26 and 27 Viscountess Astorasked the Home Secretary (1) whether the Government are considering a return to the wartime restrictions on the sale and supply of alcoholic beverages as a measure of national safety; and whether any step will be taken to discourage public advertisement designed to increase the sale of intoxicants for the duration of the war;
(2)whether the Government contemplate the reinstitution of the no-treating order for the protection of men and women on duty in the Defence services against hospitality by the public, and for the greater efficiency and safety of the services?
§ Sir J. AndersonThe existing restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquor which are contained in the Licensing Act, 1921, are similar to the restrictions which were imposed in the last war. As regards treating and the other matters to which the Noble Lady refers, I am, as I said on Friday last, watching the situation carefully, but as yet I have no information to indicate that special measures are needed to check the consumption of alcohol.
Viscountess AstorIf I brought my right hon. Friend cases not from one, but from all areas, particularly areas where young. soldiers are being treated, would he consider the matter? Were not the hours for the sale of alcohol quite different in the last war from what they are now, and was not that not on account of drunkenness, but mainly on account of output?
§ Sir J. AndersonI will certainly consider any information with which the Noble Lady can furnish me, but we have to recognise that the public are at present subject to many restrictions, and we should be sure of our ground before we act. As regards the second part of the question, it is quite true that the hours fixed under the Defence of the Realm Regulations during the last war were somewhat shorter than those in the Licensing Act, but those hours were very much 1049 shorter than the normal hours previously enforced. I do not think any case has yet been made out.
§ Mr. MacquistenI want to ask a question on No. 27.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is no good my trying to get through questions if hon. Members will insist upon asking supplementaries.
§ Mr. MacquistenI want to put one supplementary.
§ Mr. Speakerrose—
§ Mr. MacquistenIt is only one supplementary. I must insist on asking this supplementary.
§ Mr. Speakerrose—
§ Mr. MacquistenI really must ask this supplementary. It is only one question, and I will not be ruled out. Is it not inconsistent with the rights of private Members that any Member should be closed down like this on a question that affects the liberties of the individual?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and learned Member, like others, must realise that we cannot allow too many supplementary questions.
§ Mr. MacquistenBut one question is not too many.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member must be respectful to the Chair.
§ Mr. MacquistenThe Chair must respect the rights of Members.
§ Mr. Garro JonesOn a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the difficulty that has just arisen does not indicate the desirability of giving consideration to a Motion which I put on the Paper, requesting that the number of supplementaries that could be asked should be evened out to some extent by not allowing six on one question and only one on another?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think the House generally approves of the present procedure.
§ Mr. NaylorFurther to that point of Order. Would it not be better for the Noble Lady to take the hon. and learned Gentleman out and treat him?