asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why the production of an identity card is necessary to open a Savings Bank account while no such formality obtains in most banking institutions of the country and seeing that this formality is calculated to discourage savings through direct Government channels.

I know of no banking institution in the country which will open an account with less formality than the Post Office, and the holder of a Post Office Savings Bank account is able to operate on it at any one of the 18,000 Post Offices in this country which transact Savings Bank business. As explained in my answer to the hon. Member on 24th June, the Post Office requires the production of the identity card in order to assist in preventing accounts being opened for the purpose of fraud. This requirement, which is a simple and expeditious method of establishing the bona fides of the applicant, has been accepted by the vast majority of the people who normally bank with the Post Office and there is no evidence that the requirement discourages savings.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General prepared to consider adopting the wholly satisfactory method of private banking institutions, which dispenses with the use of identity cards? Is it right that the State should show this spirit of uncharitable suspicion towards its citizens, while private enterprise does not?

No unnecessary uncharitable suspicions are shown. This is to protect the people's money.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many packages of circulars and other matter from football pool firms were handled by his Department in each of the last four weeks to the latest convenient date.

The numbers of packets posted are estimated to be as follow:

Week ending
22nd June	…	…	1,394,000
29th June	…	…	7,532,000
6th July	…	…	7,128,000
13th July	…	…	3,678,000

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will prohibit all unsolicited circulars being sent through the post containing betting and gambling information until the present paper shortage has been rectified.

My noble Friend would not feel justified in prohibiting the transmission through the post of any such circulars which the promoters are able to post under present day paper restrictions, provided the circulars do not relate to an illegal business.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that some of these circulars contain as many as five enclosures which are elaborately printed in coloured inks? In view of the colossal number of circulars and the shortage of paper in other directions, does he not think this is a direction in which we might save paper instead of allowing these people to exploit the public?

Is it not remarkable how often Members opposite are trying to stop someone's fun somewhere?

The allowance of paper is in accordance with the Paper Control. I would remind hon. Members that the circulars used today are much thinner and the size of the paper much smaller than in prewar times.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that the purpose of Questions 5 and 6 is an endeavour to protect the public from crooks? It is a pity that on this we have not the cooperation of Members on the other side.

Is it not clear that the purpose of Question 6 is to save paper until the present shortage is over?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General in how many cases the Post Office refused to renew wireless licences during May in order to charge the extra 10s. which became due on 1st June.

None, Sir. As my hon. Friend explained in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) on 20th June, broadcast receiving licences are valid up to and including the last day of a calendar month. Licences due for renewal before 1st June were properly charged at the old rate of 10s.; those due for renewal on or after 1st June were properly charged for at the new rate of £1.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why certain portions of the village of Welton, East Yorkshire, do not receive an afternoon delivery of letters; and whether he is aware that some houses within 800 yards of the Post Office are outside the area of the second delivery.

The afternoon delivery of letters in Welton has been restored to all those houses which enjoyed the facility before the war. There are six outlying houses which do not get the delivery because the cost would be prohibitive in relation to the number of letters for delivery. Arrangements have however been made for correspondence for these houses to be available to callers at the Welton Post Office in the afternoon.

Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider these houses 800 yards away, in view of the declared policy of H.M. Government to share and share alike?

There are six houses in outlying districts, and they lie in very different directions. The cost of meeting them would be entirely prohibitive.

Are we to understand that it is the policy of the Government that the cost of the postal services is the dominating factor in the citizens getting a proper service or not?

There is a limit to the number of districts in which we can have a loss.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will give an indication as to the number of tourists who have arrived in this country during recent weeks.

Plans are being made for the promotion of tourist traffic next year, but conditions this year have made it impracticable to encourage such traffic. No figures are available, but the number of short term visitors who can properly be classified as tourists must be very small.

Will the Minister take every possible measure to encourage tourists to come to this country, and, in particular, will he see that the beauty and amenities of such cities as Leicester and counties as Leicestershire are publicised and made generally known for this purpose?

I hope that next year we shall be able to encourage this traffic on a large scale.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the comparatively low number of tourists is due to the present Government?

No, Sir. I do not think so. There are numbers of people who are very anxious to see how we are getting on.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider circularising licensing justices with a view to the institution of uniform opening hours for public houses, area by area, during the present beer shortage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to standardise the opening hours of public houses.

I have already circulated to licensing justices the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) on 24th June and the reply which I gave, supporting the growing practice of local agreements on this subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any steps are being taken to supply something to drink when the "pubs" are open?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority a boy aged 13, who had been committed on 2nd September, 1942 to the care of the Kent County Council for boarding out with foster parents, was placed in a remand home in January, 1946, and retained there for five months; whether the Kent County Council made any application to his Department under the Children and Young Persons Boarding-out Rules, 1933, for special arrangements to be made; and, if so, on what date the application was made.

When the Kent County Council accepted the care of this boy in September, 1942, they arranged to place him with a suitable foster parent with whom he remained for over three years. In January last he was moved at the request of the foster parent, and he was placed in the Council's remand home for younger boys, as a place of safety, until other arrangements could be made. In spite of every effort, including advertisements in the Press, the council were not able to find a new foster parent, and the boy remained in the home until June. My hon. Friend is right in suggesting that in view of this delay it was the duty of the council to obtain my consent to the boy's continued stay in the home. In a letter written on 13th June the council expressed regret for the omission.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an extremely serious infringement of the liberty of the person, and would he say whether this letter, which was sent to his Department, was sent after the child's parents had applied to the juvenile court for a reduction of the order; and can he say whether there have been any similar cases elsewhere in the country?

I agree that this is a very serious lapse on the part of a county council that is normally most efficient. I do not think that anyone would contend that, in its ordinary administration, the Kent County Council is other than efficient. I have received this expression of regret, but with regard to the precise details for which my hon. Friend asks, cannot answer them without notice. I have no reason to think that the rule which was infringed on this occasion is not usually obeyed by the authority.

Ought it not to be the case that, having regard to the fact that the original order for custody is made by a juvenile court in most cases, where the transfer is proposed from the foster parent into whose care the child has been placed by the court, the court should be consulted just as much as the right hon. Gentleman, and is it not wholly unsuitable that such a transfer should take place solely at the instance of the foster parents, without informing the real parents?

That is an indictment of the existing law and not of my Department or of the Kent County Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inform the various authorities to whom children are sent, as being fit persons to receive them, that this is a terrible infringement of the liberty of the person of the child and that they should be very careful not to make a lapse of that sort?

I am taking steps to see that the attention of the authorities is drawn to these requirements, and I hope that the expression of opinion made in the House today, with which I agree, will emphasise the representations which I am making.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many German and Austrian-born wives of British soldiers serving in Germany and Austria have been admitted to this country.

Such information would not be obtainable from the statistics kept by my Department and there is nothing I can add to the reply given on Tuesday to my hon. and gallant Friend by the Secretary of State for War.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why instructions have been issued to the Metropolitan Police to forbid and prevent, under Section 35 (14) of the Metropolitan Police Act, the announcing of meetings by loud speaker.

No such instructions have been issued recently to the police. The use of noisy instruments for calling meetings is prohibited by Section 54 (14) of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, but the police do not normally take action unless annoyance is caused.

May I take it that in that case the Barnet police authorities were acting in excessive zeal in prohibiting the advertising of a perfectly proper and democratic meeting to discuss the bread situation? Will the Home Secretary further say that this ancient Act will not be used to ban the use of loud speaker advertising that clearly was not in contemplation when Parliament passed the Act?

I think that some excess of zeal was shown by the constable in question, because he did not wait to ascertain whether anybody was annoyed by the sounds that were to be emitted. I think that on the whole it is desirable that this power should be retained, because undoubtedly on occasions loud speaker announcements and similar things do cause considerable annoyance and should be under reasonable control.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, nevertheless, loud speaker announcements in Barnet do cause some annoyance?

Is it not a fact that what this House is interested in is that the annoyance should be proved to be caused to the inhabitants of Barnet and not to those representing the views of the present Government?

Amongst the inhabitants of Barnet there is a considerable number of people who share the views of this Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the directions against the overlapping of Parliamentary and local government boundaries contained in the Third Schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944, the Government will undertake, before draft- ing legislation to give effect to any recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions for England and Wales, to consult the Local Government Boundary Commission and the Reading Com-mittee on London Local Government.

This point has not escaped attention, but I understand that the work of the Local Government Boundary Commission is likely to continue for some time, and at whatever date during the lifetime of the present Parliament a Redistribution Bill is introduced, some constituencies will be liable to be affected shortly afterwards by change in local government boundaries. It may, therefore, be found best to give effect to recommendations from the Parliamentary Boundary Commission based on the local government boundaries existing at the date of this review, and subsequently to make adjustments as a result of further reports submitted from time to time by the Boundary Commissions under the standing machinery for which the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1944, makes provision.

Is it not very unsatisfactory and very unsettling to all concerned if Parliamentary redistribution is carried out without consideration of probable changes in local government boundaries, and with the result that the work would have to be done all over again? Why cannot Parliamentary redistribution be postponed for, say, a year, until the Local Government Commission's views have been obtained?

The reason is that after conferences with representatives of both Boundary Commissions concerned, I am satisfied that no substantial number of local government boundary decisions will have been reached within a year. It is very desirable that we should first have the review of Parliamentary constituencies, which will have to be done by a Bill as soon as possible, and thereafter, as the Local Government Boundary Commission representations are received, the amendments by Order in Council, which was the arrangement made by the last Parliament, can be carried through. The whole consideration of this matter makes me think that the sooner we have the Bill the better, so that the subsequent proceedings can be carried through without undue pressure on Parliamentary time.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate date when he hopes to introduce the Bill?

That will depend upon the date on which His Majesty's Government receives the report from the Boundary Commissions.

When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to receive that report?

As the General Election is not to take place until 1st April, 1950, surely there is no hurry about it?

Without accepting the date, which seems to me to be rather early, I commend that suggestion to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling).

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the police report that private uniform was worn in the recent protest procession on Palestine to Trafalgar Square; and if he is satisfied that the stipulations of Section 1 of the Public Order Act. 1936, have been fully maintained.

I am informed that among those taking part in the procession were some young people wearing the dress of the Jewish Youth Movement. As regards the second part of the Question, the hon. and gallant Member may be assured that the Commissioner of Police will take any necessary steps to enforce the provisions of the Section to which he refers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Jewish youth uniform is considered to have any political significance or not?

That really is not a matter for me to decide, but for the courts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how soon he expects to receive the Report of the Curtis Committee about the care of children deprived of normal home life.

I understand that the committee, which has spared no pains to complete as speedily as possible the wide inquiry entrusted to it, has reached the final stages in the preparation of its report and hopes to present it in a few weeks time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a prisoner, called William Hatch, recently shot himself fatally while being escorted from the cells at Old Street police station to a prison van; why was this prisoner allowed firearms and ammunition; and if he will take steps to prevent such occurrences in future.

This man managed to conceal on his person a very small pistol which was already loaded. At the inquest, full inquiry was made about the searching of the prisoner, and the coroner said that he did not regard the failure to find the pistol as reflecting adversely on the police officer concerned. The failure is much regretted, but the circumstances do not indicate any general defect in the arrangements for the searching of prisoners.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this touches a very important principle, namely, that prisoners in the custody of the police should be protected from violence not only by others but also by themselves?

That is a general principle to which I can give cordial support.

Will not the Minister make a real inquiry into this, because in my experience, any time I was in I could not keep even a crumb of tobacco?

In dealing with convicted persons, the police do have regard to the previous record of the prisoner.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of cases notified during the present year where court orders have been made against husbands for maintenance of their wives and children and where the payments have not been met.

; I regret that this information is not available.

Is it not a fact that the number of persons is large and that the police have no responsibility to seek these men any more than in an ordinary case of a summons for debt, and the ease with which it can be evaded is a temptation to increase the number?

There are a number of men who desire to evade their appropriate responsibility. The police do all they possibly can when a summons has been obtained to trace the person, but quite frequently very effective steps have been taken by the culprit to conceal all traces that will enable him to be followed.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Mr. Douglas J. Rennie, 97, Centre Street, Kelty, Fife, aged 29, after five years' service in the Army, from January, 1940, to March, 1945, during which period his left leg was amputated, has been refused pension on the grounds that the disease from which he is suffering is not attributable to, nor aggravated by, war service; and, as Mr. Rennie is unfit to work, if he will reconsider this case with a view to awarding a pension.

As I have explained to the hon. Member in letters sent to him on 12th June and 3rd July, the amputation of the left leg during service was part of the necessary treatment for an organic bone disease, which my medical advisers were satisfied was unrelated to Mr. Rennie's war service. My decision was upheld by the pensions appeal tribunal.

Is it not the case that when the country was in need this man gave ready and loyal service, and now that he is in such great need following his terrible afflictions, will the country not give some service to him? Why should the Minister continue this sort of mean, Tory, contemptible behaviour towards the lads who served the country so well?

Does not the Minister think that it is about time that he accepted the principle, "Fit for service, fit for pension"?

That has been turned down by the Government on previous occasions. I have to give pensions according to the Royal Warrant and I have no power to go outside it.

Change it.

Can the Minister tell us whether there is not discretionary power expressly given in the Royal Warrant which enables him to go behind it?

Would the Minister ascertain whether his medical advisers are as competent as the medical advisers who passed this man as fit for service in the Army?

This case has been before not only my medical advisers but those of the tribunal, and I might add that the principle underlying this case has also been before the High Court.

Is it not an unfortunate fact that many of these organic bone diseases are not attributable to war service?

Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this decision in view of the decision given in the Scottish law courts within the last few days?

I am considering it, but whether it relates to this is a different matter.

Is not this treatment of an ex-Serviceman at variance with the propaganda of the hon. Gentleman's party at the last Election?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice of my intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Pensions if he will instruct pensions boards to take into consideration in granting awards the amount of incapacity caused and the fact that incapacity varies according to the employment of the pensioner.

Under the provisions of the Royal Warrant, disablement pensions are based on the degree of disablement without taking into account wages or earning "capacity in any specific trade or occupation. As a result, most men receive a pension in addition to normal wages. To relate the assessment to employment would lead to inequalities, and would not be of general advantage to pensioners.

If I cite the case of a dentist who contracted cocaine dermatitis as a result of his war service, and who is now incapacitated from following his profession, will my right hon. Friend consider it?

I cannot give an answer in regard to a specific case, but we tried to meet the position to some extent some months ago when we introduced a hardship allowance by which means a man who has a partial pension, who cannot get back into his normal employment and who has to accept lower paid employment, can receive us. 3d. a week in addition to his pension.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the misgivings expressed by the Lord Justice Clerk and the judges of the Second Division of the Court of Sessions in giving judgment on 19th July as to the way in which Pensions Appeal Tribunals are interpreting, or failing to interpret, the Royal Warrant to the detriment of appellants, he will introduce legislation at an early date to enable any appellant whose claim has been rejected by an existing tribunal to lodge a further appeal to be heard by a new tribunal.

I will, with permission, make a statement at the close of Questions on the matter raised by the hon. and gallant Member.

Will legislation be required to do what is proposed? If so, will it be introduced as soon as possible after the Recess?

I do not think that legislation will be required.

While thanking the Minister for the statement which he read to the House, and which will be received with great satisfaction by thousands of ex-Servicemen in this country, may I ask him whether the right to go before the High Court will still remain, even after cases have been before the special tribunal, because if cases had not gone to the High Court, the step now proposed to do justice to the men would not have been taken?

There will be no appeal to the High Court in arbitration cases that come before me or go before the arbitration tribunal.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the constitution of the proposed special Arbitration Tribunal, bearing in mind that the Statute which deals with ordinary appeals provides for representation by a serving colleague of the appellant?

Yes, Sir. We propose that the constitution shall be similar to the statutory tribunal already existing.

May I ask the Minister very seriously whether, instead of these tribunals and super-tribunals and all this complication, he would consider changing the Royal Warrant and laying down the principle, "Fit for service, fit for pension"?

I have answered that question on numerous occasions. The proposal, "Fit for service, fit for pension," has been considered not only by this Government but by previous Governments, and has definitely been turned down on each occasion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman issuing a statement for the guidance of applicants as to the method to be followed in submitting their applications for renewed consideration?

I think that all that they will have to do will be to let us know that they wish their cases to be reconsidered. Whether we can take special steps to let them know about this matter I do not know, but interest in it is pretty widespread. The hon. Member may be aware of the fact that the ex-Servicemen's organisations are particularly interested in this subject. That may be sufficient.

Will there be the same appeal to the High Court as there is from any other tribunal?

No, Sir.

Will the Minister take steps to see that all men whose appeals have been turned down since August last year will be notified first, through his own Department?

I have looked into that proposal and I do not think it is possible. The answer I gave to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) just now covers that point.

Will the Minister draw the attention of his colleague the Minister of Health to this example of the immense importance of the judiciary to the rights of the individual?

What will be the composition of the new tribunal?

A lawyer or barrister as chairman, a doctor and a layman, the latter according to the particular class of ex-Serviceman to be considered.

In view of the great importance of applicants to this super-tribunal having real confidence in those who are to judge their cases, will the Minister ensure that the chairman shall be not merely a barrister but a lawyer of such legal experience and standing as will command the utmost confidence among all concerned?

I am very anxious to ensure that that shall be so.

Will there be a similar condition as there is now, in regard to an appeal to the High Court?

No, Sir.

What is to prevent an applicant from appealing to the High Court?

If an applicant in this class of case comes before us we expect him to agree that after he has gone to this special tribunal that should be an end of the matter.

asked the Minister of Pensions how many claims for a pension in the last seven years from the dependants of Servicemen who had committed suicide have been refused on the ground that death was neither due nor hastened by war service.

Precise figures are not available but I estimate that, in the period referred to, between 1,800 and 1,900 such claims have been received. Of these, in over 700 pension has been awarded, leaving about 1,100 in which pension has been refused.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great dissatisfaction with regard to this matter, because it is felt that the unbalancing of the minds of many of these men is linked up with the fact that they are away from their families on active service? Will he have the position considered?

We do deal with this type of case sympathetically as is witnessed by the fact that over 700 have received pensions.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider increasing the inadequate special clothing allowance where artificial limbs are used, to bring this allowance into line with present-day cost of clothing.

Present experience does not lead me to think that the existing rates of allowance are in general inadequate to meet the additional expense arising from extra wear and tear on clothing caused by wearing artificial limbs.

As this is the last oral Question to the Minister today, would he show a little more consideration of the real hardship this entails to men who have lost limbs, and not try to hide behind the smoke screen of official, cold, criticism of people who are suffering?

We have regard to real hardship in so far as we have now established £5 and £3, as against nothing before.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in the city of Birmingham last week a subsidised council house built 15 years ago at a cost of £450 was advertised for sale at £1,200; and, in view of this and other cases, if he will take steps to prevent persons making large profits at the expense of public funds.

The house which I think my hon. Friend has in mind was built by the Birmingham Corporation in 1924, under the provisions of the Housing Act of 1923. The corporation sold the house in 1927, and it then became indistinguishable from any other house in private ownership. For the reasons which I gave in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas), on 16th May, I cannot hold out any prospect of legislation controlling the selling price of houses.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the city of Birmingham, and in other parts of the country, this matter is causing great indignation? We have 43,000 applicants for houses, and they are continually being exploited in respect of subsidised and privately owned houses. Will not my right hon. Friend do something to stop this ramp of selling houses at high prices?

My hon. Friend's Question refers to one house, which was sold in 1927. The consent of the Minister has to be obtained before a house for which a subsidy has been paid is sold. Nevertheless, I frown very much on this practice.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, to complete the Ipswich Housing Scheme, a further 390 acres of land will be required at a total estimated cost of £535,000, including roads and sewers; and if he will state the rateable value of the land and give a separate figure for the cost of roads and sewers.

I understand that the Ipswich Town Council are contemplating the purchase for housing of a site of 390 acres. The greater part of the site is agricultural land and de-rated, and the rateable value of the rest is £158. No proposal has yet been submitted to me, and I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the latter part of the Question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this land, which has been derated for so long, is now valued at 3,000 times its normal rateable value? Is it not time the Government took steps to stop this racket?

The result of communal activity is to raise the value of land everywhere, and next Session I hope there will be a Bill to deal with the matter.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the total cost of the Ipswich Council's 5,000 houses plan is estimated at £5,707,755; and whether, as the interest on the money raised to finance the scheme will amount, in total, to £5,108,798, he will consider arranging for an interest-free loan as no question of risk is attached to this venture.

Any concession in lending to a local authority free of interest or at a rate of interest less than that at which the Government can borrow would constitute a form of concealed subsidy. The Government policy on subsidies for housing is embodied in the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, which provides subsidies designed to enable local authorities to provide new houses to let at reasonable rents.

While not wishing to ask the Government to do anything regarding concealment, may I ask my right hon. Friend why, as we now control the monetary system, we should continue this outworn process, whereby citizens are bound to support for ever interest on money which did not exist until it was required for their needs?

My hon. Friend, with his usual robust vigour, is aiming at the wrong target. This is not a matter for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I know, but will my right hon. Friend, with his usual force, make representations to the Chancellor about it?

asked the Minister of Health whether the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee has issued a further report following their interim report of January last; and, if so, whether he proposes to make it available to hon. Members.

No further report has yet been received from the Rural Housing sub-committee.

asked the Minister of Health if he will consider empowering and encouraging local authorities to supply furniture to ex-Service-men and others setting up house for the first time, if so desired, and to make an appropriate additional rent charge to cover the cost.

Local authorities already have power under Section 72 (2) of the Housing Act, 1936, to provide furniture for their houses and may fix the rent at a figure sufficient to cover the cost.

Will my right hon. Friend consider encouraging local authorities to make more active use of this power than they are doing at present?

I hope the attention of local authorities will be called to this Question and answer.

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the shortage of housing in the Orpington area, he will give increased facilities for private builders to supplement the programme of the local authority in accordance with the arrangements announced in his Circular 92/46

Any proposal received from the Orpington Urban District Council for the erection of houses under the arrangements described in Circular 92/46 will receive immediate and sympathetic consideration.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall have the next lot of figures showing the respective achievements of private builders and local authorities?

I thought the right hon. Gentleman was aware, as almost every other citizen is aware, that they get them at the end of each month.

For the information of citizens of the country and of the House, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether they will show a drop compared with last year?

The right hon. Gentleman might await the figures, but I would point out to him that we are giving slightly more information and more houses than the party opposite did.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large deputation from the Orpington area waited on his Parliamentary Secretary—

Large by weight or by numbers?

—and that the real reason for the delay was the inability of four Ministries to agree? Is he also aware that over 2,400 families are waiting for accommodation and that private builders are not allowed to get on with the job of building houses?

In my reply I have already informed the hon. Member that private builders can build as many houses as they like to build for the Orpington District Council, if the Council will make application.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is considerable apprehension in Malton at the proposal to acquire land for a police headquarters at Quarry Bank, Old Malton, and that the Malton Urban District Council is opposing the proposal; and whether he will hold a public local inquiry at Malton so that the objections to this proposal may receive due consideration.

This matter has come before me on appeal under Defence Regulation 68CA against the refusal of the Malton Urban District Council to consent to the use of the premises for non-residential purposes. The appeal is at present under consideration. I do not think that on the particular issue on which the case comes before me it should be necessary to hold a local inquiry.

Before the Minister considers the appeal, will he hear the views of the inhabitants of Malton either at a public local inquiry or otherwise?

I shall certainly consider all relevant factors before coming to a decision.

asked the Minister of Health the cost of the issue of identity cards annually; how many officers are employed in connection therewith; and at which centres in Great Britain and-Northern Ireland are records kept.

It is not possible to state separately the total number of persons employed in the National Registration service, or the total cost, since the local offices are also food offices, and the same staff does both classes of work. Records are kept at Southport, Edinburgh and Belfast, where a staff of approximately 1,000 is employed at a cost of £235,000 per annum.

Arising out of that unsatisfactory answer, could I have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will take steps to abolish this system, which was set up by the last Government, and which is now not necessary in peacetime?

I have explained before, that I, personally, find the use of an identity card repugnant, but such cards are very serviceable and must be retained while they are of some use.

If it be the case that there are 1,000 servants of the State employed in the various offices at a total cost of £235,000, does the right hon. Gentleman really regard £235 per head, as a proper figure to pay for the retention of these cards?

That is also a question which is being aimed in the wrong direction.

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that male nurses in mental hospitals are finding it difficult to gain experience of general nursing so as to enable them to qualify for the General Nursing Certificate; and if he will arrange for greater numbers of male nurses from mental hospitals to be loaned to general hospitals for suitable periods.

I am aware of the difficulty, and in January my Department issued a circular to hospital owning authorities and voluntary hospitals recommending more general employment of male nurses and the introduction of facilities for training where they do not already exist. I have also commended to local authorities and visiting committees the recommendation of the Mental Nurses sub-committee of the Rushcliffe Committee with regard to the secondment of mental nurses for general training.

asked the Minister of Health how many Polish military doctors, being repatriated with General Anders' army, will be allowed to practise in this country other than with the Resettlement Corps, in view of the fact that battle casualties no longer occur and the establishment necessary will be smaller.

I am considering this matter, but I am not yet in a position to give the detailed information asked for by the hon. Member.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will consider making a survey of atmospheric pollution in the Black Country.

Regular measurements of atmospheric pollution are made in the Black Country by four local authorities and one commercial firm, as part of the investigation of atmospheric pollution carried out cooperatively between the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, local authorities and other organisations. Special surveys of matter deposited from the air have also been made at Bilston and Walsall.

asked the Minister of National Insurance whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the substitution of family allowances for other forms of children's allowances, as from the date when family allowances start to be payable, will have the effect of reducing the amount at present being drawn by men with two or more children in receipt of children's allowances both under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and also under the Unemployment Insurance Act; and what action he proposes to take.

Yes, Sir: I am glad to be able to inform my hon. Friend that with a view to avoiding reduction in the cases to which he refers, an arrangement has been made with the British Employers' Confederation covering the position of men who are or may become entitled to weekly payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts in respect of an accident occurring before 6th August, 1946, the date when family allowances begin to be payable. The Confederation has undertaken to recommend to employers and their insurers that if, at any time after 6th August, such a man, while entitled to workmen's compensation payments, also draws unemployment benefit because he is capable of work but unable to find suitable employment, payment of supplementary allowances for children under the Workmen's Compensation Acts should be made in respect of any period during which he draws unemployment benefit.

May I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the importance of the reply, to give the widest publicity to it, in the hope that employers outside the Confederation may carry out its terms?

Yes, Sir. I have met a deputation from the Trades Union Congress, and in cooperation with them we shall make it known to the workers. The Employers' Confederation are also going to bring it to the attention of all employers, and we shall do our best to give it the widest publicity.

Will the right hon. Gentleman cooperate more closely with the Minister of Health in regard to this matter, because the same policy does not seem to be pursued by that Department?

asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Circular 114/46, which directs that family allowances under the Family Allowances Act, 1945, must be taken into account in cases where the tuberculosis allowance is paid under Memo. 266/T, is penalising families of tubercular patients; and if he will reconsider this matter with a view to its modification.

asked the Minister of Health why he is reducing the allowances of beneficiaries under the pulmonary tuberculosis scheme by the amount of the beneficiary's receipts under the Family Allowances Act, 1945; and when he informed Parliament of his intention to deprive this section of the community of the advantage which the Family Allowances Act would otherwise have granted it.

The point raised by my hon. Friends has had my fullest consideration. The tuberculosis allowances for children are, however, substantially more generous than family allowances, and if the latter were not taken into account the result would be a double payment for the same child, and would be inconsistent with the principles recently confirmed by this House in the National Insurance Bill.

Does this mean that in point of fact additional income will be coming into the homes of the fortunate as against the homes of the unfortunate?

That is a consequence of the principles to which I have referred. There could be a question about the adequacy of the allowance itself. There cannot be, under the principles we have accepted, any question of duplication.

Does the Minister realise that this is imposing a serious hardship upon a very struggling section of the community, and will he explain, if there is justification for them to have the tuberculosis scheme allowance, how that justification is reduced when they have benefited in income with the rest of the people?

There is no additional hardship imposed. The question that has been put is whether there ought to be duplication. I have said that the House has determined that there should not be duplication. If there is inadequacy of allowance, that is an entirely different position.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there have been issued more than 1,700 Statutory Orders, which have the force of law, during the first 11 months of peace; if he will give an assurance that steps will be taken to diminish the number of Statutory Orders issued during the period to the end of 1946; and if he will also take steps to reduce the number of Departments and officials at present numbering some 18 and over 300, respectively, who have the power vested in them to make these Orders.

The reply to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." In reply to the second part of the Question, the only assurance I can give the hon. Member is that all necessary measures for the rapid reconstruction and rehabilitation of the country will continue to be taken. As regards the third part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr, Lennox Boyd) on Tuesday last.

Does the Prime Minister realise that this should not be a party question, but a question of upholding the prestige and authority of the House of Commons? Further, is he not aware that if the present system is maintained, and worse still, is developed, the authority of the House of Commons must inevitably be undermined?

I am sure that, with the hon. Member's assistance, we shall maintain the dignity of the House of Commons.

With regard to the last part of the Question, can the Prime Minister tell us what precisely is the difficulty in having Ministers in charge of Departments sign these Statutory Rules and Orders, if necessary over an initial signature by one of their subordinates? Why is it necessary for the subordinate chiefs in the Department to sign, and not the Minister?

The noble Lord might have raised this matter when a Question was asked on Tuesday last, on which the whole matter was very fully ventilated.

Will the Prime Minister say whether his reply to the second part of the Question is equivalent to an affirmative or a negative?

I shall have to look at it.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise on the Adjournment this whole question, which is of vital and absolute importance.

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that no consultations took place between the Ministers of Food and Agriculture when the decision was taken to cut down 16 acres of growing wheat to extend the aeronautical research station near Bedford; and what machinery he intends to set up to obtain better coordination between these two Ministries.

It is quite appropriate that decisions in individual cases of this kind shouud be taken on the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and without consultation. I am satisfied that the existing machinery is adequate to ensure the fullest coordination between the Ministers of Food and Agriculture on all broad questions of mutual concern.

Is the Prime Minister aware that that opinion is not shared by many hon. Members in all parts of the House? Is he further aware that this is only one of many examples of lack of coordination and consultation between Government Departments? Could he not take the opportunity of the Recess to overhaul the whole machinery of Government?

As the Member of Parliament affected by this Question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, while a great many of my constituents regret the necessity for what has happened, they are quite determined that it shall not be used as part of a Tory ramp?

Did not the Departments concerned understand that this would probably happen—that but for the agreement of the Minister of Agriculture a very much larger area of land now to be cropped would have had to be immobilised, that the wheat concerned is being used for silage, and that the Research Station is of the first importance to the country's welfare?

—To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will now indicate what steps the Government propose to take to prevent commercial broadcasting in this country, or when he hopes to be in a position to make a statement.

May I call attention to a misprint in this Question? The phrase "in this country" should read "to this country."

I am afraid I must answer the Question on the Paper. No one can originate broadcasts in this country without a licence from the Postmaster-General and the only licence granted will be that to the B.B.C. which is prohibited from broadcasting commercially sponsored programmes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared, now or later, to answer the question as to what steps he is taking to prevent broadcasting to this country from other countries?

I dealt with that in the Debate on the B.B.C. I may add that another factor which influences us in that matter is the opinion of the newspaper proprietors, for which the Government have every consideration. They said last year that the members of the Newspapers Proprietors' Association are opposed in principle to the introduction of any system of sponsored radio broadcasting in this country, they considered it would be detrimental to the interests of the public as listeners, and that it was unnecessary from the point of view of advertisers. That is another contributing factor which does influence the minds of the Government, as we think the views of the newspapers are entitled to be taken into account.

There is some misunderstanding here. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he proposes to prevent Luxemburg broadcasting to this country; does he also propose to prevent any other stations with a similar objective?

If the hon. Gentleman thought that I was worried about the United States of America in this case, he would be wrong. I am concerned with cases where there is specific organisation for the purpose of directing sponsored programmes at this country.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the mortality rate-per 1,000 for infants, under one year of age, for the four months ended 30th April, 1946, or other convenient period, in the area for which he is responsible.

Over the first four months of this year, the infant mortality rate for the British Zone of Germany and the British Sector of Berlin was 111 per 1,000 live births.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements are in being for the transfer of lunatics from the Soviet to the British zone and vice versa; and if any totals can be given of the number of persons so transferred.

There are no special arrangements of this kind.

Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that reports which have reached this country from serving officers state that a train carrying more than 200 lunatics coming from a non-British zone was driven into the British zone where the occupants were abandoned; that the train returned to the zone from which it came, and that no one took charge of these unfortunate and unaccompanied men and women?

I am not aware of the alleged incident. There have in fact been no separate despatches of lunatics from the Russian zone into the British zone or vice versa. There have probably been individual cases where mentally defective people have come in with the other exchanges of population but, of course, lunacy like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Was this not a deliberate attempt to smuggle Tory votes into Bexley?

Has any organised party exceeding 200 in number come in from a non-British zone and been so abandoned in the British zone? The Minister has been unable to tell the House but I can supply the hon. Gentleman with incontrovertible information.

I should of course be glad to have that information, but I am afraid the hon. Member is misinformed because our information about what has come from the Soviet zone is fairly accurate because it is all checked. The hon. Gentleman may have particulars relating to an incident which originated from some other quarter.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to remove the 400,000 displaced persons now in Austria receiving a larger ration, free of all cost, than that accorded to Austrian citizens, who are doing no work even for their own upkeep except that they are supplying the black market and are menacing public security in Austria.

I do not admit the implications in the Question. The total of 400,000 would include not only displaced persons proper but all refugees of German nationality or extraction expelled from Austrian territories, a number of whom the Austrian Government do not desire to lose as they represent a valuable addition to Austrian economy.

So far as the British zone is concerned displaced persons do not receive a larger ration than the Austrian citizens, their ration is not free of all cost, they are not exempt from useful work but are in fact directed to work under penalty of imprisonment. They are not considered a menace to public security.

Repatriation of displaced persons is going on and the final dispersal of the residue is a matter which is receiving the urgent attention of His Majesty's Government and U.N.O.

Will my right hon. Friend be willing to meet a representative of the Austrian Government who provided this information, and will he take these facts into account?

I have discussed this matter in the last few days with the President and other representatives of the Austrian Government. They are fully aware of the position, and the information we have at our disposal is accurate.