asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement about holding the Lord Mayor's Show on Saturdays.

The traffic problems created by the Lord Mayor's Show have been under examination by a working party representing the interests primarily concerned. I understand that the working party have completed their deliberations and that their report will be in my hands within the next few days.

Does that mean that there is a possibility, if the working party so recommend, that the Lord Mayor's Show will be held on Saturdays in future, because that would help to minimise traffic congestion and provide an opportunity for many thousands of children to witness this popular display?

I think we ought to wait for the report.

Is a working party the same thing as the shorter word "committee"?

Is the traffic congestion caused by the Lord Mayor's Show in the City of London any more serious than the congestion on the Order Paper caused by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's frequent Questions on this subject?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will instruct those in charge of Borstal institutions to enforce stricter discipline so as to prevent boys continually escaping, especially those from the Rochester Institution, who frequently come into the Maidstone area and commit serious offences, causing worry to residents.

The high rate of absconding from Borstal Institutions has given me much concern. The Departmental Committee on Punishments in Prisons and Borstals gave special consideration to the relations between the rate of absconding and the standard of discipline in Borstals. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of their Report, from which he will see that the causes of absconding are complex and that there is no easy solution. The authorities of the institutions are fully conscious of their obligation both to minimise the amount of absconding and to make good losses caused by the absconders.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that since I put this Question down two have absconded, and that I have now a telegram saying that five more have just done the same thing? They have taken a motor car from Maidstone, bashed in one end and then the other and left it destroyed, causing a lot of trouble and disturbance in that area. If something could be done about this, it would be very much appreciated.

I am giving effect to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee that absconders should be dealt with only by the Board of Visitors and not by the Governor. This is being done by administrative action as an experimental measure. I am considering all the recommendations of the Committee, and if my hon. Friend has anything to add to them I shall be pleased to consider his suggestions.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient staff at these institutions, or do they in that respect suffer from the same difficulties as the prisons?

I do not think that the question of staff is as acute as it is in the prisons, but I have this matter very much in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why he first detained, then refused leave to land and finally deported, Madame Enthoven, a Dutch citizen, Madame Lucianne Bouffioux and Maitre Thomas, both Belgian citizens and Signor Rizzo an Italian citizen, who are all distinguished lawyers and whose purpose in visiting this country, as was well-known to his immigration officers at the time, was to have private consultations with Mr. D. N. Pritt, Q.C., about certain legal matters in which they were interested together;

I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together.

On a point of order. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will answer these Questions separately because there are separate points involved, raising quite different issues. It would be convenient if they were answered separately.

Perhaps we had better hear the answer and then we can judge.

I hope that the answer covers both points. If not, I will try to deal with them, if you should so decide, Mr. Speaker. The answer is as follows:

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that those of us who have known him for as long as I have respect him very much as a democratic lawyer? This body was proposing to hold a private discussion among some individual members of its committee with a well-known and highly distinguished lawyer in this country. Does he think that that affords a good ground for the exercise of his discretionary powers? Will he say what question of public safety was involved or whether there was anything in the records of these ladies and gentlemen which made them amenable to the criminal law in any way?

The principle upon which I acted I have made clear to the House on more than one occasion. It is that I will not let people come into an artificially created body which under the guise of some harmless name is really an instrument of Soviet propaganda. I am quite prepared to consider their coming into the country to deal with legal business in individual cases.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman now aware that the precise question which these ladies and gentlemen were proposing to discuss, and which I submit to him with very great respect they had every right to discuss, was the arrest of a member of a democratic Parliament in another country, and that questions of Parliamentary immunity, which are of great importance to all democracies, were involved in it? Will he bear in mind that the question which they wished to further itself became adopted by the French Court in question, so there could not have been anything very nefarious about it? May I have a reply?

The subject which the hon. Gentleman mentioned was a question concerned with a particular Communist. It was quite obvious that it was for the purpose of using this body, which I have described twice, for the purposes which I have indicated that these people had come.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether the organisation to which he refers is one of those Communist front organisations which members of the Labour Party are forbidden to support?

I do not want to be controversial on this matter. I have stated the principle, and I think I take the vast majority of the House with me on the principle I have stated.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are afforded to his officers, to the immigration authorities, or to the police for listening without the authorisation of telephone subscribers concerned to telephone conversations between private citizens and those having business with them.

The express authority of the Secretary of State is required before a third person is given permission to listen in to a telephone conversation without the authority of the subscriber. The Secretary of State gives his authority only in exceptional circumstances.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, first of all, under what authority he acts when he gives this permission, what power he has to do it, and whether it is not a case that the precise purpose for which the meeting referred to in Question No. 9 was to be held became known to him only by the unauthorised use of this procedure.

To deal with the second point first, if the hon. Gentleman is still referring to the subject matter of the last Question, that became known from the documents in the possession of the people when they were stopped by the immigration authorities. With regard to the first point, it is a power which has been used by every Government of whatever political faith since the telephone was invented and is a Prerogative power.

I asked what was the source of the power. Are we to understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no statutory authority at all to give this permission? What is it that gives him his Prerogative power of which no hon. Member has ever heard up to this moment?

I cannot imagine that there is any hon. Member who is not aware of this power, because it has been discussed several times. I have said that it is a Prerogative power and I have given the conditions under which it is used.

Owing to the extremely unsatisfactory, not to say mischievous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—nature of the replies which have been given to Questions Nos. 9, 10 and 11, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of inviting the House to debate the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the present annual cost per student of the National Fire Service College.

The total number of students who attended courses at the College in 1951–52 was 385 and the net cost of the College was£47,000. The courses vary greatly in length and it has been found more convenient and informative to express the cost in relation to student weeks. The cost per student week in 1951–52 was£22 6s. 0d.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether there is any other educational institution in the world which costs£22 per student week?

I cannot tell my hon. Friend that, but the work which is being done at the college, especially the course in war-time fire fighting, is of the utmost importance. The House will probably like to know that, despite the increases in salaries and wages and costs generally, the cost per student week has fallen each year since 1948–49 when it stood at£40, and I hope it will fall further.

asked the Secretary of State for the 1-Tome Department when the hon. Member for Maldon may expect a reply to his letter of 27th June, concerning the alleged ill-treatment of a four-year-old child.

I am informed that the welfare of the child is a matter of which the High Court is taking cognisance. I am satisfied that no action on my part is called for, but I am awaiting fuller information regarding certain recent proceedings before replying to the hon. Member.

While I appreciate the difficulty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that a case is, I think, still sub judice, may I ask him if he, in turn, appreciates the difficulty that if there is prima facie evidence of cruelty—he has seen the affidavits—it is surely intolerable that a child should be exposed to continuing cruelty because of the otherwise perfectly proper sub judice inhibition?

On receipt of the hon. Gentleman's letter I referred the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether there was evidence of a criminal offence. I have seen all the statements in this matter, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty that I am in, in view of the fact that the new statements were among those considered by the High Court at the recent hearing, which was concluded on 17th July, and that an injunction was granted against the hon. Member's correspondent last year to restrain him from making further defamatory statements regarding the other party to the case. The High Court has arranged for a welfare officer to visit the child weekly, and the officer has reported that all is well.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in view of the increase of crimes of violence in England and Wales, from 2,533 in 1936 to 7,188 in 1951, what steps he proposes to take to bring about a reduction of crimes of this nature.

I wish that there were a simple remedy to this problem. The increase in crime gives cause for great concern to all of us. I have been giving anxious thought to it and I should welcome any suggestions which my hon. Friend may wish to put to me as to what steps might usefully be taken.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply, but does he not consider it our gravest social problem that citizens engaged in their lawful pursuits should be robbed, maimed and murdered daily in our towns and cities? Does he feel that proper use is being made of the specials to assist the regular police in maintaining law and order?

I shall consider that suggestion. I have answered Questions on this point and I assure the House that I am personally considering it as carefully as I can.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce legislation to amend the Shops Act in the light of the recommendations of the Gowers Committee; and whether he is now in a position to consult with the various interests in the trade, including the trade union concerned.

I am not at present in a position to say when legislation on shop hours will be practicable. I will of course consult the interests concerned when the time is ripe.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that most of our shops legislation is 40 years out of date and that even the more modern legislation is a quarter of a century out of date? Can he say when he hopes to tackle this matter?

I am considering the matter, but at the moment it is extremely difficult to fit in legislaion.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the people who seem to be least consulted —the general shopping public—are consulted this time?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to introduce a winter closing order as provided for in the Shops Act, 1950.

I have arranged to discuss next week with the interested organisations the question whether the further continuation of the emergency provisions incorporated in the Shops Act relating to the winter closing hours of shops can he justified.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Order was introduced on 9th July last year and that there is considerable concern among the workers in the trade whether the main attack on wages perpetrated by the Government a fortnight ago is now to be followed by a gross attack on their working conditions? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that, until such time as amending legislation on the lines of the Gowers Report is introduced, to abolish the Order would be a gross injustice to shop workers?

Again, I will not deal with controversial premises; but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree, and that the whole House would approve, that the first thing to do before making up one's mind on the subject is to consult the trade unions and the employers to get their views. That I am going to do next week.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what supervision is exercised by his Department where experiments are made on animals in the course of atomic energy research.

The performance on any living vertebrate animal of any experiment calculated to give pain is subject to the restrictions imposed by the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. These include requirements that the experimenter shall hold a licence (and in many cases additional certificates) and that the experiment shall be carried out on registered premises open to inspection by inspectors under the Act.

I am no crank on these matters, but will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is a difference between experimenting on live animals when it is in the interests of preserving life and when it is a case of the destruction of life? Can he give a more satisfactory assurance that there is adequate supervision by his Department at these research stations?

I will certainly look into the point, and if the hon. Gentleman has any special aspect of it to raise I will very gladly discuss it with him.

Have the inspectors a right of entry into Harwell and other atomic energy establishments?

They have a right of entry into the premises concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has now been made towards the setting up of a Press Council.

I understand that the Press still have the matter under consideration.

Would the Secretary of State agree that while the Press of this country holds a deservedly high reputation and that we should regret any interference with its independence by the Government, the recent allegation that statements attributed to Mrs. Maclean and a spokesman of the Foreign Office were not made, and, indeed, that no personal interview with Mrs. Maclean took place, have caused a certain amount of public misgiving? Would he also agree that the reluctance of one newspaper to publish any denial has also given rise to misgiving, and would he not, therefore, consider some legislation to compel newspapers to publish denials in such cases or, better still, encourage the Press to set up their own Press Council for the protection of their own journalists and the public? Otherwise, there is a great danger of a public demand being made for Government action on this subject.

Should the hon. Member not have declared his mother-in-law's interest in this subject before putting his supplementary question?

I have read all the documents in the incident to which the hon. Member referred, and I am sure he would not expect me to give a decision between the conflicting accounts: but I think I am perfectly entitled to say that the particular incident is one that the Press should take into account in considering the urgency of setting up a Press Council.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he has read all the documents in this case. Did he see the allegation made in the article in the" Observer" that the staff of the "Daily Express" newspaper were alleged to have interrogated small children to report about their parents, and is not that a Nazi-like practice?

I have seen all the reports and I think the House will agree with me when I repeat that that sort of incident makes the urgency of setting up a Press Council a matter to be considered.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps his Department takes to call up for National Service those who have been deferred and cease to have any justification for their deferment from National Service.

All cases in which deferment of call-up has been granted are kept under review. Where it is found that the conditions are no longer satisfied, deferment is terminated, and the man, if medically fit, is called up.

Will the hon. Gentleman give this matter his attention, because I understand that sometimes there is a great delay and that some persons are not called up at all? Does he not agree that those who are deferred on educational and other grounds have no right to any advantage over those who are forced into the Services at 18; and.is he not aware that there are those who send their children abroad to dodge military service?

I think it right to make it quite plain that my Ministry takes the utmost care to see that the call-up operates fairly and that everybody is brought into it. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case he wants to bring to my attention I will certainly look at it.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his Department is not as active in this matter as he states they are, and will he give this matter his immediate attention?

asked the Minister of Health whether he can yet say what decision has been reached in respect to the 10 remaining day nurseries in Kent; what factors were considered; and what advice he gave.

Yes, Sir; the Kent County Council has decided to close five of the 10 nurseries as from today, and to keep the remaining five open for the time being; I understand that the Council considered the extent of the need for the provision of this service, and the decision was in accordance with the advice which I had given.

Do I now understand that it was the Minister who said that five were to be closed now and, to avoid hardship, another five on 31st March? Is he aware that there will then be no day nurseries at all and, because of the stringent conditions of admission for the children of widows and unmarried mothers, I plead with him to come to Crayford during the Recess to look personally into each case, because there is grave disquiet in Kent and more will be heard about it if that is the final decision.

I have dealt with this matter myself but it is primarily one for the county council. Their proposal was to close 10. I thought that was wrong and I put counter-proposals to them, which they have accepted and which I have outlined today to the hon. Member, but I am quite prepared to look at it again.

Thank you.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the recent exercises by a United States Navy task force under United Nations Command in the strait between Formosa and the Chinese mainland; in view of the differing policies towards the Chinese Nationalist regime in Formosa pursued by the United States Government and by Her Majesty's Government, what consultations between the two Governments preceded this demonstration; and if he will give an assurance that no ships or men of the Royal Navy will b.; used in similar exercises in these waters.

The exercises to which the hon. Member refers were undertaken by units of the United States 7th Fleet and were not carried out under the authority of the United Nations. There is no reason why the United States Government should consult Her Majesty's Government. No exercises in the area by units of the Royal Navy are under consideration at the present time.

In view of the obvious political implications of this show of force off the mainland of China, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is one of those matters on which there should have been consultation between the Governments—[Hors. MEMBERS: "No."]—particularly in view of the fact that last Monday, in another place, the Minister of Defence was, apparently, so shocked by the news of these exercises that he refused to believe that they had ever taken place, stating that he had been shown all the plans of the American Navy and that this was far outside what they had intended? There has, therefore, obviously been a change of policy.

I wonder if I might trespass on the hon. Member's courtesy to ask him to put to me the actual point of the question or statement which he has just made.

I will try to do so. In another place on Monday, the Minister of Defence was questioned about these same exercises. He said that so far as he knew, they had never taken place at all, and he found it difficult to believe that they had, because, as he said:

… when I was with the Royal Navy I was shown their plans"—

"and orders, and they were very limited indeed in regard to where they could go in the direction of China."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 28th July, 1952; Vol. 178, c. 301]

There is no change of policy, and there need be no amplification of the answer which I have already given.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the interest which he has shown in the fair treatment of members of the Armed Forces, he will personally receive a deputation representing those officers who retired before 1st September, 1950, and are thereby deprived of the increased pension granted to those who retired after that date.

The matter is already under consideration as the result of the representations made by the Parliamentary deputation which was received by my noble Friend the Minister of Defence on 21st July.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I brought this question to his notice because the matter has been constantly urged upon the Minister of Defence ever since this Parliament has been in existence and that nothing has been done about it? There is a great deal too much delay in meeting this very unfair discrimination against the officers who retired earlier, and urgent action is required. Will my right hon. Friend see that it is taken?

I certainly think that the statement which my hon. and learned Friend has made now is one which will attract the attention of the Minister of Defence and, indeed, command a wide measure of public attention.

Where a pension is increased simply on the grounds that the purchasing power of money has depreciated, is it not grossly unjust to exclude one class whose money has equally depreciated with that of the other classes?

The horrible.fall in the purchasing power of the£ sterling, which was the characteristic, if not the consequence, of the occupancy of office by the party opposite, is one of our greatest problems, and there is no reproach which we feel more poignantly than that we in nine months have not been able to put right what they did in six years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this appeal is based on the elementary principle that it costs an officer who retired before a certain date just as much to live as it costs an officer who retired after that date?

I do not think that any party interchanges ought to prejudice in any way the fullest consideration being given to a fairly obvious case.

rose—

Order. It is now half past three.

To ask the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, how many of the staff in the Members' Dining Room have been given dismissal notices; how many more dismissals are contemplated; and what alternative staff are to be engaged.

On a point of order. In view of the fact that the House rises tomorrow for the Recess and the action which is being taken by the Kitchen Committee on behalf of all hon. Members of the House, may I ask whether it would be possible for the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward) as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, to answer Question No. 106, Sir?

I am afraid that the rules prevent that.

Further to that point of order. As it would be impossible for the House to do justice to this case because of the time factor involved, is it not possible for you to extend your indulgence, Sir, to a matter which is of prime importance because of the violation of very important trade union rules in this connection?

I have just looked at the Question. I am afraid I cannot relax the rule. Otherwise, there would be no end to it; every hon. Member whose Question was not reached would think he had a similar right. This seems, from the glance I have had at the Question, to concern the action of the Kitchen Committee, which is an all-party Committee. Surely there are other ways of dealing with this domestic matter, through the usual channels.

rose—

Order. I am afraid I must maintain the rules of the House.

Further to that point of order. You said, quite rightly of course, that you must maintain the rules of the House, but the rules of the House have enabled you in previous months to allow a Question to be asked if the Minister has asked for permission, even at this hour of Question time. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Steward) asked your permission to answer the Question, would you allow the Question to be asked and answered, Sir?

If the hon. Member reflects, he will see that that procedure would land the House into numerous repetitions of the difficulty. The rule is quite clear; if a Minister, in the public interest, asks my permission to reply to a Question that has not been reached, and I approve, that can be done but I could not have such a breach in the rules as is suggested.

rose—