HC Deb 18 May 1950 vol 475 cc1376-7
29. Mr. Norman Bower

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he is aware of the hardship caused to British subjects who were members of the non-Secretary of State services in India and resigned their appointments on the transfer of power owing to the change in their conditions of service by reason of the fact that they have been granted no compensation for the loss of their careers; and if he will now place them on the same basis as former members of the Secretary of State services as regards payment of compensation.

Mr. Gordon-Walker

The officers concerned were appointed by the Central or Provincial Governments of India, and their conditions of service were regulated by those Governments. Many have remained at their posts; and those who resigned did so of their own accord. They were not dismissed; indeed, the continuation of their existing conditions of service was guaranteed before the independence of India and Pakistan by the party leaders. This guarantee was announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10th July, 1947, during the Second Reading of the Indian Independence Bill.

In November, 1948, the Governments of India and Pakistan introduced proportionate pension schemes for Europeans of non-Asian domicile who might thereafter wish to retire prematurely, on the understanding that compensation would not be payable in addition. This condition was fair and reasonable, since the employing Governments did not wish to dispense with the services of the officers but were, nevertheless, giving them the option of retirement, and it was accepted by the United Kingdom Government. Some officers had already resigned, and so forfeited their claim to a pension or gratuity from the employing Government. In suitable cases they have been given a grant, at the expense of United Kingdom revenues, towards off-setting this loss. His Majesty's Government can see no reason for giving them, in addition, compensation for loss of career, as the Governments concerned were desirous of retaining their services.

Mr. Bower

Is the Minister aware that the only reason why some of these officers resigned was because their conditions of service did undergo a serious deterioration following the transfer of power; and if that is so, ought they not to be compensated on the same basis as members of the Secretary of State services?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

My hon. Friend realises, I think, the difference between the Secretary of State services and the non-Secretary of State services. I can go into it, but it is a long story. The non-Secretary of State service members were in no case dismissed. Where they have retired they have received either proportionate pensions or, from our own revenues, an equivalent payment. I do not think there is any case for compensation for loss of career like that received by the Secretary of State services.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, though the conditions of service may technically have remained the same, such intangible matters as chances of promotion did undergo some alteration; and is there not a case on those lines?

Mr. Gordon-Walker

I quite agree. But on the other hand, the Governments of India and Pakistan have agreed to pay these people proportionate pensions, which they were not obliged to pay. There has been a balancing factor on the other side.