Lords Sitting of 10 June 1941

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE LORD CADMAN.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, since we last met the House has suffered a heavy loss in the death of Lord Cadman. A mining engineer by profession, he was possessed of very great scientific knowledge of his subject, especially of petroleum technology. After varied experiences on the practical side of these problems, first as manager and then as an inspector of coal mines, he became a leading international authority on petroleum, and he had a very great part in the development of the great oil fields in the Middle-East. All his life he retained his scientific and academic interests, and he was, indeed, for twelve years a professor in Birmingham University. When he gave up academic life and took up more active business interests, he retained his position as the trusted adviser of the Government on all questions of petroleum and its development, and he undoubtedly performed the very greatest services to this country in this matter, which, as our war experience has taught us all, is of such vital interest. The House will, I am sure, desire to express sympathy with Lady Cadman and his son.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Addison has asked me to say how much he regrets being unable to be present in person this afternoon, owing to an attack of influenza. Lord Cadman worked with him at the Ministry of Munitions during the last war and he wishes me to say how much he appreciated the wise advice and valuable assistance rendered by Lord Cadman at that time and how greatly he deplores—associating himself with what the noble Lord has said—the loss to the nation at such a critical moment of so distinguished a scientist and business man.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I desire to add a word to what has already been said about Lord Cadman. He was an outstanding figure in the subjects to which he devoted the greater part of his life and he attained, as the noble Lord opposite has said, an international reputation in that regard. It happened that in the last war I was associated with him in an inquiry that took place as to the possibility of utilising our mineral resources in the production of oil and petroleum, and I well remember how deeply I was impressed not merely by his knowledge of the subject but by the broad manner in which he was able to survey the question. I therefore, on behalf of my noble friends who sit here, join to the utmost in the sympathy which I trust will be conveyed to Lady Cadman and his family.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, if you will allow me I should like to add one word on behalf of the University of Birmingham. Lord Cadman, as the noble Lord opposite reminded us, was for some years a professor in that university, and achieved a very great reputation there, as he did elsewhere. I am sure the university would wish me to join in expressing warm adherence to everything that has fallen from the noble Lord.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I hope you will allow me to add a few words to what has been said because I had the great privilege of friendship with John Cadman. I believe that it was in that simple relationship that the secret of his great power lay. He had almost a genius for friendship. He was so modest, so humble in the estimation of his own powers that he sought the solution of the profound problems with which he was so often faced in the simplicity of the approach that he made to them. Whether he was dealing with the great potentates with whom his business brought him into contact, or with working men or with witnesses before a Commission, he remained always simple and unaffected, having no other interest than the serving of truth and the general good.
I was privileged to serve under him a very few years ago in an inquiry that was submitted" to us by the Government of

343
the time, as a matter of great urgency. It was characteristic of Lord Cadman's leadership that those of us who were associated with him put aside two months of our time to deal with this problem. We met at the Treasury very soon after nine o'clock in the morning and we remained there until eight o'clock at night, only adjourning in order that we might meet again to pursue the problem after dinner. But such were the qualities of leadership of Lord Cadman as Chairman that those who were associated with him were only conscious of the exhilaration of the achievement of a piece of constructive work and not of the fatigue that such labours entailed. It was immediately after this inquiry into the problems of aviation that Lord Cadman's health began to fail, and I have no doubt as to the reasons for it. He was, my Lords, a man who was great in his simplicity. He rendered eminent service to the State. He came to your Lordships' House as an industrialist whose service to his country had been so great as to move His Majesty to ennoble him. I am sure his son will carry on his traditions, and his life will remain an inspiration to those of us who with affection and with gratitude will seek to follow his example.

TEMPORARY MIGRATION OF CHILDREN (GUARDIANSHIP) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
RATING (WAR DAMAGE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.

LIABILITIES (WAR-TIME ADJUSTMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, you will remember that this Bill originated in this House, and it was carried with universal approval, it being a measure which is designed to help those who are put in a position of financial difficulty owing to the circumstances of the war by providing for arrangements or adjustments in
344
their business affairs. The Bill has received universal support in another place, but in the course of the proceedings there a number of Amendments have been made, all of them, I think, at the instance of the Government. It is with these Amendments that we now have to deal. I move that these Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 14.]
Clause 1, page 3, line 34, leave out from ("and") to the end of the subsection, and insert ("every scheme so approved shall be registered in the prescribed manner.
(10) Nothing in the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1914, shall apply to a scheme approved under this section.")
Clause 3, page 4, line 19, after ("his") insert ("accrued")
Clause 3, page 4, line 19, leave out ("and") and insert ("or will be unable, after payment of his accrued debts (if any)")
Clause 3, page 4, line 22, after ("his") insert ("accrued")
Clause 3, page 4, line 24, leave out from ("would") to ("recovering") in line 25, and insert ("have no reasonable prospect of preserving or")
Clause 3, page 5, line 13, after ("agreement") insert ("being land or goods in the debtor's possession at the date of the order")
Clause 3, page 5, line 14, after ("upon") insert ("any such")
Clause 3, page 5, line 15, leave out from ("of") to end of line, and insert ("any such goods")
Clause 3, page 5, line 24, leave out ("those Acts") and insert ("that Act")
Clause 3, page 5, line 28, at the beginning, insert ("The Court may in")
Clause 3, page 5, line 28, leave out ("may")
Clause 5, page 8, line 2, after ("debtor") insert ("which is subsisting at the date of the protection order")
Clause 6, page 8, line 7, after ("Where") insert ("at the date of the protection order")
Clause 6, page 8, line 10, after ("1939") insert ("or")
Clause 6, page 8, line 11, leave out ("or this Act")
Clause 6, page 8, line 23, after the third ("the") insert ("liabilities adjustment")
Clause 6, page 8, line 29, after ("Where") insert ("at the date of the protection order")
Clause 6, page 8, line 31, after ("may") insert (."provide in the liabilities adjustment order")
Clause 6, page 8, line 34, leave out ("vest" and insert ("for the vesting of")
Clause 6, page 8, line 41, at end insert ("Provided that the Court shall not provide for the vesting of any goods under this sub-section before the debtor has paid in respect of the hire-purchase price sums amounting at least to the value of the goods at the date of the liabilities adjustment order.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if you will look at the printed paper you will at once observe that most of these Amendment!; are of a formal or drafting character. It will, I think, suit the convenience of the House if I put a number of them to the House in a group. On the first page there are Amendments to Clause 1, Clause 3 and Clause 5 and over the page to Clause 6. Broadly speaking, they are all convenient adjustments of the Bill involving no new point of principle or of discussion. If I may, I will take that bunch of Amendments and I move that the House doth agree with the Commons in these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 7, page 9, line 10, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
Clause 7, page 9, line 13. leave out ("the value of security") and insert ("a security is valued and the value").
Clause 7, page 9, line 19, leave out from the second ("realised") to the first ("the") in line 20.
Clause 7, page 9, line 21. after ("adjustments") insert ("as may be necessary").
Clause page 10, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert ("value of the mortgaged property at the date of the order").
Clause 10, page 12, line 7, at end insert ("and, in particular, where a liabilities adjustment order reduces the rent of any premises or the rate of mortgage interest payable in respect of any mortgaged property, an application for the variation of the order may be made on the ground that the lettable value of the premises or, as the case may be, the net annual value of the mortgaged property has altered since the date of the order.")
Clause 12, page 13, line 16, after ("possession") insert ("by virtue of the exercise of the powers of the Court")
Clause 12, page 13, line 17, after the first ("or") insert ("subject to a")
Clause 12, page 13, line 18, leave out from the first ("contract") to ("in") in. line 19, and insert ("the repayment or performance of which is provided for")
Clause 13, page 13, line 37, leave out ("if it") and insert ("Provided that, if the Court")
Clause 13, page 13, line 39, after ("to") insert ("persons other than")
Clause 13, page 13,line 39, at end insert ("it shall discontinue the proceedings")
Clause 13, page 13,line 42, leave out ("of")
Clause 13, page 14, line 42, leave out ("exercises its powers under") and insert ("continue the liabilities adjustment proceedings, to subsection (1) of")
Clause 14, page 16, line 14, after ("their") insert ("accrued")
Clause 14, page 16, line 14, leave out ("and") and insert ("or will be unable, after payment of their accrued debts (if any)")
Clause 14, page 16, line 17, after ("their") insert ("accrued")
Clause 14, page 16, line 18, leave out from ("would") to ("or") in line 20 and insert ("have no reasonable prospect of preserving or recovering the business of the firm")
Clause 16, page 18, line 31, leave out ("publication") and insert ("giving")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, next comes Clause 7 and in that clause there is an alteration which has been made in another place and which I invite you to accept. It perhaps calls for a single word of explanation. Clause 7 appears on page 9 of the Bill. As the Bill left this House it contained in Clause 7, subsection 1 (c) a requirement that if a secured creditor did not either realise or surrender his security he shall cause it to be valued and, if the value is less than the amount secured, he may prove for the balance. On consideration, it has been felt that this as it stood would be unduly harsh on the creditor. He may not wish to value, he may wish to stand on his security for what it may turn out to be worth, and there seems no reason why he should not be allowed to do so if he wishes. If you compel him to value he may put a value on the security which may be less than the amount ultimately realised. That would be unfair on him. The modification proposed is to leave out "shall" and insert "may" and make a number of other consequential provisions which follow. That is the proposal in connection with Clause 7. I do not think I need pause to explain the provisions in Clause 10, or Clause 12, or Clause 13, or Clause 14, or Clause 16. I will move that the Amendments on the Paper in Clauses 7 to 16 be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 18, page 19, line 41, leave out from ("order") to ("any") in line 43 and insert ("varies under Section six or Section seven of this Act the terms of")
Clause 18, page 19, line 43, after ("lease") insert ("or")
Clause 18, page 19, line 43, leave out from ("mortgage") to ("the") in line 44.
Clause 18, page 19, line 45, after ("lease") insert ("or")
Clause 18, page 19, line 45, leave out ("or contract")
Clause 18, page 19, line 46, leave out ("him") and insert ("the debtor")
Clause 18, page 19, line 46, leave out from ("surety") to ("for") in line 47.
Clause 18, page 20, line 3, leave out ("such person") and insert ("person who is a surety or in the nature of a surety for the debtor or is jointly bound with him")
Clause 18, page 20, line 4, leave out ("him") and insert ("any such person")
Clause 21, page 21, line 12, leave out ("liabilities adjustment") and insert ("protection")
Clause 21, page 21, line 20, leave out ("shall")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that brings me to Clause 18 at the foot of page 3, where again I must just offer a word of exposition. If your Lord-ships will turn to the text of the Bill you will see that in Clause 18, at the bottom of page 19, the provision which is there made is applied to lease, mortgage and contract. The main effect of the Amendment which has been made in the Commons is to leave out "contract" and apply the clause only to the lease or the mortgage. It is a somewhat technical matter which I will explain at greater length if desired. The point is that there is really no direct advantage in including the case of contract, and the necessary protection of the debtor with fair terms for the creditor will be just as well secured if that reference is omitted. Other Amendments follow, Clause 18, page 19, line 45, leave out "or contract," being the main one. I think your Lordships may safely take it that the changes on page 20 and to Clause 21, on page 21, are purely drafting changes. I therefore beg to move that this House agrees with the Commons in making those Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 21, line 20, at end insert the following new clause:
Exemption from stamp duties.
("Where a protection order is made, or a scheme of arrangement is approved, under this part of this Act—

(a) every deed, conveyance, assignment or other instrument relating solely to property which was the property of the debtor at the date of the protection order or of the approval of the scheme and which, after the execution of the instrument, is or remains his property or the property of a trustee appointed under the order or for the purposes of the scheme;

(b) every power of attorney, proxy-paper, writ, order, certificate, affidavit, bond or other instrument required for the purposes of the liabilities adjustment proceedings or the sheme of arrangement;

shall be exempt from stamp duties, except in respect of fees chargeable under this Act.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now come to a matter of more interest and of more importance, and one, indeed, which may be expected to appeal favourably to everyone, with the possible exception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When this Bill was before your Lordships' House on a previous occasion, my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham asked whether it would not be possible to secure that if conveyances, assignments and the like to trustees have to be made in connection with the machinery of this Bill, these instruments could be carried through without imposing the usual stamp duties. It would seem a curious provision that when you are struggling to help a citizen who is in financial stress because of the war you should make arrangements by which very considerable stamp duties might have to be paid on the necessary transfer of his property to trustees. I will not say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown an unexpectedly warm heart in dealing with this matter, but at any rate this is one of the occasions where he has consented to make a concession, and therefore the proposal made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, has been embodied in the new clause which is now proposed. I think that this gives a very great aid to these hard-pressed people which will be very much appreciated outside, and which I do not doubt will be

349
approved by your Lordships' House. I therefore move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 23, page 22, line 7, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Section six and Section seven")
Clause 25, page. 2, line 42, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing")
Clause 25, page 23, line 17., leave out from ("into") to the first ("the") in line 19.
Clause 25, page 23, line 21, after ("made") insert ("of entered into")
Clause 25, page 23, line 29, after ("Act") insert ("offer than those mentioned in paragraph (c) and paragraph (d) of the proviso to that subsection")
Clause 25, page 23, line 36, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing")
Clause 26, page 24, line 17, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing")
Clause 26, page 24, line 18, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing")
Clause 26, page 24, line 22, leave out ("commencement ') and insert ("passing")
Clause 27 page 25, line 34, after the second ("a") insert ("provable")
Clause 27 page 25, line 35, at end insert (""net annual value," in relation to any mortgaged property, means the net annual profits which, in the opinion of the Court, the property could reasonably be expected to produce.")
Clause 28 page 26, line 3, at the beginning insert ("Part 1 of")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there remain only some proposals of a drafting character which relate to Clauses 23, 25, 26, 27 and 28. I think that your Lordships may be confident that we shall do no injury if we agree to these Amendments without explanation or discussion and I beg to move accordingly.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MANUFACTURE OF BEER.
LORD ARNOLD LORD ARNOLD rose to call attention to the large amount of foodstuffs being used in the manufacture of beer; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is, I think, the first time that
350
the drink problem and the question of foodstuffs in relation thereto, apart from mere question and answer, has been raised in Parliament since the war began. One reason why these matters have not been brought up before is that the attitude of the Government and of the Minister of Food in relation to them, when representations have been made, has been very discouraging. However, the food position is becoming more difficult, and I have felt it my duty to raise this question in your Lordships' House.
In this war, in sharp contrast to what happened in the last war, the Government seem to have made up their minds that little should be done to deal with beer, apart from heavier taxation; but that heavier taxation has not really been effective in reducing consumption, and, in fact, the consumption of beer has recently slightly increased. I would explain to your Lordships that the brewers were allowed to take as a datum year the twelve months to September, 1939—broadly speaking, the year before the war. That was—and this is important—a year in which the largest number of standard barrels was brewed for ten years. In the following twelve months, the twelve months to September, 1940, the standard barrels brewed were reduced by about 33/4 per cent. as compared with the datum year; but in the six months to March last—the six months from October 1, 1940, to March 31, 1941—brewing actually exceeded that of the corresponding six months in the datum year of 1939. It exceeded it by a very slight percentage, it is true, but still it did exceed it.
We arrive at the astonishing result, therefore, that whereas the taxation of beer has since the war been increased by threepence a pint, the consumption went down only very slightly, and has recently been, as I have said, actually higher than in the corresponding six months of the datum year. Whereas many vital foodstuffs are now severely rationed, beer remains in a position of unique and apparently unchallengeable supremacy. As we all know, the consumption of meat, tea, sugar, butter, bacon, cheese and jam has been greatly cut down, but beer has had no such rationing. There has been no decline worth speaking of in its consumption, while recently there has been a very slight increase. All this means that a large amount of foodstuffs is being used by the

351
brewers, chiefly barley and sugar, and I should like to deal with those two commodities.
I will take barley first. The amount of barley now being used by the brewers per annum is probably about 600,000 tons. That is sufficient to feed some 36,000,000 hens, and I think that it is very important to consider this matter of the barley consumed in brewing in relation to the problem of hens and eggs. Before the war the total number of hens in the country was, in round figures, 72,000,000. The Government have deemed it necessary that by next autumn that number should be cut down to about one-sixth, that is, to about 12,000,000. If the barley used by the brewers, taking it at 600,000 tons a year, was available for feeding poultry, it would keep about 36,000,000 hens, thus bringing the total number of hens up to 48,000,000, instead of the 12,000,000 envisaged by the Board of Agriculture.
I am not suggesting that matters should be carried as far as that. It is not a practical proposition to stop brewing, but it is within the sphere of practical politics to reduce the amount of beer brewed, because that was done in the last war. In the last war, the standard barrels of beer were cut down from 35,324,000 at the beginning of the war to 12,791,000 in 1918; that is to say, in the last war the standard barrels of beer were reduced by the Food Controller of those days by nearly two-thirds. How does the matter stand now? The number of standard barrels now brewed is probably between 18,000,000 and 19,000,000 barrels per annum. My suggestion is that this number should gradually—it cannot be done all at once—be halved. In view of what was done in the last war, there is nothing unreasonable in that suggestion, and it would be a less severe rationing than has taken place in the case of several other commodities.
If the standard barrels of beer brewed were by degrees halved, the barley saved in that way would be sufficient to feed about 18,000,000 hens, so that the 12,000,000 hens envisaged by the authorities as the number which we should have in the autumn would be increased to 30,000,000, or two and a half times as many. Of course we should hope—and it would naturally be so—that eggs would be
352
increased proportionately. That would make a vast difference to the people of this country, many of whom do not even see an egg. Actually 18,000,000 hens should provide somewhere about 2,000,000,000 eggs. These eggs would be very useful to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in his problem of rationing eggs. They would be sufficient to provide somewhere about four eggs per family a week throughout the country.
I am quite aware that the brewers are making, or are said to be making since last February, a voluntary contribution to meet the serious position of cereal supplies and the need to economise the use of shipping space. It was stated on February 9 last that the brewers were reducing by 10 per cent. the cereals used in the brewing of their beer. If this cut has been fully made, especially taking into account the cut in sugar, to which I shall refer in a moment, how is it that the number of standard barrels manufactured in the three months to March last, shows an increase over the corresponding three months of the previous year and is even slightly higher than in the datum year? Moreover, if this 10 per cent. voluntary cut announced on February 9 is being generally applied, how is it that in the Brewing Trade Review for June, 1941, published only a few days ago, there is this statement which I am going to read? The statement says:
"It was the desire of the authorities that beer should be available where it was required up to the limit which had been laid down, which was the standard barrelage brewed in the twelve months ended 30th September, 1939."
I suppose that is correct. I should like to ask the noble Lord, is it the desire of the authorities that beer should be available to that limit? The statement also says that
" so long as that aggregate standard barrel-age was not exceeded over the whole country, there was no limitation to the output o£ any individual brewery, and there was no necessity for any brewer to restrict his supplies of beer for reasons of supplies of materials."
I should like to ask the Minister of Food, is that correct? It is very difficult to reconcile these words with the 10 per cent. voluntary cut in cereals being in operation. Can the Minister say if that 10 per cent. voluntary cut is fully in operation?
I now leave barley and come to sugar. For the first few months of the war the brewers were not cut down in sugar at all. From April, 1940, they had a ration of 70 per cent. of their pre-war supply, and in June, 1940, the 70 per cent. was reduced to 60 per cent. Nevertheless the brewers were, and still are, in respect of sugar, in a very favourable position compared with other manufacturers using sugar. Actually the brewers are still consuming about 130,000,000 lbs. of sugar a year, and that is equal to about six weeks' sugar ration for the whole population. Again, proceeding on the assumption that the beer now being brewed is in due course—I do not say it can be done all at once—cut down by half, then the saving in sugar would be equal to about three week;' sugar ration for the whole population. This would mean that for a family of four there would be enough sugar available to make about twelve pound pots of jam. As it is, I think I am correct in saying that there is no sugar available to private persons for making jam unless they can save some out of their meagre ration.
Surely the policy which I have outlined as regards the brewers and sugar is not unreasonable but is very reasonable, having regard to the fact that no persons engaged in the making of foods requiring sugar are getting as much as the brewers—at any rate none are getting more, and in most cases they are getting less. For instance, those making pudding and sponge mixtures, custard powders, and infant foods are only getting 50 per cent. of their pre-war rations, and those making fruit juices, syrups, squashes, and mineral waters, which are non-alcoholic, are only getting 40 per cent. of their pre-war rations. Moreover, here is another question which I should like very much to ask the noble Lord. Art; the brewers actually cut down to 00 per cent. of their pre-war sugar? Is that happening? I ask this question because of an article which appeared in the Brewers' Almanac of 1941, which was recently published. The Brewers' Almanac has an article on sugar which contains these singular words:
" The allocation of sugar to the brewing industry as a whole is 60 per cent. of the quantity used in the year ended September 30, 1939, but the allocation for each individual brewer is fixed from time to time by the Minister and is at present 70 per cent."
354
If these words are correct they are very mysterious. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain what they mean, and what the actual position is in regard to the cut of 60 per cent. in sugar for brewers.
Before leaving the problems of barley and sugar, I should like to ask the Minister a further question. In February of last year it was announced that the consumption of sugar for brewing would be reduced as from April to 70 per cent. of the normal requirements, but it was also stated that supplies of cereals would, if necessary, be available to meet the deficiency. Very well. If cereals have been supplied to the brewers to meet their sugar deficiency, and in view of the fact, as I have said, that brewing for the six months to March last was actually in excess of the corresponding six months of the datum year, are not the brewers, taking everything into account, actually getting about as much barley as they were doing before the war? I am only asking the question; I want to know. If that is so, or if they are getting nearly as much barley as before the war, it is surely a wrong state of things in view of the food shortage from which the whole country is suffering, especially, as I have indicated, in the matter of eggs.
There is one argument I should like to deal with on the other side if your Lord-ships will bear with me. The argument that can be advanced by the Government in support of their beer and drink policy, if I may so call it, is that revenue is received from it. The total amount of revenue got from beer now in the course of a year, on the present taxation, is about £151,000,000. That is out of a total revenue in a full year, on the basis of existing taxation, of somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1,900,000,000. Thus the revenue from beer amounts to little more than is. 6d. in the £ of the national revenue. The yield from the tobacco duty is a good deal more than the yield from beer duty. The yield from tobacco is no less than £183,000,000. That is an astounding figure. It is nearly as much as the whole national expenditure thirty years ago when I first came to Parliament. That is the estimated yield during the current twelve months. As I have said, the proportion of the total revenue which is got from beer is not a large one, being only about is. 6d. in the pound.
I have not proposed that beer drinking should be abolished altogether. As I have said, that is not practicable, but if the beer barrelage were halved, the loss of revenue would be about £75,000,000 a year. In normal times this would soon be made good from other sources, and even in war-time most of it would, I think, be made good. The Liquor Control Board in the last war—we have no Liquor Control Board in this war, but we had a very efficiene one in the last war—referred in their reports to the increased efficiency of the workers as a result of restrictions on drinking. Thus, if drinking were reduced owing to the beer brewed being cut down by one half, the increased efficiency of the workers would mean that the national income would be higher. This would mean a bigger yield from the Income Tax and Surtax. Before long, there would follow a higher yield from the Death Duties owing to greater capital values. Then the yield from the Entertainment Tax and the Purchase Tax would be increased as there would be more money to spend on cinemas and so forth. No doubt also the yield from the tobacco duty would be increased because there would be more money to spend on tobacco.
Moreover, may I remind your Lord-ships that there are two sides to the national accounts, revenue and expenditure, and if the beer bill were halved the Chancellor of the Exchequer would benefit, not only on the receipt side but also on the expenditure side? Crime would be less, which would mean a saving in the cost of prisons and the administration of justice. The improved health of the people would advantage the health insurance scheme, with beneficial results all round in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would share. Moreover, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that some of the money available owing to the smaller expenditure on beer would find its way into savings certificates, and that is something which the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would welcome. Altogether, then, I think that a good case can be made out for the view that the national finances would not suffer if the revenue from beer were cut down by half. I am not going to pursue this subject further now because this is not the Motion for it. I will only say that
356
several Chancellors of the Exchequer and financial and economic authorities have taken the view that the revenue from drink is dearly bought. In fact, Sir George Murray, when he was Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, said:
" It is impossible for the State to make out of the liquor traffic, the profits never balance the losses."
I must draw to a close, but let me make one or two points quite shortly. In the debates which have taken place in your Lordships' House on financial and cognate subjects it has again and again been stressed that if the finances of the country are to be kept on a sound basis and inflation avoided personal consumption should be further reduced. Now, so far as food is concerned the Government have already done a good deal to cut down consumption by rationing, but they have up to the present time done very little to ration luxuries. Beer may certainly be described as a luxury and I think this view was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, himself in a letter which he wrote to a correspondent last April. Furthermore, one of the tragedies of the drink problem is that all these valuable foodstuffs, barley, sugar and others in a lesser degree, are almost entirely wasted from the point of view of nutrition. Surely, that is an important matter for the Ministry of Food.
In point of fact, there is practically no nourishment in beer. Beers vary somewhat, but speaking generally there is only about as much nourishment in a half pint glass of beer as there is in about half an ounce of bread costing less than one-eighth of a penny. Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins, O.M.—and you could scarcely have a higher authority—used these words, speaking of beer:
" I have, to say the truth, hardly patience to deal with the often suggested and sometimes vaunted nutritional value of that beverage. The claim when not wholly insincere is ridiculous. A pint of beer mostly sold to-day contains some carbohydrate material with a fuel value only equal to that of about one ounce of bread, but even this material is so much altered by fermentation that we do not know whether it has real value as food."
Therefore it seems doubtful if the tiny fraction of carbohydrate material in beer has food value, and in any case the amount is so small that, as I have said, there is practically no nourishment in beer.
I do not think it can be argued that the present high consumption of beer is necessary in order to maintain the morale of the workers at its present level. This is an important point about which there might be much argument, but the experience of the last war in my submission is the answer to any such contention. There was a reduction—a big reduction. As I have told your Lordships the standard barrelage was cut down by nearly two-thirds in the last war. That was a big reduction. The Food Controller and the Liquor Control Board acted sternly and the morale of the country did not suffer in any way that mattered. In fact, I think it is fair to contend that the efficiency of the workers was increased. I think that must be sc because, as I have told your Lordships, the Liquor Control Board re-ported about the increased efficiency of the workers as a result of restrictions on drinking.
This is practically my last point, but I must deal with it because it is one of the chief defences of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, for not dealing with beer consumption. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, if he will allow me to say so, has in so many ways done such splendid work in his very difficult task; but one of his chief detences in this matter of the drink problem is this. He said it would be entirely wrong for him to use his power to introduce social reforms of one kind or another. I think that is a strange argument. The effect of some other Government regulations and restrictions is in the direction of reforms which have been favoured by certain sections of the community. Also, I would remind the noble Lord, his argument about social reform cannot be an adequate one for refusing to deal with beer drinking because it did not stop action, and very drastic action, being taken in the last war.
No, my Lords, the question is not one of social reform but: of what is just and fair as between one citizen and another. This favoured treatment for brewers is, I think, all the more difficult to defend because more than half the population, taking into account children—and of course they should be taken into account where matters of food are concerned—do not drink either beer or spirits and are teetotallers. Is it right, is it fair, that those who do not drink should suffer in this
358
matter of food, especially as regards eggs, because those who do drink and who are the minority of the nation are receiving what I do not think there is any exaggeration in describing as favoured treatment? Surely, if there is to be favouritism shown to any industry it ought to be to one that caters for the people as a whole and not one like the drink industry with which more than half the population has no dealing. Finally, may I remind your Lordships that in the last war Mr. Lloyd George said:
" Drink is doing more damage in the war than all the German submarines put together."
And later on in the war he stated:
" We are fighting Germany, Austria and drink, and as far as I can see the greatest of these three deadly foes is drink."
That is why drastic steps were taken by the Food Controller and the Liquor Control Board to restrict the amount of beer drunk during the last war. It is very difficult to understand why so little has been done to deal with these matters in this war. I beg to move.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I think it might help the debate if I intervened at an early stage in order that your Lord-ships may have before you the salient facts of the situation as His Majesty's Government see it. I have had much pressure brought to bear upon me by temperance organisations to deal drastically with the consumption of alcoholic liquors. I speak not only with respect, but with admiration for all bodies that are seeking to advocate temperance habits among the people of this country: they have been engaged on this beneficent work for very many years, and I would now beg them not so far to falter in their faith in their own course of temperance as to urge upon His Majesty's Government that the process of education should give place in this matter to the process of compulsion.
The noble Lord, Lord Arnold, will forgive me saying that he has done me just a little less than justice by stopping in the middle of a quotation from a remark that I made. I did say to a deputation of gentlemen, who came to urge upon me that the brewing trade should be closed down, that it would be improper for me to use the very great powers that Parliament has conferred upon Ministers of the

359
Crown to introduce by means of enactments under the Defence Regulations a social reform that would not pass the House of Commons or the House of Lords. I have always held that this problem of the drink trade was a very highly controversial one, and it would be grossly improper for me to use the very great powers that you have given Ministers to take action which, if it were submitted to a free vote of either of the Houses of Parliament, I know quite well would be defeated. The noble Lord did not complete the full statement that I made.
LORD ARNOLD: It was not designed. That was the quotation that I heard.
LORD WOOLTON: I am very conscious of the statement I made. I think that my personal record will show that I have every sympathy with social reform, but I have no sympathy with dictatorial powers of Ministers that would not meet with the approval of Parliament. I think, my Lords, that it is inevitable that we should constantly consider doing again in this war what we did in the last war, but in so far as the drink trade is concerned the present circumstances are very different from what they were in 1914. In 1913 nearly twice as much raw material was converted into beer as in 1939: we therefore began this war on a totally different basis. Let me give you precise figures. In 1913 1,554,000 tons of cereals and of sugar were used in the making of beer. In 1939 only 795,000 tons were used. The actual saving in raw materials effected as a result of the drastic reduction to which the noble Lord referred in 1918, as compared with 1913, amounted to 900,000 tons, whereas the total we were using in 1939 was only 795,000 tons. In 1914 we brewed in this country 36,000,000 standard barrels. In 1939 we brewed only 18,000,000 standard barrels, and, moreover, the beer that was brewed in 1939 was of considerably lower gravity than that which was brewed in 1914.
Not only is the quantity of beer brewed to-day so much smaller than in 1914, but it is, in fact, of lower gravity than was reached at the lowest point in the last war. Side by side with these facts, it should be remembered that the population of this country to-day is greater by three millions than it was in 1918. At the outbreak of
360
war, therefore, His Majesty's Government decided that the output of beer should continue at the level of the output of standard barrels for the year ended September, 1939. The brewing industry was, therefore, given permission to brew up to 19,000,000 barrels in 1940. In fact, they only brewed 18,000,000. The output for the first six months of the current excise year has reached 8.7 million standard barrels.
I would like now to draw your Lordships' attention to the financial side of this business. In 1914 the duty on beer was 7s. 9d. per barrel; in 1918 it rose to 25s. per barrel; in 1939 it was 80s. per barrel, and it is now 165s. per barrel—seven times what is was in 1918, and twice what it was at the outbreak of this war. Receipts from Customs and Excise revenue on beer amounted in 1940–41 to £139,000,000 and on all alcoholic liquor to £194,000,000. Income Tax and Super-tax for the same year amounted to £524,000,000. Consumers of alcoholic liquor, therefore, paid into the revenue more than one-third of the amount which Income and Super-tax payers have paid.
There is one further fact that I would like to place before your Lordships, and that is the restriction that has been placed on the use of raw materials. Brewers are only permitted to use home-grown barley, and the allocation of sugar to them has been reduced to 60 per cent. of pre-war usage. By controlling the purchase of cereals for brewing we have saved between 150,000 and 200,000 tons of cereals that have been diverted from brewing to animal feeding-stuffs in the current cereal year.
Those, my Lords, are the facts. I have brought them to your Lordships' notice in order to show that whilst His Majesty's Government have not indeed been as drastic as the noble Lord would have liked them to have been, they are at any rate exercising some control over this trade, and I ought to state that they have throughout met with the co-operation of the trade in the process of exercising that control. I know of course that there are many people in this country who share the noble Lord's view that the production of alcoholic liquors should be considerably controlled during war-time. There are also very many people in this country who believe that a glass of beer does nobody any harm, and that if we

361
are to keep up anything approaching the normal life of the people in this country, then beer should continue to be in supply even if it were beer of a rather weaker variety than connoisseurs would like.
It is the business of the Government not only to maintain life but also to maintain the morale of the people of the country, and I do beg to differ from the noble Lord when he says that the restrictions which were placed on the consumption of beer in the last war—when in fact the barrelage went down to about 13,500,000—had no effect at all on the morale of the people. There was indeed a very considerable amount of industrial disquiet as the result of the inability of the people to get beer. On all these food questions with which I have to deal there arc constantly competing pulls. Some people say that it would be better to have eggs. Some people say that sugar would be better in this place than in that place. All that I can do is to listen to all the advice that I get—and indeed I get a very great deal of advice—and, with my colleagues in the Cabinet, try to come to a balanced view as to what is the best way in which I can use such food supplies as we have. My colleagues and I have given great consideration to this question just as we have to the whole of our supply position. On the question of alternative uses to which supplies can be put, we have come to the conclusion that, at any rate for the time being, it is in the public interest that the production of light beers should continue and should continue to the present amount. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that in certain parts of the country there are complaints of shortages of beer. In the small village in which I spent Sunday night I was told that they were able to keep the public-houses open only for an hour on some days of the week on that account.
With respect, I would say, do not let us exaggerate this problem. We are not facing the same problem as the Liquor Control Board faced—incidentally I was very fortunate to have some association with that body in the last war to a minor degree. We are not, as I say, facing the same problem they had to face. There is no great amount of drunkenness in this country at the present time. There is not the slightest evidence, I submit, that the amount of beer available at the present time is doing anything at all to reduce the
362
output of munitions or to curtail the amount of work that is being done by the public. I submit, moreover, that there is no evidence to show that excessive drinking is leading either to crime or to bad health on the part of the public. It is because we are in the fortunate position of having a sober and, as I think, a temperate nation that we have decided that at any rate for the time being—and in-deed I will not commit myself any further than the immediate future because it would be folly for anyone to commit himself to a supply position for more than a few months ahead—we have concluded that it is wise to allow the present production of beer at this reduced gravity to continue.
If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I know that the reasons which have caused him to raise this subject are indeed of the highest and that he is thinking merely of the well-being of the public of this country. I, too, have had those considerations in my mind and, rightly or wrongly, my colleagues and I have come to a conclusion which is different from that which the noble Lord draws from present circumstances.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, before withdrawing the Motion perhaps you will allow me to say one or two further words. I had not the slightest intention of misrepresenting the noble Lord in the quotation which I gave. That was the quotation as I had it, and I gave it quite honestly. I do not think that it makes any material difference to put the addition which he named. The point is this: in the last war the Liquor Control Board and the Food Controller—for the Food Controller was actually responsible, I think—cut down the barrelage by nearly two-thirds. He did not ask for majorities in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords. The country accepted the cut and the country would accept anything within reason which the noble Lord enacted in regard to this problem, just as it has accepted a great many other things. I do not think that point particularly helps this discussion. When the noble Lord tells us that the quantity of beer brewed in 1939 was less than in 1914 and that the gravity was less, that is perfectly true. But is it not also the case—and I think his own Parliamentary Under-Secretary said this in another place—is it not unfortunately the case

363
that the food position now is more acute than it was in the last war? That is something which should not be forgotten in considering this quesion. The noble Lord also said that the population was 3,000,000 more now than in 1918.
LORD WOOLTON: The population in this country.
LORD ARNOLD: The population in this country. He has left out the Free State. The Free State is taken away. Therefore the total population is less than in 1918. The noble Lord has not replied to the specific question which I put as to whether, taking into account compensatory conditions created because of the cut in sugar, brewers are now receiving as much barley as before the war. He does not reply to that and I am sorry. I put it as moderately as I could, and I think it is important. Nor did he deal with the passage I put from the Brewers' Almanac about the 70 per cent. allowance of sugar. However, he has given us a full reply in certain respects, for which I thank him. It does not, however, from the point of view which I advance, carry matters much further, which I think is unfortunate. I am not without hope that as time goes on there may be some alteration in the directions which I have urged. I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ACCRUED PAY OF PRISONERS OF WAR.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will now arrange that such sums as accrue to Other Ranks prisoners of war in respect of non-allotted pay shall be treated as savings and credited to them as such with the addition of interest at 2½ per cent., and whether in the case of officer prisoners, some of whom have been able to instruct their bankers or agents to invest their accrued pay in Government securities, they will now make arrangements through the appropriate channel to inform all officers that they can take advantage of this facility by communicating with their bankers or agents.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I last addressed your Lordships I understand
364
that the noble Lord who is to reply has been consulting other authorities, and so I shall not delay you for more than a few moments; nor would I delay you at all but for the fact that there would appear to be a failure on the part of the Departments concerned to realise the strong feeling that there is in your Lordships' House, and I am sure outside it, that justice should be done in this matter. I have read in the Press that the Financial Secretary to the War Office has stated that the private soldier is in exactly the same position as the officer in this matter. Let me say at once, and quite bluntly, that that is the reverse of the truth. I base that upon the speech which the noble Lord himself made here and upon the letter, from which I quoted, which I have received from the Secretary of State for War.
We really must put this matter right. I have had a number of letters on the subject from your Lordships, including letters from noble Lords who cannot be here today and who wish to support me further, saying that it is intolerable that officers should have an advantage which is denied to the men. Those who hate that most of all are, of course, the officers; they did not know that it was so, but it is so, and it must be put right. I beg my noble friend to realise that this is not a matter which can be settled in the way referred to by the Financial Secretary. If I may say so in all good humour, the Financial Secretary cannot be a law unto himself. The Secretary of State says—I quote the exact words:
"The Pay Warrant clearly recognises that issues of pay during imprisonment "—
this refers to private soldiers and other ranks—
"depends on circumstances, and further, that on rejoining the colours no further issues will be made until it has been decided whether a court of inquiry should be held."
That is perfectly clear. In previous wars it did not matter much, because the issue did not arise on the particular points to which I draw attention in my question, but now it does matter and, since the question has been raised, it should be put right.
The officer draws his pay and can deal with it as he pleases, provided that he can communicate with the people here at home. The man does not draw his pay; it is a book entry, and so much so that

365
he will not be entitled to any pay even after hostilities come to an end until it is decided whether his surrender was justified. The historical reasons for this I have been unable to trace, but the facts are not in dispute, and I would beg my noble friend not to follow the line taken by the Financial Secretary; he cannot do so, because his own Secretary of State says the exact opposite. It is desirable that this should be cleared up, and I know that I shall have your Lordships' support in seeing that this is done.
The issues are quite clear, and there are two of them. The first is, should not officers and men be treated alike? I know that your Lordships have no doubt as to that, and would go into the Division Lobby in support of it, but for the fact that, unfortunately, we have no Division Lobby here. I know that your Lordships feel acutely about it, because you expressed your views on the last occasion. Officers and men are not treated alike; the Secretary of State for War himself points out that the man does not in fact receive any pay, that it is only a book entry, and that he will not receive any pay until after a court of inquiry is held. He ought to be in receipt of pay pending the inquiry, in the same way that the officer is. The second point is whether he should be entitled to interest on the money so saved, just as the officer is if he can communicate with his home. That officers do do this is certainly the case. As I told your Lordships on the last occasion, the General Manager of the biggest bank dealing with the pay of officers, Cox and King's, Mr. Yelf—an excellent man, who is very keen on national savings and who approaches this subject from the war savings point of view—pointed out when I met him that every day he was investing money for officer prisoners. Other rank prisoners ought to have the same advantage.
I now come to what I can only call the very disingenuous statement made by the Financial Secretary. He said that the man is entitled to his pay. That is not true. The Financial Secretary thought so, or he would not have said it; but the Pay Warrant is quite explicit, and I think that it will be necessary—and I speak perhaps with more knowledge than he has—to take account of: the fact that a Royal Warrant cannot be amended except by another Royal Warrant. Therefore, if it
366
is desired to make it possible for a man to be entitled to that portion of his un-alloted pay now and hereafter, subject to the provision as to future inquiry, the Pay Warrant must be amended by another Royal Warrant or by special legislation. I have made inquiries and I find that that is so. It has been said that all that a man has to do to put himself on an equality with the commissioned ranks is to tell the Regimental Paymaster to invest his money in the Post Office or in some other form of national savings. How can the man do that? It is trifling with Parliament to suggest it. I have made inquiries, and I think it is true to say that not one single prisoner has asked the Regimental Paymaster to invest his money in national savings—not one out of the forty or fifty thousand which I believe is the number given in the Press. We must not trifle with Parliament in this way. There is this real inequality.
There remains the point of whether it is reasonable that this 2½ per cent. which I suggest—the usual rate of interest in the Post Office Savings Bank—should be added to the savings of the man when in due course, after the inquiry has been held—and until the Pay Warrant is amended this has to be done—the money is paid over. I think there can be no doubt in your minds that it is reasonable that that should be so. It is not reasonable to say to the man: "We will give you the £15 10s. which has accrued to you during the period that you were a prisoner, but you are very lucky to get that, although it is true that you have not been at fault. If you wanted to get the interest, you ought to have told the Regimental Paymaster." I should like my noble friend to consider the case of the men who have been left in Crete, and who have been compelled to surrender through no fault of their own. They will be told that they cannot have this little sum—it seems very small to us, but it means a good deal to them—because they did not communicate with the Regimental Paymaster. There are two answers which can be given. The first is that under the Royal Warrant the Paymaster could not have agreed. That can be put right. The second is that the men cannot in fact communicate, because no man has. There is no doubt about the fact that they cannot.
What ought to be done? What ought your Lordships to insist on being done? I know that you will be at one with me in saying that this equality should prevail. It is high time that Parliament asserted itself in this matter; some mysterious influence is preventing obvious justice from being done. It should be laid down that if any money is paid over to the man, it should be paid over with accrued interest. Here, after we have been all these months and years begging people to lend everything they have got to the Government, these men are unable to do so, partly because the money has not accrued to them and partly because they cannot communicate for the reason that they are prisoners of war. The simple solution—as the Adjutant-General said, the only possible solution—is to say that the money, when it is paid, shall be paid over with accrued interest. It would be wise to add, as I have suggested on the Paper, that if you can communicate with the officers, which is very difficult, they should also be told that if they wish it they can send messages to their bankers.
In the case of the men it would be ridiculous to communicate with them and say "Do you wish to have accrued interest?" when it is quite obvious that they do. The number of men in the Army who would say, "I prefer to leave this money as an interest-free loan" must be so small as to be absolutely negligible. We do not want to finish up this war with any sense of grievance on the part of prisoners. Here is a case where, if we so decree, we can sweep away a source of friction and anger. I am perfectly certain that if the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Ex chequer were here, they would agree that we cannot allow this source of grievance to continue now that the matter has been ventilated, as I have ventilated it, at the request of the important Committee on which I serve.
I must apologise to my noble friends for having interrupted the interesting speech by Lord Arnold in trying to come to an agreement to save time. I know I embarrassed some of your Lordships who could not hear what was said, and I apologise. I make this suggestion to my noble friend. If he appointed a small Committee of the three Services, which are all equally interested, and said, "We
368
must have equality of treatment as between officers and men," and, secondly, that there must be proper interest paid to the men, and then left the Committee to carry out what I am sure are your Lordships' wishes, I should be satisfied and I think the House would be satisfied. I beg to move for Papers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but there is no notice of any Motion on the Paper.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I apologise to your Lordships. It is the fact that the words "and to move for Papers" have been omitted. I beg formally to add these words. The Clerks at the Table will remember that, in consultation with Lord Moyne, I put this Notice down for this day, and they said to me, "Would you like it in the same words?" I said, "Exactly the same words, but with the addition of the word 'now'. "The error is not mine, but no doubt these things often happen. In point of fact, I said, "Put down the exact words as before." When I first put it down I thought it was agreed. I added "to move for Papers" later, as the officials of the House will remember, and they took the earlier Notice and not the last one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no authority in this matter to decide. I think, perhaps, it would be well to learn from some other member whether, in his opinion, it would be proper to put that Question from the Woolsack. I am willing to do so if that is the view of the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord can hardly modify the Notice on the Paper. We were interested to hear from him the reason why he did not have the Motion on the Paper, but I am afraid that is so, and it must remain so. I do not think the noble Lord will suffer very much as he will get an answer to his question.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I do not like to give in when I know that I am right technically. What Lord Moyne said to the Clerk at the Table was "Well, then, we shall put it down for this day in the same words." Of course we cannot appeal to the Clerk.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Order! Order! We are not accustomed

369
to hear about private conversations that pass between the Clerk and the Leader of the House. These are private matters.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I do not agree at all. I have been told I cannot move the Motion, of which I gave due notice in legal form, and I think it is perfectly proper that we should find out why. The Leader of the House accepted that it should be moved in that form on this day, and the fact that it is not in that form is not any fault of mine. Having said that—and I state it emphatically—I am prepared to accept the position because probably we are all of one mind in the matter. I do not wish it to be thought for a moment that we are not entitled to hear what the Leader of the House said.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, my noble friend in raising his question again, as by the agreement of everyone he suggested he would, has asked me to give him assurances on certain lines. If your Lordships will kindly follow what I have to say, you will see that on the three main points of my noble friend his case is met. But I do want to suggest to him—and I am sure your Lordships will agree—that although it helps a case sometimes to give the impression that representatives of the Services are supporting a proposal, any private conversation with the Adjutant-General must not be taken as an official expression of opinion any more than the suggestion that if the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here they would immediately consent. It seems to me we must manage our own affairs without expressing the opinion of permanent officials, members of the Staff of the War Office, or other authorities who are not present. As I promised the noble Lord on May 20, steps are being taken as to the best means of reminding officer prisoners that they can invest any savings in Government stock. We think that officers are probably aware of this fact, and that it can be done by an instruction to their bankers. We are considering whether any further steps can be taken to make this matter better known amongst them.
The noble Lord in the debate on May 20 and again to-day raised a subject of far wider implication than that contained actually in the question which is repeated
370
on the Order Paper—namely, the question of interest on pay for other ranks which on the previous occasion he described as a most absurd discrimination between the officer and the man. Now I have had time to look more fully into all the facts in connection with this subject, and I find I was right in informing the noble Lord that there is in fact no intention of discrimination in favour of the officer prisoners as against other ranks in this matter. As a matter of fact the officer's pay is paid into his banking account to be dealt with by the bank at the order of the officer, and the pay of other ranks is credited to their account with the Regimental Paymaster to be dealt with at the order of the soldier, except that family or dependants' allowance with the appropriate allotment in issue is not credited but is paid direct to the beneficiary.
Just as an officer can give specific instructions to his bankers as to the disposal of amounts standing to his credit, so, similarly, if a soldier prisoner of war gives instructions to the Regimental Paymaster to dispose of a portion of his pay as an allotment to his family or dependants within the limit provided for other soldiers, or to invest a portion of his daily rate of pay in the Army Savings Scheme, or to deal with the balance standing at the time to the credit of his account by way of remittances, his instructions will be honoured. In neither case is the bank or the Regimental Paymaster entitled to act without definite instructions from the officer or the soldier concerned. The pay of prisoners of war cannot automatically be treated as savings for the purpose of earning interest, but Paymasters have been instructed to comply with requests from other rank prisoners of war to dispose of their credit balances in the Army Savings Scheme. As in the case of officers, we are now considering whether any steps can be taken to ensure that this is generally known, but we must be perfectly sure that there is no risk in any measures we may take that would defeat the object which we all seek to attain. I am very glad, my Lords, to be able thus further, I hope, to clarify this matter.
I must remind the noble Lord that when his previous question was down for May 20, he honoured me with a visit on the day before, the 19th and on that

371
occasion I asked him if he could postpone his question for one week because, for reasons which I am sure were quite adequate, I was unable to go as fully into the subject then as I would desire owing to the very short notice. Now, apparently, my noble friend, if he will permit me still to call him so after my transgressions, unlike most of us, had the full facts before him for twenty-seven years, since he was himself Secretary of State for War. During all this time he has had this skeleton in his cupboard. As he stated in the debate:
" I did not alter it, but I agree that it was a very wrong thing."
Why, then, did he not alter it? Because, as with astonishing candour he told us, he thought no one "knew that this shocking law existed." But I must remind him that there were also war savings in the last war, and exactly the same question would have arisen then had he chosen to bring the facts to light; but the skeleton remained locked up in his cupboard.
I want, how ever, to reassure my noble friend that he really should not allow this administrative omission, if I may so describe it, to weigh too heavily on his conscience because what he now describes as a very wrong and cruel thing has, in fact, as far as I know—and I have tried to make very widespread inquiries into this matter—never been found to be a grievance either during the Boer War, the War of 1914–18 or in the present war. The lurid description of my noble friend that "soldiers were regarded as guilty until found to be innocent "may, I think, be described as having little relation to the facts. It was rhetorical licence. The King's Regulations lay down that the senior officer or senior soldier at the time of surrender is treated alike. The paragraph is paragraph 775. Further it is not a fact that the pay of prisoners of war is withheld until a court of inquiry has established their innocence. The Manual of Military Law states:
Absence as a prisoner of war, however, does not cause forfeiture of pay unless a court of inquiry decides that the soldier was taken prisoner through neglect or misconduct on his part."
That will be found in the Manual of Military Law, page 549, Clause 7.
But I think my noble friend bases his case on this subject chiefly on the Pay
372
Warrant. I would ask my noble friend 10 turn to page 285 and there he will find the article in question which reads:
"A soldier shall not forfeit his rate of pay during the period of his absence as a prisoner of war unless it shall have been proved, before a court of inquiry convened by order of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, that he was taken prisoner through neglect or misconduct on his part. In that case he shall forfeit any balance of pay unissued to him during the period of imprisonment."
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, as I have no right of reply, perhaps my noble friend will permit me to intervene in order to clear up this point. I have studied the Pay Warrant carefully, and the section in the Pay Warrant in question shows that the soldier does not receive any pay until after the court of inquiry has come to a decision. That is the real point.
LORD CROFT: I think my noble friend and I have the same purpose in our minds. May I point out that I think he was influenced by the footnote on that subject, and I should like my noble friend to allow me to read it:
" The issue of pay to a soldier while a prisoner of war must depend on circumstances. On his rejoining no further issues will be made until it has been decided whether a court of inquiry should be held. If such a court should be held and the court is satisfied that the soldier was taken prisoner through his own neglect or misconduct he shall forfeit any balance of pay unissued at the date of origin. In all other cases the unissued balances will be paid to him."
But it is the clause which governs the footnote, and our decisions are invariably governed by that clause. There may be cases where the soldier is proceeded against, but, thank heaven, they are very rare in the British Army. It is almost inconceivable that we should hear of such cases, but there may be cases where it is necessary to inquire into the conduct of the soldier, and, equally, there may be cases where it is necessary to inquire into the conduct of an officer.
I am sure my noble and gallant friend as an ex-Secretary of State for War is anxious, as I am anxious, that it should not be imagined that this is a class issue. Believe me, such an issue has never been raised. My noble friend has undoubtedly raised it from the highest motives because he really thinks there is substance in the point, but I can assure him there is no such issue. I would just like to give your Lordships this interesting fact. I have

373
had a search made, and I found what your Lordships would, I think, really desire to know upon the matter of procedure. In the Great War of 1914–18 on his return each officer prisoner of war was required to make a statement of his capture. This statement was examined by a committee presided over by a very distinguished officer, and the committee, if satisfied, issued a certificate exonerating the officer from blame. These certificates were entered into special files and kept with the officers' personal papers. In a number of cases the committee called on the officer for further explanation than that given in the statement. I believe that there was only one case in which a certificate was not issued and that even then the evidence was not sufficient to take further action.
In regard to other ranks—I would ask your Lordships to note particularly this fact, because it docs seem to me important, if we are deciding whether officers are treated better than the men, that we should look at both sides—there was no system of examining each case. The number of cases subject to investigation were those in which there had come into existence at the time the man fell into enemy hands evidence which tended to establish that it was a case of desertion. Such cases were very rare. Your Lordships will see that in dealing with this question there has not been discrimination as between officers and men. Your Lordships, I am sure, would not suggest that the power of the Army Council to inquire into the conduct of either officer or man should be eliminated from our Regulations. That would be the last thing your Lordships would suggest.
My noble friend, I know, raised this question because of his great love and affection for the Army and because he is very anxious that these matters should be completely cleared up. He may rest assured that there is no discrimination. There may be difficulties as to how to get information to a man, whether officer or soldier, whether in Crete or in Germany, but we are taking every step to see how we can give the information to them that they can, if they so desire, invest their money through the Army Savings Scheme. My noble friend may rest assured that, if they have balances available and so desire, facilities will be given to them. Though this subject
374
has aroused very great interest in your Lordships' House, I think none of us, except perhaps my noble friend, has made a very profound study of it, but now that I have stated the facts I think it will be seen that there has not been a grievance. Officers and men are in an equal position if they can invest and desire to invest money in the way suggested, and consultations are now going on to see how we can best bring information both to the officers and soldiers concerned.
LORD PORTSEA: My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' permission, say one word on this matter? The noble Lord's speech was satisfactory to me except in one particular and that was on the question of family allowances. In the case of those men in whom I am most interested, those who come from the Norman Islands, it is not possible to pay to the wives and children family allowances at the present moment. Whether they are prisoners or not prisoners they are practically in the same position; it is not possible for the Government at this moment to pay those allowances. Am I to understand that these allowances will be kept until the end of the war and have 2½ per cent. interest added when they are ultimately paid to the people to whom, under the Warrant, they are due?
LORD CROFT: If my noble friend would kindly address a question to me on that particular subject I should be very glad to look into it. I cannot give an answer offhand with regard to men from the Channel Islands.
LORD PORTSEA: Why not? They are serving His Majesty.
LORD CROFT: Yes, but men from the Channel Islands are on a somewhat different basis. I shall be pleased to look into the matter and give a complete answer.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I have no right of reply, but perhaps your Lordships will permit me to conclude this business by saying that so far as I am concerned I am satisfied that my noble friend is determined to see complete equality between officer and man in this highly complicated business. Your Lord-ships may have apprehended that it is the footnote to the Pay Warrant that has been the cause of the trouble. If that

375
footnote is not to be acted upon the thing is done. I thank my noble friend for his courtesy.