4. Colonel BURNasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will favourably consider the case of those officers of the Indian Army who were, through no fault of their own, taken prisoners during the War; if he will explain why they were only credited with half their staff pay, while officers of the British Army were better paid while prisoners than they were while serving with their regiments; if he will explain why the moneys given to the officers of the Indian Army by the Red Cross, to compensate for the dearness of provisions, was debited against them; and if compensation will be awarded to those officers who find their uniform has been ruined by white ants in India while they were detained as prisoners of war?
§ Mr. MONTAGUWith the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to deal fully with the points he raises.
§ The following is the reply promised:
§ I understand my hon. and gallant Friend's question to refer particularly to the Kut garrison. The Government are most anxious to do what they can for these officers, and have invited from them claims for compensation in respect of expenditure incurred during captivity—for instance, on house rent, purchase of furniture, fuel and lighting. Most of the claims have been sent in, and it is hoped that they will all be settled shortly. I may mention that we are giving these officers also free dental treatment, or in the alternative paying bills submitted by their own dentists, in respect of all injury or deterioration to their teeth occurring while they were prisoners of war.
§ As regards their pay, the present position was fully stated in an answer which I gave in this House on the 6th March last. It was then explained that Indian Army officers prisoners of war received for sixty-one days the full pay of the appointments which they held when captured, and thereafter full pay of rank and half staff pay of their substantive appointments. The Indian Army officer thus received, even after the first sixty-one days, practically the same pay as the British Army officer if a lieutenant, and substantially more if of the rank of captain or over.
§ So far as I am aware, no money was given by the Red Cross. Presumably the reference is to the Embassy allowances, which were sums issued by the American Embassy, and later the Dutch Embassy, from British, relief funds placed at their disposal by the British Government. It is not the case that these sums have been debited against officers, but officers have merely been asked to deduct the amounts so received from their total claim for compensation under the various headings mentioned above.
§ As regards the last part of the question, no officer proceeding on field service is entitled to compensation for loss or damage to private property stored in India. I see no reason to discriminate in this respect between officers who were taken prisoner and those who were not.