HL Deb 24 February 1915 vol 18 cc590-4
THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government the following Questions—

  1. 1. By what regulation are officers of Indian Cavalry serving in Europe required to pay hire at the rate of £7 per year for the horses they provided for themselves and sold to Government, in most cases at a loss?
  2. 2. Is it not the case that officers of the Indian Cavalry are allowed 30 rupees or £2 a month per horse as "horse allowance," to cover expenses of feed, pay of attendants, cost and upkeep of saddlery and horse clothing, whereas these officers, while serving in Europe, are compelled to pay 1s. 4d. a day, or £2 a month, per horse for feed alone? Is it not the fact that the wear and tear of saddlery and the wages of attendants are much greater during war time in Europe than in peace time in India; and if so, is it proposed to make this difference good in any way?
  3. 3. Since officers of the Indian Cavalry Corps serving in France are required to maintain three chargers, and are required to pay for the feed of all three at the rates quoted in the last Question, is it proposed to make officers any allowance to enable them to meet this extra charge?
  4. 4. By what regulations, and why, are officers of Indian units serving in Europe required to pay for their rations at the rate of 1s. 9d. per day while in India they are only required to pay 1s. 4d.? Are any steps being taken to reduce this charge?
  5. 5. Is it true that officers of every rank of Indian Cavalry serving in the Indian Cavalry Corps in Europe have the following deductions made from their pay: £73 per annum horse feed, £21 per annum horse hire, and about £31 per annum for rations, a total of £125 per annum exclusive of the cost of rations for 591 Indian servants? Are any steps proposed to be taken to reduce this hardship; and is it the fact that officers of the British Expeditionary Force are not forced to make any such payments, and in addition are in receipt of Field Allowance?
  6. 6. Is any compensation going to be paid to officers of the Indian Army serving their country in France for the provision of a complete kit suitable for a winter campaign in Europe, and also for the considerable loss entailed by storing their belongings in India during their absence?
On January 8 last I put a Question to His Majesty's Government concerning the deductions made from the pay of Indian officers who were with our Expeditionary Force in France, and in his answer the noble Marquess who leads the House said— We have represented that matter to the War Office, and I understand that it is receiving sympathetic consideration there. It was last month that we asked the War Office about it, and I should hope that the rates will be equalized; but I cannot hold out any hope that they will be spared the payment altogether: because the Indian conditions are maintained throughout. I can understand that the Indian conditions should be maintained throughout, but since these Indian officers have been at the Front there have been larger deductions made than is the case when they are in India. I think it is rather hard if they have to fight in Europe that these deductions should be made.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD LUCAS)

My Lords, I think I can best make the point clear to the House if I may be allowed to explain quite shortly what the method is by which officers are paid in the Indian Army and in the British Army. The ordinary regimental pay, as it is called, which is received by an officer in the British Army is a rate of pay which does not include a number of things—rations, and items of that kind. When it comes to a question of his food, he receives either rations or an allowance in lieu thereof—and that arrangement applies to a good many other allowances of a similar kind. The total pay of the British officer is made up by his usual pay and a certain number of these allowances. The Indian officer, on the other hand, receives what is called a consolidated rate of pay, which includes all these kinds of extras. Therefore when an Indian officer goes on service, or on manœuvres, and receives such a thing as rations—for which allowance has already been made in his consolidated rate of pay—a deduction has to be made from his pay, That explains why deductions are being made at the present time from the pay of Indian officers and not from that of British officers. That applies to both rations and forage.

Then there is the question of horse hire. The Indian system is that the officer receives with his pay a total amounting to £24 a year, out of which he has to provide for the purchase, the forage, and for the maintenance of his horse. The system under which officers in the British Army have horses is that they receive horses from the Government. This was one of the things that was done, if I remember rightly, in the time of the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Midleton), and it was one of the measures taken to decrease the cost to officers. The Government provides chargers, the officer paying to the Government a sum of £7 a year as hire. When the Indian officers came to this country they brought with them their horses. They sold them to the Government, and then either hired the same horses from the Government or other horses for £7 a year; but they continued to draw the £24 a year horse allowance on the Indian scale. The fact that they have to keep an extra horse and thus pay for the hire of three horses instead of two is due to three horses being the proper scale for an officer on active service in this country instead of two as in India. Of course, they draw an extra £24, and pay an extra £7.

I think the grievance that exists with regard to the deductions for rations is due to the amount deducted. When deduction is made in India from the pay of an officer for rations he is required to pay 1s. 4d., but the deduction which has been made from his pay while serving on the Continent at the present time has been on the home scale—namely, 1s. 9d. In the same way, whereas the deduction for forage is 8d. in India, a different scale, rather below the English scale but a great deal above the Indian scale, of 1s. 4d. has been made from his pay. It is, of course, admitted that the fact that these deductions are on a higher rate for these officers serving on the Continent than is made from their pay in India does press hardly on them. The War Office admit that, and the matter is at the present moment under consideration. The War Office, the India Office, and the Government of India are in communication on the question. A certain amount of time has elapsed since the noble Earl first drew attention to this, and I am sorry that we have not been able to produce a definite answer, but I can assure him that the matter is going forward as rapidly as possible and that we hope that it will be possible to make an adjustment. I think I have met all the points raised in the first five Questions of the noble Earl. The last Question raises rather a different point, and I understand that communications are passing between the War Office and the India Office on this subject as well as on the others.

THE EARL OF MAYO

Will the allowances be retrospective? Will the officers be refunded the money which they have already paid?

LORD LUCAS

Without definitely pledging the War Office on that subject, the noble Earl may be satisfied that they will try and act as fairly as they can in the matter. If the injustice is admitted, as it is, they are bound to take it up; but I do not want definitely to pledge the War Office.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

My Lords, I think I may say that we are gratified by the reply of the noble Lord. I know that the pinch has been severely felt, and if the noble Lord can in any way expedite the decision it will give great satisfaction. As I said on a previous occasion, the precedents of the last war have not been favourable, but I am glad that the Government have now decided to act liberally in the matter.