware, in view of the appeal for women in the great industrial centres like Birmingham, where women have been very valuable during the war, and will continue to be very valuable for the next two or three years, that the women are already indicating their intention to leave the factories because of the increased charges being put upon them as a result of the removal of Exchequer grants?

This is essentially a local service, and Exchequer grants have been paid in order to maintain it. I cannot support the uneconomic practice of providing Exchequer grants for running these services. It would be appalling extravagance, and not only would it be extravagant, but it would undermine the independence of local government. Hon. Members ought, in these matters, to press the local authorities to exercise their powers.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the existing restrictions on the right of free speech shall be effectively prevented in the new Charter to be granted to the B.B.C, particularly in regard to minority views, and in respect of matters connected with medicine, politics, religion and other controversies.

The extent to which controversial matters and minority opinions should be given a place in the B.B.C.'s programme is a matter which in the past has been left, with the approval of this House, to the discretion of the Governors I see no reason to depart from this policy.

Is the Prime Minister aware that no opportunity is provided at present for minority views on medicine to be expressed, and will he see that such an opportunity is provided?

No, Sir. This is left to the discretion of the B.B.C, and it would be inappropriate for me to interfere.

Are the Government proposing to give the House an opportunity to discuss all these matters arising out of the B.B.C Charter?

Yes, Sir, in due course.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the letter sent from the Woolwich Arsenal shop stewards committee on the subject of his recent broadcast; and whether he has any statement to make thereon.

Yes, Sir. I have received such a letter and have arranged with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and of Aircraft Production that it shall be referred for consideration by the Ministry of Supply Joint Industrial Council, which is the appropriate joint body for dealing with these matters.

asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce a scheme whereby workers in Britain will receive extra ration coupons for production over a standard to be agreed.

No, Sir. While the Government are anxious to encourage the maximum production possible, the particular suggestion made by the hon. Member, covering industry generally, appears to be impracticable.

Does the Prime Minister realise that the only way to get increased production and avoid national disaster is to scrap the Socialist theory and to pay by results?

Will the Prime Minister say what positive inducement he offers to men to respond to his appeal?

Before the Prime Minister answers that, will he tell us if he is considering a scheme whereby those who do not produce anything will not get any coupons?

asked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government will consider introducing legislation to vest the decision to declare war in future in Parliament and not exclusively in the Government as at present.

No, Sir. His. Majesty The King, by virtue of His Royal Prerogative, makes war and peace acting on the advice of his Ministers, who are responsible to Parliament.

Does not the Prime Minister think it strange that this Parliament of over 600 representatives of the people should be asked, almost every day, to decide by vote on the most trivial problems and should not have the right to give a decision on the greatest of all issues—the declaration of war?

This is in accordance with constitutional practice.

asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the proposed terms of the agreement about to be signed between the Minister of Civil Aviation and the Eireann Department of Industry and Commerce stipulating that all British aeroplanes on the trans-Atlantic route must use the Rineanna airport and that Prestwick is to be used for directional control; and whether the Government has changed its policy of making Prestwick a main trans-Atlantic airport on British soil.

The agreement concluded between the Government of Eire and the United States of America in February, 1945, provided that at the present stage of aeronautical development all United States aircraft crossing the territory of Eire would land at Rineanna airport. The Government of Eire have indicated that a similar provision should be included in any agreement that may be negotiated with this country. Naturally, however, aircraft that do not fly over the territory of Eire are subject to no such conditions and accordingly international civil air services routed to and from Prestwick direct are free to do so. It remains the policy of His Majesty's Government that Prestwick shall be designated as an international airport.

May I take it that the proposed terms of this agreement will in no way affect the future development of Prestwick?

It in no way affects the policy laid down with regard to Prestwick.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that all quantities of uranium and thorium in the British Commonwealth and Empire are acquired by His Majesty's Government or by a Commonwealth or Empire Government.

Steps have already been taken by His Majesty's Government and the other Commonwealth and Empire Governments to ensure full control over the disposal of such supplies.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the world's greatest supply of thorium is in Travancore, India, and that two or three weeks ago the India Office stated that they did not know who owned these great supplies; and will he give instructions for this matter to be gone into as soon as possible?

I think that question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for India.