§ 27. Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Prime Minister whether, now that the country is at peace, he will dissolve the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) and remit its officials to reproductive industry, hand over the various premises in Carlisle and elsewhere to the Disposal Board for sale to the highest bidder, release the central offices in Piccadilly at present occupied by the headquarters staff of the Board, and thereby at once salve the money and the personal freedom of the community?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt)My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to all parts of the question is in the negative.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling there is in the country on this question and that the fact that the electors generally have protested against these Regulations, and will he persist in maintaining them against the views of the nation?
§ Mr. SHORTTMy answer remains the same.
§ 28 Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Prime Minister whether he, by the hands of his secretary, on 26th November, 1918, wrote in reply to a communication from the League of the Man in the Street that he fully recognised the desirability of withdrawing as soon as possible, and as far as the military situation permitted, any restrictions which have been imposed by reason of the War on the social habits of the people of this country, and desired equally with the said league that these restrictions should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity; whether the restrictions referred to were the orders of the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic); and what military situation compels the continuation either of the restrictions or the Board?
§ Mr. SHORTTMy right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The reply to the first part is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, it is clear that the letter of November, 1918, did not refer mainly to the restrictions of the Central Control Board. On the contrary—while, as a matter of fact, a large number of the Board's restrictions have been withdrawn or modified since the date of the letter referred to—it has always been understood that many of the war-time liquor regulations might have to be retained in force till Parliament could deal with the question of legislation. Nothing could be plainer than the declarations which the Prime Minister made on this subject on the 11th May, 1915, in a Debate upon an Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr Burghs.
§ Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGIs it not a fact that the Nonconformist vote in this country is such as to prevent the Government from introducing a Liquor Bill, although they know that this House would remove quite a number of the restrictions and control if they had an opportunity of debating it?
§ Mr. MACQUISTENDoes the right hon. Gentleman not know that the people acquainted with the trade consider that all these restrictions have been purely futile and have had no effect on the increased production of munitions; and are, in fact, regarded by a majority of the citizens of this country as pieces of gross impertinence?
§ Mr. W. THORNEIf the Local Control Board desired to remove these restrictions, have they got the power even if they have the will?
§ Mr. BILLINGWill the right hon. Gentleman give the House an early opportunity of debating the whole question?
§ Mr. SHORTTThat question should not be put to me.
§ Mr. BILLINGThen I will ask the Prime Minister if he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the question of liquor control?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThere is nothing would please me better than that I should have an opportunity of presenting the case. It would have to be fully stated, but the question of affording time for a discussion is one which must be put to the Leader of the House.
§ 29. Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Prime Minister how much capital expenditure for the building, fittings; and equipment of canteens and other premises wherein the Liquor Control Board carry on the sale of exciseable liquors has been debited to or paid for by the Ministry of Munitions; whether the Board paid no licence duty for its numerous premises, and how much such licence duty would have amounted to if the businesses of the Board had been carried on by an individual trader or traders instead of a Wartime bureaucracy; and will he direct that these capital and licence duty charges be debited to the Board in order that a true and just balance sheet of their operations may be struck?
§ Mr. SHORTTI have been asked to reply. No capital expenditure in respect of any of the canteens or other premises to which that statement relates has been debited or charged to the Ministry of Munitions. All capital outlays and liabilities have been debited to the Board, 1431 and all licence-duties have been paid by the Board, as fully as though the Board were an ordinary trading firm.
§ 41. Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government has made any independent inquiry as to the result on the sobriety and well-being of the nation of the regulations imposed during the War by the Liquor Control Board; whether they have arrived at any decision as to the experimental State-ownership in Carlisle; and, if so, whether he could communicate it to the House before the Liquor Control Bill comes on for Second Reading.
§ Mr. SHORTTMy right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The answer to the first part is in the negative. The Government have determined that no change will be made until the whole matter is dealt with by legislation.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSMay I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the statement that he made just now that he will welcome an opportunity of putting before the House the evidence he has with regard to the Control Board, he will do so at an early date, or cause an independent inquiry to be made, in order that the rumours that are floating about on both sides may be sifted?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThere will be an opportunity on the Second and Third Readings of the Consolidated Fund Bill. If the House is really interested, and I trust it is, in that very important question, any Member, or number of Members, can raise it on those occasions.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWhat I was asking was whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause an independent inquiry to be made, in order that hon. Members my learn the truth as to the result of these experiments which have taken place during the War.
§ Mr. BILLINGNow that the Leader of the House is here, may I ask whether he is aware that the Prime Minister referred to him as the final authority as to whether we may or may not have an opportunity of discussing this matter, whether he is prepared to give us a date, and, if not, whether he will set aside, with the permission of Mr. Speaker, a certain portion of the time of the House 1432 on the Consolidated Fund Bill to debate this question, so that it may have the opportunity that it deserves, and not be smothered by the various other subjects that usually arise on that occasion?
§ Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House)The hon. Member is mistaken, and so was the Prime Minister, if he really said that I am the final authority on anything. No better opportunity could probably be found than that which has been indicated by the Prime Minister, and Mr. Speaker is always ready to facilitate the arrangements in such matters.
§ Mr. BILLINGWill the Government put down some Resolution, or use some Parliamentary procedure which will enable due attention to be given to this matter, and call the attention of Members of the House to the Debate?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWHon. Members who are familiar with the procedure of the House will know that such procedure as that suggested is quite unnecessary. Particular subjects are discussed over and over again on both these occasions.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENCan we not have an independent inquiry into this wretched Board, because we shall simply be met by emphatic statements from the bureaucracy defending its job?