§ 2. Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the provisos to Sections 221 and 247 of the Government of India Act, he will protect judges of the High Court in India, and civil servants appointed by the Secretary of State, from cuts in salary?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MuirheadIt is presumed that the question relates to public servants of the classes mentioned who are already in service. The effect of the provisos referred to is to prohibit any cut in the pay of such persons without an amendment of the Act itself.
§ Sir A. KnoxHas my hon. and gallant Friend' s attention been drawn to the Employments Tax Bill in the United Provinces which proposes to make large cuts by graduated taxes on those officials who already pay income tax—and is not that in contravention of the Sections referred to in the question?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MuirheadI have seen Press reports to that effect, but my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that the question of actually reducing rates of pay before issue and the question of the passing of an Act which might have that effect after issue are somewhat different. I could not answer a hypothetical question but if my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to know whether the responsibility of the Secretary of State is involved, that is another question.
§ Sir A. KnoxIf there is doubt about the legality of this tax, will the Viceroy refer it to the Federal Court and not leave it to some unfortunate civilian to prosecute a suit at his own expense?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MuirheadThat raises a rather different question. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend would allow me to consider it.
§ Brigadier-General Sir Henry CroftWill my hon. and gallant Friend give an undertaking that His Majesty' s Government will see that the effect of the Act is not nullified by special taxation of this kind?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MuirheadMy hon. and gallant Friend will realise that in certain matters the Secretary of State has a particular responsibility, and I have no reason to doubt that my Noble Friend will fulfil it.
§ 3. Sir A. Knoxasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will consider giving the family allowances laid down by Special Army Order No. 66 of 1938 to married warrant officers on the Indian Unattached List when on leave in England; and why, in certain cases, these allowances have been reduced on the ground that somewhere in India quarters exist which must be held to be available for the applicant?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MuirheadThe provisions of the Army Order in question are in fact being applied to married warrant officers of the India Unattached List, and the grant in certain circumstances of the reduced rate of family allowance is in accordance with the terms of that Order.
§ Sir A. KnoxDoes my hon, and gallant Friend realise that under present arrangements a private soldier whose regiment happens to be in India can come home on leave, and if he has a wife, even though he has no children, he gets 20 per cent. more allowance than a warrant officer of 30 years' service with four children; and is it not most unfair that those people should be treated in that way?
§ Lieut-Colonel MuirheadMy hon. and gallant Friend' s question was whether the allowances laid down in the Special Army Order No. 66 of 1938 were being applied, and the purport of my answer was that this was so. Whether, in point of fact, that Army Order is a good one or not raises another question.
§ Sir A. KnoxDoes my hon. and gallant Friend think it right that a warrant officer on the India Unattached List should not get nearly as much allowance as a private soldier in a British regiment in India and will he look into the matter?
§ Lieut.-Colonel MuirheadI will certainly do that.