asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Committee now sitting in connection with the export of cement to Holland has sent an expert to Holland to inquire on the spot as to the destination with regard to cement ex ported to Holland?

As I have not yet received the Committee's Report, I am unable to say what steps they have taken in the course of their inquiries.

When is the Committee likely to report, and will the Noble Lord ask if such a representative has been sent to Holland?

I do not think that it would be a very convenient form to ask about the proceedings of the Committee until it has reported, when it can be seen what steps should be taken. I understand that the Report is likely to be presented very shortly.

asked what food stuffs are being exported at the present time to Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark?

For many months past practically no foodstuffs have been licensed for export to Holland, Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, apart from goods released from the Prize Court. Such small quantities of certain commodities as are exported to those countries at the present time have been licensed chiefly for the use of Diplomatic and Consular officials. Certain raw materials of foodstuffs—for instance, cocoa beans and margarine materials—continue to be exported for the manufacture of the products which are in return brought to the United Kingdom.

I ought to add, with respect to this question and the next, that the limitation of exports owing to shortage of supplies here is not a matter in which the Ministry of Blockade interferes at all.

asked what quantities of tea by weight were exported from this Kingdom in 1917 to Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway?

The quantities of tea licensed for export in 1917 to the countries concerned are as follow:

Does that cover all exports going to these countries?

I would not like to say that there might not have been some licences issued in the previous year which were worked off in 1917. That is why I answer in that way, but I should imagine that it could only have been very small quantities.

What Minister issues these licences?

It depends entirely upon the subject matter. The War Trade Department issues all the licences. It acts under the directions of the Ministry of Food in the matter of food, under the Board of Trade in matters of ordinary trade, and in matters naval and military it acts under the Ministry of Munitions, the Admiralty, and the War Office.

Who would be responsible for the 600,000 lbs. of tea that went to Sweden in 1916?

That would be a joint responsibility of the Ministry of Blockade and the Ministry of Food. If we were in danger of a shortage of food the Board of Trade would take care that there should be no exports of food from here. If it is a question of goods going from this country, that is a matter for the Ministry of Blockade.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War when a supply of the Mons ribbon will be available for officers entitled to it and who are now serving abroad?

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to hasten the issue of the ribbon of the 1914 Star to those units serving at the front who are entitled to it, seeing that some dissatisfaction is caused by the fact that it has already been issued to troops serving at home?

Supplies of the "1914 Star" ribbon have been dispatched to India and the various theatres of war, and it should now be available for issue except in the more distant theatres. 10,600 yards were sent out to France during January and February, sufficient for a preliminary issue to 95,400 men.

Is there a sufficient supply of ribbon in this country to afford a ribbon for the men here?

I think that there is.

Has any progress been made with the issue of the Gallipoli medal?

I do not think that that question arises.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War (1) whether Maurice Applebaum, of Morriston, South Wales, a Russian Pole, born at Warsaw, is confined to Wormwood Scrubs for re- fusing as a conscientious objector to serve with the British forces; whether this man can now be released and allowed to return to his native country; (2) whether he is aware that Erie Fox, aged twenty years, has been four times court-martialled as a conscientious objector and is now awaiting his fifth court-martial at Dover; and whether, in view of recent promises against repeated convictions and the signs shown by Eric Fox of his mind being unhinged, his discharge from the Army will be considered?

I should be glad if my hon. Friend would furnish me with the name of the unit and the regimental number in these cases, if he wishes me to make inquiries.

asked the Undersecretary of State for War what steps should be taken by a soldier who has been transferred to the W Reserve, and who, in consequence of disability, desires to be discharged from the Army; and whether a soldier who is suffering from disability caused or aggravated by military service is entitled to receive any pension while he remains in the W Reserve?

The answer to the first' portion of my hon. and learned Friend's question is that the soldier should report to his officer in charge of records, stating his case fully. As regards the latter part, a Class W Reservist is not entitled to receive any pension. It should be borne in mind that no soldier, under present circumstances, is transferred to Class W of the Reserve on other than compassionate grounds, unless definite employment is awaiting him.

If he has been transferred, and if his state of health is so unfit as not to permit of his getting private employment, can he get his discharge and become entitled to pension?

I should like notice of the question. It raises a difficult point.

Is it not the fact that all the man has to do is to go before the Medical Board, and if he gets his discharge he becomes entitled to pension?

I think that is so.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the case of Andrew Russell, at present serving his third term of imprisonment, this time for two years, in Duke Street Prison, Glasgow, as a conscientious objector; and, if so, can he see his way to advise the release of this man for work of national importance, in view of the facts that an assurance has been given by the Home Office that men who have twelve months of approved service and conduct will be returned to such work, and that the Act of Parliament made provision for bond fide conscientious objectors not being forced into the Army?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, the relaxation to which my hon. and learned Friend refers applies only to men employed under the Committee on Employment of Conscientious Objectors, and not to a case such us that mentioned in the question.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Maurice Andrews, No. 76,095, Royal Welsh Fusiliers, is a Russian subject who, having applied for return, to Russia, was prevented by the day assigned being the day of the Jewish new year, and that he has in consequence been court-martialled, confined for eight days in a singlet and pants in Hereford Prison, and is now in danger of physical and mental collapse; and whether this man will now be discharged?

If Andrews was called up under the Convention, it would, I think, be a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister of National Service to answer the first part of the question. As regards the second part, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can no doubt furnish the desired information as to Andrews' condition in Hereford Prison if he is confined there. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to a statement made at the Bakewell Tribunal by a boot operative in an appeal case; if he is aware that the man in question declared that his employer had declined to appeal or any of his employés any longer because they had joined a local branch of the National Society of Boot and Shoe Operatives; and if he will make inquiries into the matter?

I have been asked to reply to this question The cases of certain boot operatives employed within the jurisdiction of the Bakewell Tribunal have been brought to my notice, and I caused inquiries to be made. From the reports which I have received, it appears that the employers had, in the past, obtained periods of temporary exemption for a number of their men and, from time to time, as the certificates expired, had applied for renewal. Recently, on the expiry of the exemptions of certain men, the majority of whom were under thirty years of age, the employers did not apply for renewal. It is not within the competence of the National Service Department to compel employers to apply for the exemption of their men. When, however, a man's certificate granted on his employer's application expires, it is open to him to apply for renewal on his own behalf. This course has, I am informed, been taken by the men in question, who have obtained further temporary exemption from the tribunal.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether he can say if any change has been made in the command of the Labour battalions on the Western Front; whether the general who has been so successful has been given another post; and, if so, will he say why this was done and who is now in charge of the Labour work in France?

I understand that the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend as regards the command of these battalions, but that the reorganisation has been carried out in the interests of efficiency of labour. The brigadier-general, lately in charge, who was no longer required under the new scheme, has been appointed Controller of Salvage,

asked the Minister of National Service if he is aware that men employed by a contractor but who are engaged on Admiralty work are receiving their calling-up papers; that when they appeal to the Enlistment Com plaints Committee there is delay in their case being decided; that when the date of their calling-up notice expires their employer discharges them on the ground that he dare not employ them after the date they are ordered to join the Army; and. seeing that this is a hardship on the men, whether ho will take steps to remove its cause?

It is not clear to what class of workmen the hon. Member refers. If he refers to workmen employed upon Government constructional work, the necessary temporary protection of such men is given by this Ministry on consideration of the requirements submitted by the Government Departments concerned. If he refers to men engaged in an occupation covered by the Schedule of Protected Occupations, such men, if they lodge a claim with the Enlistment Complaints Sub-committee that they are entitled to protection under the Schedule, are not required to report for service until the claim has been decided. Calling-up notices have a slip attached to them informing men that in such cases they should return the calling-up notice, stating the circumstances. If the claim is allowed the calling-up notice is cancelled. I am not aware of the circumstances stated in the concluding part of the question.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the farms of Bandeath, Alton, Drypow, and a large part of the farm of Throsk, in the county of Stirling, all arable farms in a high state of cultivation, have been taken over by the Admiralty; and, if so, whether they will be thrown out of cultivation as the result of their occupation by the Admiralty?

I have been asked to reply to this question. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on Thursday last to the Member for Stirlingshire regarding the same area of land. Since Thursday last I have made further inquiries regarding the taking over of this land, and I am satisfied that we had no alternative.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the farms have been turned out of cultivation?

I explained last Thursday that land which is not being used will remain in cultivation as long as possible. Perhaps my hon. Friend will consult me, and I shall be able to give him greater and more precise details.

asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Fishery Board have power to extend the three-mile limit within which trawling is prohibited; whether it is proposed to do so and, if so, on what grounds; whether requests for this extension have been made by line fishermen who previously opposed it a the ground that trawling was a wasteful and destructive method of fishing, which tended to diminish the total supply of fish; and whether, if an extension is granted, it will be only temporary?

The Fishery Board for Scotland have power under the Sea Fishing (Scotland) Order, 1917, to permit trawling within the three-mile limit, and they have exercised their power by an Order applicable to a limited stretch of coast, and for a limited period, under certain conditions as to size of boats, etc. The request for relaxation of the restrictions on trawling was made by line fishermen.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has made any calculation of the annual loss in fertilisers by the London County Council in not making proper use of the London sewage as recommended by the Royal Commission of 1884; and has he any official information showing that the estimate of the loss made out by competent experts is over £500,000 per annum to the London ratepayers and over £1,000,000 in extra food production is incorrect?

The Board are aware that estimates of the kind referred to by the hon. and gallant Member have been made, but they are advised that under existing conditions the cost of recovery for use in agriculture of the fertilising materials contained in the sewage of London would exceed their value.

What steps are the Board of Agriculture taking to aid the collection of fertilisers throughout the country?

I do not know. The matter has been considered.

Is there not a shortage of fertilisers in the country, and that being so, does not the matter of cost enter into the question, which is one of food production?

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the London County Council is taking any steps to collect and treat the sewage of London with s, view of providing increased fertilisation to the soil; and, if not, whether he will at once appoint a committee to inquire into the possibility of using the sludge which is at present discharged into the sea?

The Board are informed that the London County Council is fully aware of the possibilities of recovering usable products from sewage and that any practicable scheme would receive careful attention. As regards the second part of the question, I will gladly confer with my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on the subject. I should, however, like to remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal, which had been sitting for many years, has only suspended its operations since the outbreak of war.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is in communication with the Feeding Stuffs Department of the Ministry of Food relative to the question of food for calves; and whether, in view of the urgency of the matter, he can make any statement to relieve the anxiety of calf rearers?

It is proposed to allow priority certificates to owners of calves for the purchase of controlled feeding stuffs. The subject is still under discussion, and an announcement may be expected shortly.

Will the Board of Agriculture impress upon the Ministry of Food that if the calf rearers cannot get food for their calves they will have to kill them?

I think we have got that in view.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that recently at Bexley Heath several allotments which had been cultivated by the holders, and which they had made provision to cultivate again this season, have been sold, and that the land was not sold for building purposes; and if he will take steps to prevent allotment holders being unnecessarily disturbed, as the fact of some compensation being given does not remedy these cases?

The Board have not received information concerning this case, but if the hon. Member will supply particulars inquiry will be made.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture what was the acreage under wheat in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland respectively in the years 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917?

The figures are shown in a Table which will be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture if the average yield of potatoes in England and W ales in 1917, 6 tons per acre, was satisfactory; if he is aware that many growers in various parts of the country produced from 12 to 18 tons per acre; and, if so, what steps he has taken to ensure that all persons growing potatoes this year shall be encouraged to obtain the highest possible yield from the ground that they cultivate?

:The average yield of any crop is always far below that attained by the best cultivators upon the more favourable soils, and the difference is greater in the case of potatoes than for most crops. The Board have taken steps through the Food Production Department to secure the distribution of improved seed, to introduce disease-resisting varieties, to increase the supply of fertilisers, and to facilitate and promote spraying, all measures which will assist growers to obtain the maximum yield from the land they cultivate. In view of the food situation, the Board are anxious to secure the planting of potatoes on every possible acre, and are giving every assistance in their power to growers.

Is it not the fact that the vast majority of people in this country growing potatoes obtain very unsatisfactory yields, and can his Department not take some steps to instruct the people of this country how they can get very much larger crops by deeper ploughing and a better use of the manures available, in addition to the points raised by the hon. Member?

A number of instructors are going round the country now.

asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he proposes to define more precisely the utility poultry stock which is to be rationed?

It is not proposed to ration poultry beyond defining the allowance of certain forms of concentrated feeding stuffs which poultry-keepers can be permitted to purchase.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (1) if he will state which authority is to reimburse food control committees for expenditure which the Minister of Food declares, after the expenditure has been incurred, not to be reasonable or necessary; whether the authority which is liable to have to meet that unreasonable and unnecessary expenditure has any control over the expenditure; (2) what statutory authority the Ministry of Food possesses for the issue of paragraph 1 of Circular No. 11 by which it instructs local authorities to advance public funds to food control committees, such committees being independent bodies over which the local authorities has no control or even right to criticism; (3) if he will so amend Circular No. 11 as to require food control committees to get the consent of the financially responsible authority before incurring expenditure which must be met by the authority?

A food control committee can only incur such expenditure as is authorised either by the Food Controller or by the appointing authority or authorities. The circular to which the hon. Member refers is a memorandum to executive officers based on Clause 20 of the Food Control Committees (Constitution) Order, 1917, which indicates that the appointing authority is to advance such moneys as a food committee may require, subject to repayment by the Food Controller of expenditure which he authorises. The Treasury have approved repayment of all expenses reasonably incurred in the years 1917–1918, provided that such expenses are duly certified by the Divisional Food Commissioners. It is not considered that any modification of the circular memorandum is either necessary or desirable.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his Department is prepared to reconsider its refusal to give permission to the Islington Food Control Committee to issue a sugar card to the Islington committee for entertaining wounded soldiers and sailors, a properly constituted authority registered under the War Charities Act, for sugar up to 1 lb. per week for supplying wounded soldiers and sailors with sugar in their tea when being entertained by the committee?

The reply is in the negative Ample supplies of sugar are provided for wounded soldiers through other channels of supply.

asked if there is any intention of the Ministry of Food to reduce the present rations of sugar; and, if so, what reduction is proposed?

I may refer the hon. Member to my answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Hornsey.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will so amend the Order allocating sugar to fruit growers for jam making so as to include others who are not actually growers but who would be prepared to buy fruit or to gather wild fruit for making into jam, which fruit might otherwise be wasted and a valuable food product be therefore lost?

The answer is in the negative. This question has been most carefully considered, but it has been found impossible to devise any watertight scheme which would not lead to a serious misapplication of sugar, or put an undue strain upon the; national stocks.

Can sugar be misapplied by turning it into jam?

I did not intend to imply that in the answer I have given.

asked the Prime Minister whether it is still the intention of the Government that the tractors imported from America by the Government shall remain the property of the Government?

Tractors imported from America for the Food Production Department will continue to be worked under the Department for the present. The question of their ultimate disposal will be considered in due course.

May we take it as quite clear that it is not the intention of the Department to lease or sell these tractors at the present time?

That is so.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he can now state whether prices have been fixed by the Ministry for the retail sale of tinned preserved milk?

Fixed prices for tinned preserved milk have now been settled, and will be announced at an early date.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Eliza Bancaster, smallholder, Brassington Farm, Ubberley, Stoke-on-Trent, who was fined £60 on four summonses at Hanley for selling small quantities of pork, amounting to 11¼lb, at 1d. per lb. more than the maxi mum price fixed by the Food Controller; whether he is aware that in defence she stated her ignorance of the Order in relation to the maximum selling price of pork and that, on finding she had made a mistake, notified her several customers accordingly; whether the Food Controller's representative pressed for such penalties; and if so, having regard to the nature of the circumstances attending such cases, whether he will consider the advisability of instructing food control committees not to press for heavy penalties?

There is no record of any charge against the person named, but there is a report of a conviction against a person of somewhat similar name and address on four summonses for selling pork at a price exceeding the maximum price, in respect of which she was fined £15 and costs in each case. These contraventions were detected by the police and prosecuted in the usual way. It is presumed that the defence mentioned in the question was put in, and that the Bench considered it in estimating the penalties. The Food Control Committee were not concerned in the case.

asked if there is any present intention of the Ministry of Food to ration bread and flour?

All necessary preparations are being made for the rationing of bread and flour, should this become necessary. It has not, however, been decided to introduce rationing in respect of these foods, and it is hoped that if great care is exercised and all waste avoided, the introduction of rationing may be avoided or long postponed.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he will state the powers of the Irish Food Control Committee?

The powers and duties of the Irish Food Control Committee are such as are assigned to them by certain orders of the Food Controller. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the new Food Supply Manual, and he will find these powers set out in detail on pp. 338 to 340 thereof.

Have the Food Control Committee power to insist on the wholesale people supplying their customers on the pre-war standard of foodstuffs, such as sugar?

That is one of the details my hon. Friend will find set out in the latest statement of the Food Control Committee in Ireland.

Has the Food Controller full authority over the Irish Food Control Committee, or have they independent powers of their own?

They have very large powers which they exercise independently of the Food Controller, but on all matters of high importance of policy their action is subject, of course, to the Food Controller.

Will the hon. Gentleman supply other hon. Members with those rules?

Will the information be supplied to all Members of the House?

That is a point I am prepared to consider, because we are anxious to distribute information as widely as possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Food Control Committee complain that they have no independent powers of administration whatever, and are hampered in every possible way by the Food Controller here?

We have certainly not heard of any such complaint from the Irish Food Control Committee, and our experience shows they do exercise wide authority, without any restraint from the Food Controller.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what are the quantities of tea and coffee in the country at the present time; and whether, in view of the fact that coffee is the national beverage of Germans and Austrians, he will direct that prisoners of war shall be supplied with coffee instead of tea, in order that the latter, which is our own national beverage, may be avail able to the fullest extent for the people of this country?

The bonded warehouse stocks on the 28th February were approximately 70,000,000 lbs. of tea and 1,000,000 cwts. of coffee. The importation of coffee has almost entirely ceased, though the home consumption has largely increased. On the other hand, it is intended to maintain the importation of tea at a level sufficient to meet requirements. For these reasons it does not appear desirable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

asked the number of cattle for which £2,480 was paid out in insurance claims for condemnation on account of seizure for tuberculosis during the month of January at Birkenhead; and the principal districts where the seizures were effected?

The number of cattle for which £2,480 was paid out in insurance claims on account of seizure for tuberculosis was seventy-eight. This figure applies to the months of January and February, and not to January alone. The cattle were shipped from Ireland to Birkenhead, and condemned there on arrival.

What becomes of these cattle when they are condemned? Are thy burnt, or what is done with them?

They are disposed of in various ways, but as to how I should require notice of that question.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why these cattle were not examined before shipment, instead of wasting the tonnage on the carriage of I cattle which are condemned on arrival?

I understand the actual condition or symptoms of tuberculosis cannot be discovered until a late stage has been reached.

Is it a suggestion that they develop the disease during the voyage from Ireland?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if, during the months of January and February, any offal was consigned from Birkenhead to the firms of Stack and Company, 2, Wentworth. Street, Spitalfields, and Solomon Oslofski, also of Wentworth Street, Spitalfields; who were the firms consigning same; and on what days were the principal consignments made?

I have been asked to answer this question. I am informed that, of the two firms mentioned, Stack has not received any offal from Birkenhead in the period mentioned. Oslofski has regularly received offal from Horwitz and Abraham, of Birkenhead, for the last thirty years. I am endeavouring to obtain information as to dates on which the principal consignments were received.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether the rationing system at Smithfield has resulted in 500 or 600 men, many of whom have worked for twenty years and more for the same firm, being summarily dismissed, and hardship has been thereby imposed upon a worthy body of men who can only be transferred to other employment with difficulty; and whether he will at once have a registration of these men and draw up a scheme whereby the wholesale association shall be levied to provide for their relief in the same manner that the cotton manufacturers are levied for the relief of the unemployed weavers until sufficient time has elapsed to absorb this surplus labour into useful employment, and that this relief shall apply to all registered men whether trades unionists or otherwise?

I regret that, in consequence of the rationing of meat supplies, the volume of business passing through Smithfield Market has been so materially reduced that some of the wholesalers have been obliged to dismiss a certain number of their staff. A Report on the whole question is being prepared by the Wholesale Meat Supply Association, which will be considered by the Food Controller, and all possible measures taken to afford relief.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if his attention has been called to a Chesterfield health authority having condemned as unfit for human food 5,424 rabbits which were placed in cold storage by the Army authorities some weeks ago; if he is aware that the Chesterfield local authority made an application to the Army authorities to have the rabbits taken out and sold to the public before they got in a state of rottenness; if he can give any reason why permission was refused; if any action has been taken against the responsible persons for allowing such food to go bad when there are so many people in Chesterfield who are finding it difficult to get food; and if he will take action in the matter?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject on the 7th March to my hon. Friend the Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, in which I pointed out that the War Office authorities were in no way responsible. I am still in communication with the Ministry of Food, and will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

asked the Comptroller of the Household, as representing the National Health Insurance Commissioners, if he will state what is the position under the National Insurance Act on returning home of a man who has been interned in an enemy country during the War?

Section 13 of the new Insurance Act keeps alive the insurance of a man who has been interned, however long the period of his captivity, and enables the Commissioners to make a substantial reduction in the arrears of contributions accruing in that period. Further, Section 29 places a small but useful sum, arising from unclaimed contributions, at the disposal of the Commissioners, and I propose that some part of this money should be utilised in pay- ing off the whole of the arrears as so reduced. The effect, as my hon. Friend will see, is that a person who has been interned will, immediately on his return home, be entitled to benefit if incapacitated, and will have no contributions to pay until he again returns to work.

By passing the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill the House will be granting the largest sum of money ever granted at any one time to any Government for any purpose, and in these circumstances it is legitimate that we should ask whether all the expenditure of the Government is necessary expenditure and whether the best use is being made of the vast sums of money which the House is voting. The House of Commons has for some time past been conscious that there has been a great waste of public money in Government Departments, and they have endeavoured to safeguard themselves with respect to the financial control of the House by appointing a National Expenditure Committee, which has been examining into the expenditure of the Departments. The publication of the Report, which appeared in the Press yesterday, on the work of the Ministry of Munitions will show that it was high time that the House examined into the expenditure of the Government. But it is not my purpose now to examine the past expenditure of Government Departments. I do not doubt that the Government are strengthening their financial methods and that they are doing better in the matter of making good use of the money voted. I think an effort is being made throughout the services to reach a, higher standard, and not before it was time. But, in addition to asking that they shall spend wisely the money granted to them, we are entitled, seeing how great is the pubic expenditure, how great is the necessary expenditure, to ask the Government whether they are in every way cutting off unnecessary expenditure, both by themselves and by the people of this country. Are they in everyway safeguarding the material resources of the people, so that they may stand the increasing strain that is being put upon them by the War? In that connection I want to draw attention to the expenditure of the country upon drink, and the burden entailed upon the nation by allowing the present expenditure upon drink during the War. In raising this subject, may I make an appeal to hon. Members? My views upon this question are very familiar, and a great many may think it quite unnecessary that I should deliver a speech upon them. They may say that they know what I am going to say beforehand, and they have already made up their minds that they can deal fully with any of my arguments, and therefore they need not listen to them. I have seen it urged in the Press that those who support my view are accused of being a group of Members who are taking advantage of the War to further their own view. I was exceedingly sorry to see that the Secretary of the Ministry of Food, in the Debate on the Address, allowed himself to lend colour to that misrepresentation. I will read to the House the hon. Member's words, which, to me, seem to be very unfair, and I think it is unfortunate that he should have allowed himself to fall into them. He said:

The feeling of many working men is that the extreme teetotal element in this country stands in the same position as the representatives of the brewing and distilling interests, and they have availed themselves of the opportunity afforded by the War to urge their particular point of view.

The Government are not in the habit of giving their own sentiments, but they put these views into the mouths of the working men of this country.

My right hon. Friend is quite wrong. If he reads my speech further he will find that I stated that I would not say in that case that the working men were right.

The hon. Gentleman gave currency to the thing by quoting that opinion. I wish to point out the difference between the two positions. By continuing the liquor trade the members of that trade are deriving great profits. What analogy is there between their position and that of a body of people, misguided if you like, who are advocating unpopular opinions from which they can get no personal advantage, and whose only motive can be that they wish to help the nation in a time of stress and burden such as never before has come upon us. What possible personal advantage does any temperance reformer get out of advocating that opinion? My hon. Friend opposite should have been more careful before he allowed himself to fall into saying something which I think should not have fallen from a Minister of the Crown in this House. We teetotalers are often accused of being prejudiced in our views. We have decided views, but the prejudice of a man who drinks alcohol is at least as strong as that of a man who does not. Therefore, I think I am justified in appealing to the House to put on one side preconceived opinions on this matter, and to treat as if they came from an impartial person the figures which I am going to present to the House as succinctly as I can.

The drink trade as it is carried on now is too heavy a burden for this nation to bear during the War which taxes our resources and energies to the utmost. The figures I give are vital and may be decisive to the issue of the War. Let me take the financial aspect. The drink bill in 1914, by which I mean the amount of money paid by the people of this country for the beer, wines, and spirits which they consume, was £164,000,000. Early in 1915 the present Prime Minister said

One of the things we cannot afford during the War is a drink bill of £160,000,000.

And yet in the year 1915 the drink bill was not £160,000,000, but £182,000,000. In 1916 it was £204,000,000, and I am sorry to have to tell the House that according to a figure which has not yet been published, but which will be issued to-morrow, the drink bill for 1917, in spite of all the appeals for economy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and members of the Government, and after all the Government have done to restrict the sale, the drink bill for 1917 is £250,000,000 at least, and will probably be nearer £270,000,000 if you take into account the diminution of the stores of spirits scattered throughout the country, which we have no proper means of estimating. Along with that the Government are getting less out of it. In 1915 the country derived from taxation upon drink £60,000,000, out of a drink bill of £182,000,000, or 33 per cent. In 1916, with a drink bill of £204,000,000, the taxation derived was only £54,000,000. In 1917, with a drink bill of £259,000,000, the taxation is only £35,000,000, or 13¾ per cent. So that the proportion paid in direct taxation by the trade has dwindled from £60,000,000 in 1915 to £54,000,000 in 1916, and to £35,000,000 in 1917. It is true that these figures have to be corrected by the amount taken in excess profits from the brewery companies and distillers, all of whom have been making very largely increased profits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows as well as anybody that the excess profits taxation does not raise anything like the same amount as direct taxation put on before the profits are made, and he knows how excess profits are reduced by extravagant expenditure and the fact that a good deal of this money has been made safe against taxation. Since the War began £750,000,000 has been spent on drink, and out of that sum I do not think that the Government have got £200,000,000 even with excess profits. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us the figures on the Budget, for he has something to explain in the remission of taxation he made in his Budget of 1917, when he thought it necessary to give £1,000,000 in Licence Duties to the brewers. More than £500,000,000 out of £750,000,000 is dead weight expenditure during the War. Seeing what the call for money is and seeing the demand for saving that is put forward, I say that is too much money for this country to spend upon what is at best a luxury.

The financial aspect is not at all the strongest aspect of this question. I turn to the question of shipping of the material out of which the drink is made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was accused in the Debate on Thursday with having made a somewhat gloomy speech to the House. I do not complain that the speech which the Leader of the House made was gloomy; on the contrary. I should like to thank him for his speech, for he did, in much greater measure than the Government had hitherto done, endeavour to tell the truth to the house and the country about the shipping situation and other matters. I am most thankful that to some extent the Government are lifting the veil of secrecy in which they have wrapped so many of their arrangements. The only complaint that I make is that in his talk about shipping and in the Debate about shipping last week the Government were still too optimistic. The country do not yet realise how grave is the situation. I do not know, but I suspect that the Germans are building U-boats quite as fast as the Admiralty are sinking them. He would be a very unwise man who thought that the submarine menace was going to be over come at any early date. Our ships are being sunk weekly in great numbers. The First Lord of the Admiralty tells us that the curves of sinking are going steadily down, but so are the ships every week. The shipbuilding programme is hopelessly in arrear. I am not going back on the Debate of last Thursday or to apportion praise or blame, but the employers, the men, and the Government are involved. The Government state that it is the employers and the men, and the employers and the men state that it is the Government. I do not know whose fault it is, but the result is that the ships are not being built, and we are not getting the output. It is hopelessly in arrear.

The Government realised this at the end of last year, and, as we were told by the Shipping Controller at a meeting upstairs, they caused to be prepared an indent of the necessary imports. They cut down everything to the absolute essentials for munitions and for the food of the people, and, when they had reached the limit with regard to food and munitions, there was practically nothing left for carrying on all the industries of the country. They secured priority for the importation of necessary foods, and it does seem to me that the imports should have been necessary foods. The Government, as they say, have left out everything unnecessary. They have cut out foreign products and all items that are not regarded as essential foods, and they have left only sixteen classes of essential foods. Yet I find, among those sixteen classes of essential foods, that cereals for brewing are included. I want to know what justification the Government have for using 600,000 tons of our depleted shipping for the purpose of importing cereals for brewing? I want to know whether they have revised their programme and whether they have determined that there shall be no more cereals imported for the brewers use until the bread of the people is safe? I know the figures, though I am not at liberty to give them, but I say that if the House and the country knew the figures as I knew them they would not allow another ton of shipping to be used for the importation of brewers materials until the situation was amended.

I turn to the food position. The Government had warning with regard to the food position. A committee of the Royal Society sat during 1916 and reported at the end of 1916. In their report they said that the margin of food in this country was a small one, being no more than 5 percent. above what they thought was necessary, and even that small margin at that time, twelve months ago, was so unequally, distributed that some people were below the safety margin. The report stated that if you went below the 5 per cent. margin the health of the workpeople would suffer seriously. They urged various ways of saving food and of using it for the best available purpose, and they showed that the greatest saving was to take the food used for brewing and distilling and use it for direct human consumption. The Government thought that they knew better. They were impressed a little, and they said that they were going to cut down the beer to 10,000,000 barrels. They did not do so. They permitted more to be brewed in the summer because it was hot and more in the winter because it was cold, and in the end the standard barrels numbered 16,000,000, the bulk barrels reaching 21,000,000. The Government were urged, and they did make an effort, to increase the wheat reserve. They did reach a very much larger reserve than we had had before. Where is that reserve now? What does it stand at? I ask the Government again, Are they going to take the country into their confidence? I know the figures, and if the country knew them as I know them—I am not at liberty to give them—they would not allow another quarter of barley to be used for brewing beer until the bread situation was better. During 1917 the Government allowed 600,000 tons of barley and 60,000 tons of sugar to be used. We were asked by the Food Controller to save 180,000,000 4-lb. loaves. The brewers used up the equivalent of 268,000,000 4-lb. loaves, and 240,000 tons of offal. Poultry must be cut down, and men must no longer give barley to pigs. You have punished men for feeding pigs with barley, but you have permitted brewers to use barley for making beer. The amount of grain used in 1916–17 for distilling purposes was 370,000 tons. The estimate for 1917–18 is 270,000 tons. Here I want to put a question that I put a year ago to the Government, and which they have not dealt with for a long time. As far as I can ascertain, there is still in stock a store of 135,000,000 gallons of spirits. Are the Government going to use those spirits for munition purposes? They can use them. They refused to use them before because they said it was amore expensive process, but there is no process so expensive as starving the people. It is time that they turned to this store of spirits and used it for all the War purposes for which it can be used.

The estimate of the Government of the amount of wheat from North America to be imported into this country was 7,500,000 tons. Month by month they have made an estimate of the amount that would come. Two months have passed. They did not get their amount in January, and they did not get it in February. They know that they have had to recast their estimate for March, April, and May. I say to them that by 1st June the stores of grain in this country will be at a lower level than they have been in any recent year.

4.0 P.M.

The Government which last year was asked to make a store of food for the people and which saw what was coming in view of shipping difficulties, have much to answer for in allowing our stores of wheat and cereals to be used up and at the same time in allowing this further waste to go on in brewing and distilling. I do not know whether they will tell us that the mischief is done, and that the barley is all malted, and therefore it is not much use meddling with it now. I can assure them that malted barley is very good and very nourishing food. It is also an excellent feeding stuff. There would be no difficulty, if they compelled brewers to give up the hoarded barley and the hoarded sugar, in using it for much better purposes. The Government are prosecuting Members of this House for having hoarded stores of food—too much bread and too much sugar. Why should brewers be allowed to hoard large quantities of grain and sugar? We are entitled to an answer to that question. Another point is that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food told us to-day that they had not yet decided about rations of bread. He hoped there might not be bread rations, but he had them in contemplation and all was, ready. Has he taken into account the number of men who, in addition to the bread ration, may drink beer or spirits? The one condition of successful rationing is that we shall all be treated alike. Rich and poor, teetotalers and non-teetotalers, we are entitled to fair and equal treatment when it comes to apportioning the limited quantity of bread stuffs. I am informed that one gallon of beer uses up about 2½lbs. of barley. Therefore, two gallons of beer represents a woman's ration of bread. I am told that two pints a day is a reasonable amount to be consumed by a beer drinker, so that the man who drinks two pints a day consumes what would be his wife's ration of bread. Is he to have to do without any bread ration, or have the Government in the rationing scheme taken into account the amount of bread and foodstuff destroyed in the making of beer?

Let me refer to another aspect of the question. My figures will stand examination, and I ask hon. Members to examine them. They may not support my deductions, but the figures are there. I take the question of transport by rail, horse and petrol. That is a very serious matter at the present time, as the Government know. The carrying on of the drink trade of this country during 1917 has involved the carrying about the country of 600,000 tons of barley in various forms—much of it handled several times; from 60,000 to 65,000 tons of sugar, 21,000,000 barrels of beer full, and the same number of barrels empty, and all that they require in the way of handling. I have worked these figures out, as Lord Milner worked them out in the House of Lords, in trucks and trainloads. I find that the number of trucks required for 600,000 tons of barley is 85,000, while 60,000 tons of sugar take 12,000 trucks; 21,000,000 barrels of beer occupy 800,000 trucks; indeed, they occupy them twice, first when full, and then when empty, that is twice 800,000 trucks. Then there is 600,000 tons of coal which is used up in brewing and distilling which represents another 60.000 trucks. That gives us a total of 1,757,000 trucks. Taking the figures for brewing, distilling and wine, altogether you have more than 1,800,000 truck loads of material to be carried up and down the country during the year. That represents 45,000 trains of forty trucks each, or 120 trains a day for every day of the week throughout the year; that is to say, the transport by horse, rail or petrol is equivalent to 120 trains running every day throughout the year. That is a very serious burden upon the transport of this country which, as the Government know well, is getting into a most serious condition.

I turn to the labour dealing with this drink trade. I find that the drink trade employs in the making and distribution of drink 150,000 men. There are not very many of them old men, indeed, most of them are men in the prime of life. There is a reservoir of labour which I recommend to the attention of the Government, because most of these men—I may say practically all of them—might, if brewing, and distilling were stopped, be set free for employment in the different occupations in which the Government now require men immediately. There is another aspect of the labour question. There are not only the men employed in making and distributing the drink; there are the men employed in looking after the results of drinking in this country, which is not at all a small matter. First of all, there is the Control Board itself. You have one of the ablest Departments of the Government engaged in doing nothing else but trying to pre vent the liquor traffic injuring the country during the War. You have an army of people, the police and officials, who have to look after it. There is yet another aspect of the labour question, that is, the effect of the consumption of this liquor upon the efficiency of the consumer. That is a point which the Government had sedulously avoided. The Committee of the Royal Society reported that the alcohol consumed was practically of no benefit to the output of labour in this country. They declared that repeated experience had shown that regiments not supplied with alcohol were in better condition at the end of the day than those to which it had been given. That was the view of the Committee of the Royal Society. The Government took no notice of it. The Control Board, however, I do not know whether in order to investigate that particular point, appointed a committee of doctors to investigate the same subject and, if they could, to make a pronouncement as to the effect of alcohol upon the human frame. I would venture to read to the House some of the conclusions published in this book issued by the Control Board. Incidentally, may I say that I do not see any one representing the Ministry of Munitions here, and I think the Control Board is under that Ministry. I do not know why this excellent book has not been issued to Members of this House as a Parliamentary Paper; at any rate it might be put on the Pink Paper so that Members could ask for it if they desired to do so. It contains the findings of a very able committee of doctors upon this question of the consumption of alcohol. On page 38 they say

Alcohol is never a stimulant—

These are their exact words—

It is from first to last a narcotic drug which attacks the nervous system, the higher functions first.

I want to draw the attention of the Government to the effects produced by the consumption of alcohol, because I see in this list not only physical effects but also political effects produced by alcohol. I would ask the House to note how in the political sphere as well as in the physical region alcohol produces its effects. They may be summed up briefly as follows—I am reading the exact words from the book—

First, uncritical self-satisfaction of the subject with his own performances.

I need not point the moral of that.

Secondly, disregard of occurrences and conditions normally evoking caution of act and word.

Could anything be more characteristic of the attitude of the Government during the past twelve months?

"Trespass of rules and conventions previously respected; impaired appreciation of the passage of time; loquacity and an argumentative frame of mind."

May we have the names of the doctors who so reported?

Yes; I will read the names to the House. The doctors did not report on the political effects, but on the physical effects. The names of the doctors are as follows: Sir George New man, K.C.B., M.D., Professor A. R. Cushney, M.D., F.R.S., H. H. Dale, M.D., F.R.S., M. Greenwood, M.R.C.S.,—my hon. Friend will appreciate him—W. McDougall, M.B., F.R.S., F. W. Mott, M.D., F.R.S., Professor C. S. Sherrington, M.D., F.R.S., and W. C Sullivan, M.D. All of them are gentle men holding important medical or scientific positions in this country. What is the effect upon the workman attributed to drink by these doctors? Their general view is that it tends to destroy in a workman accuracy, caution, tact, discipline, punctuality, discretion

I ask any employer of labour or any workman to put these scientific findings together and ask what is likely to be the effect of the continued consumption of alcohol upon the output and efficiency of industrial labour? It is because the industrial side of the question is so important that the prohibition movement has assumed such great proportions in the United States of America. I do not think I need labour the case further. It was said in Debate more than a year ago that the case for prohibition during the War was logically irresistible, and certainly the Government have not put for ward any sufficient answer to it. They told us then, and they have told us again to-day, that the British workman must have his beer, and that, if he does not have it, then he will not do his work. I see members of the Labour party present. They might properly resent the imputation that, if it were shown to them to be necessary that they should do without their beer, they would then refuse to work unless they got it. I know, of course, that many workmen appreciate their beer. I do not approach this question only from the point of view of the workman, because I know there are other classes who like their wine and spirits, just as the workman likes his beer. It is not a class question at all. What I am saying about manual work applies with even more force to professional work of various kinds and brain work of all kinds, because alcohol first of all attacks the higher functions of the nervous system. If it is a question between bread and beer, I do not believe that any work man in this country would hesitate. The Government have told us that if it came to be a question between bread and beer, that they would not hesitate. Then I ask them whether the time has not come for them to make up their minds? I suggest to the Government that they have themselves encouraged this labour unrest. I will read a circular which was issued from the Munitions Department in July last. They represented in this House that there was a spontaneous uproar made by the workers because there was not sufficient beer for the country. There was very little. They had a Commission on industrial unrest which, in certain parts of the country, found that there had been complaints, but on the whole found that far other questions were agitating the minds of the workmen than the question of the supply of intoxicants. This is the circular they set out addressed to the heads of controlled firms:

Having for some time in the spring of last year, almost every day, parried questions from the Front Government Bench on this subject, I desire to present with the utmost candour to the House what my present views upon it are. I approach the question from an entirely different standpoint from that of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leif Jones), and it is only because of the extreme gravity of the breadstuffs position, not only this summer, but even more, so far as one can foresee, next winter, that I find myself in agreement with his conclusions, although not with his premises. Surely the question is not whether the consumption of beer is, from the moral, social, or even a medical point of view, desirable or undesirable. The question we have to face is whether its continued consumption in its present dimensions is or is not fraught with possible peril to this country. I do not hesitate to say that the uneasiness to which the right hon. Gentleman has given expression is by no means now confined to temperance extremists or, as some of us are inclined to regard them, temperance fanatics. It is growing, and will continue to grow unless and until some action is taken by the Government, or, as I should prefer to see, by the working men themselves, to put a stop to some part at any rate of the present large consumption of cereal food in the form of beer and other intoxicants. I have during the last twelve months had a good deal to do with the brewery, and licensing trade, and what ever may be the prejudices in this House against the gentlemen concerned in the trade, I have throughout found them most patriotic, at least as unselfish as any other community of traders in this country and quite prepared, if need be, and at the urgent request of the Government, to forego their trade advantages and their trade profits for the common good. There remains the fact that over 500,000 tons of barley are at present being converted into beer alone, apart from other intoxicants. I may to some extent relieve the apprehension of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to sugar. I can assure him, as Chairman of the Royal Commission on Sugar Supplies, that no sugar which is edible by man is being at present converted into beer. There is a raw crude sugar, which is wholly unfit for human consumption, which is being treated, and in the course of that treatment 40 per cent. of it is being rendered available either for grocers sugar or as golden syrup for human consumption.

Is the right hon. Gentleman right in saying this sugar could not be used for anything except brewing? I understand it could be used for confectionery and so on.

The right hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension upon that point. It is perfectly-true that the raw sugar that used to be used for the purpose of brewing last year was of a kind which could be employed for the purposes to which he refers, but the sugar which is now being converted in this way, invert sugar, which is not sugar at all, which the brewers use, is a raw crude sugar which is wholly unfit for human consumption. However, there remains something like 500,000 tons of barley which at the present time are being converted into intoxicating liquor. It was questioned repeatedly last year as to whether beer is or is not a food. I do not hesitate to say that beer is a food and to some extent avaluable food for those who are employed upon strenuous work, but I cannot agree that the use of barley or other breadstuffs in beer is an economical use of those cereals.

I am not concerned with the question of the amount of money received either by the State or by those engaged in the trade. What is far more serious is that money nowadays counts for little as compared with the essential materials for carrying on the War, and the most essential of all those materials to-day, there can be no doubt, is a sufficiency of indispensable foods, of which breadstuffs must come first. If there is any doubt on this question as to whether or not the efficiency of our manual labourers employed upon essential war work will be impaired by stopping the consumption of beer altogether, or by drastically restricting it, surely, the right method is to consult organised labour in this country and ask them to have a plebiscite to decide for themselves whether the present consumption of beer is necessary to the efficiency of their work, the output of munitions, and so on, or whether in fact they could further reduce it or abandon it altogether. I do not suggest for a moment that it would be wise or right or discreet for the Government to put their foot down and say that beer must be abandoned or drastically restricted; but I do venture to say—for after all we are in the hands of our working people nowadays for the output of our munitions, for the efficiency of war work and for the fighting of our battles—that the time has come when the Government might reasonably put in the plainest possible way the breadstuffs position to the working people, and ask them to decide, knowing the whole facts, whether beer shall either be abandoned or restricted in favour of larger production and the availability of breadstuffs.

The breadstuffs position, and I know it, is a serious position. It may become in the course of a few months a perilous position, and if we mean to move in this matter there ought to be no delay. I know that the answer that may be given this afternoon, which has been given before, is that at least half of this barley is converted into malt. I am not quite sure whether I like malt as well as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Leif Jones) as an article of human diet, but, after all, malt is a very valuable food for our farm animals and for our poultry, if not for ourselves. When we hear that the pig population of this country and the poultry population are threatened with extinction; when the pig, of all animals, in this crisis, when we want to multiply meat as fast as we can, is far and away the most valuable, and when we hear that through lack of a very small amount of available cereal food the pig population has to be diminished or it may be impossible to maintain it, there is a very strong argument for letting a part of this barley or malt, as the case may be, go into the stomachs of the pigs, rather than into the form of beer as an additional cereal ration for those who drink that particular beverage. On that point I have never been able to defend the position of those who say that people who drink beer are just as much entitled to have their beer as those who drink non-intoxicants are entitled to have their form of drink. When we come to the time when the Government are contemplating rationing bread, and probably in the course of the next few weeks proposing to ration bread, how can you in equity defend the position of those who are getting an extra ration of cereal food through the medium of beer? It is obviously inequitable, and on that ground alone I believe that if an appeal were made to the working people and the whole facts told to them, they would say, We are having more than our fair ration, to the detriment of our brothers and sisters in this country. Let organised Labour decide this question, when the Government has told them the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, on the subject.

There is one warning which I would like to give to the House. I approach this by no means from the point of view of the prejudiced fanatic. I do not hesitate to say that I am not a teetotaler. I wish I were, but I am not. [An Hon. Member: Why? Because I have every reason to believe that I should be able to do even more work than I do at the present time if I were a teetotaler. However that may be, there is another side to this question, and I feel pretty certain that if this question of beer is put to the organised workmen of this country they will ask certain rather difficult questions, and questions which it will be difficult to answer. For instance, they will ask how about horse-racing and the giving of 20 lbs. or mare a day of the best oats or other cereal food to horses in full training for racing purposes?

And how about the rich man's cellar?