ACCRUED PAY OF PRISONERS OF WAR.

HL Deb 20 May 1941 vol 119 cc207-21

LORD MOTTISTONE had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will 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 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; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I put this Motion on the Paper I thought that it was an agreed Motion, and I had reason to think so. The Motion raises a matter which, if it is agreed, is a comparatively small one though it affects more than 50,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen. But if my Motion is resisted, it raises an issue of first-class importance upon which I beg your Lordships to give me your support. To put the matter very briefly, this is the way in which it arose. As Chairman of National Savings I am also Chairman of a Committee which seeks to encourage all persons serving the Crown in the three Services, to invest their money in national savings in some form—the Post Office, trustee savings banks, or National Savings Certificates. A special committee was also formed to deal with the three Services and I remained Chairman of that Committee. His late Majesty, King George V., was very insistent that every effort should be made to encourage soldiers, sailors and airmen of all ranks to save, and I had to report to him at frequent intervals on the progress made.

Well, it has gone very far. I cannot disclose the sums which the soldiers, sailors and airmen are saving because that is very rightly regarded as confidential, but I may say that in the Army the overwhelming majority of all units do belong to savings associations and lend their money to the Government in the same way as we are begging all other citizens to do. The same thing occurs in a very great degree, as my noble friend Lord Ailwyn will know, with sailors serving in His Majesty's ships, and also with the Royal Air Force. This Committee, trying to find some way in which still further to help the policy of lending, as the posters say, "to defend the right to be free," went into the question of what was happening to those soldiers who up to the moment of their disaster were keen savers. It was a strong Committee representing all the three Services. The Treasury was also represented. The Committee unanimously said that some steps should be taken to secure the savings of the soldier and of the officer too, and that they should receive the appropriate rate of interest, which might well be taken as being the 2½ per cent. of the Post Office Savings Bank. It seems so reasonable and, as I say, they were unanimous. They asked me to take up the matter, and that is why I put this Motion on the Paper.

I saw the Secretary of State for War and told him what I have told your Lordships. I understood from him that the case was so simple, especially in view of the fact which I am now going to state to your Lordships, that it might be regarded as agreed. It was only two or three days ago that I got a letter in which he raises two points with which I have to deal, saying he would resist this Motion, and presumably on behalf of the other Services. That, my Lords, simply will not do. Lord North brook told me that the reason why we did not have revolutions in England was that no man could have a grievance without the chance of getting a hearing. When I asked how, he said, "A question in either House of Parliament can see justice done." I think your Lordships will agree—I do not put it too high—when I say that this is a case where this House of Parliament may properly intervene.

Now, owing to some extraordinary historical accident, which I well remember was brought to my notice when I was Secretary of State for War, when soldiers become prisoners of war—I do not know what the rule is in the Navy or the Air Force; as I think this dates back to before the Napoleonic wars, the Air Force did not exist then—the regulation, put shortly, is to the effect that the officer is regarded as innocent unless he is proved to be guilty, while the man is regarded as guilty until he is proved to be innocent. I am sure that will be news to most of your Lordships. So indeed it is. As a consequence, when the officer is taken prisoner all sums due to him by the War Office, after making deductions, taking those deductions away and also the allotments of pay or allocations to the wife or some other relative, arc paid into his account at his bank or agent. It used to be always Cox's, Cox & King, who are the people who have a great many officers' accounts, I suppose the majority of them. That is well understood. What happens is that the officer's father or wife, as the case may be, having had his authority before he left this country, applies to the bank for the money to be invested to the best advantage, practically always in Government securities, and that is done. Indeed, I was talking to the General Manager of Cox & King only yesterday and he was telling me about transactions which he had himself been carrying out that very day in investing the money at 2½ per cent.

In the case of the man as opposed to the officer it is not presumed, as in the case of the officer, that he is innocent, and that therefore you pay him his money, which of course he can then spend by the direction of his relatives. Oh no! In the case of the man the money is only credited to him to be paid over after inquiry. I remember that when this was brought to my notice before the last war; I said: "Well, of course this is a most absurd differentiation between the officer and the man. Nobody could agree to that. Is there any practical difficulty?" They said there was none whatever. I saw the. Adjutant-General at that time and pointed out to him that in point of fact the poor man could not spend any money when he was in a prison camp, and that any allocations made to his wife or relatives we did in fact pay. Now that the matter has been raised it ought to be put right. Although it is a very wrong thing that you should treat officers and other ranks in these different fashions, there was no advantage to the officer, relatively none, until this arose.

As I say, when I spoke to the Secretary of State I presumed it was agreed, in fact he did agree. I put the case then to the Adjutant-General, who was good enough to give me various technical details which have helped me in bringing forward my Motion. I showed it to a Treasury official of renown, who said that of course obvious justice involves that officers and men must be treated alike, and the technical point based on the historical accident of 150 years ago could not conceivably stand in the way. So, as you see, I propose that it should be automatic, that the man's pay credited to him should carry interest at 2½ per cent., and, in order that the officers may be equally well off, that they should be informed through the appropriate channel that this can always be done. I went to see Lord Clarendon at the Red Cross Office and also Mr. Stanley Adams, whom the Government have appointed to look after the very difficult question of parcels for officers and the kindred question of the mails we have just been discussing. Lord Clarendon and Mr. Adams between them have effected an immense improvement in the regularity with which the parcels reach the prisoners, and we are all very grateful to them both. The reason I say that with reference to this Motion is that I wanted to know whether, as suggested by the War Office itself, it would be simple to communicate with the officers on a matter of this kind. They told me they believed there would be in fact no difficulty and that it would be a very proper thing to do. They thought they could convey such messages and that the German Government or the Italian Government would make no difficulty about it.

Now, as I say, to my astonishment I find that this is objected to; indeed, I am asked not to pursue the matter. When, at the request of a very important Committee, I am asked to move on a matter which seems to be manifestly just, and then on some technical ground I am asked not to pursue it, my reaction is, as perhaps some of your Lordships may have observed, to ask the officials of the House to add at the foot of my Motion "and to move for Papers." I never in all my long Parliamentary experience, now stretching nearly forty years, have had such an astonishing request. Of course the matter must be ventilated in your Lordships' House, for your Lordships would wish to see justice done.

Let us see the grounds on which what I call the manifest justice of the case can be opposed. The first is that the man is not paid, and under the Pay Warrant it is clearly laid down that issues of pay during imprisonment depend upon circumstances, and, further, that on rejoining the Colours no further issue shall be made until it has been decided whether a court of inquiry ought to be held. Are we to understand that we are to make this condition in the case of the man, from warrant officer to private, while every officer receives the whole of the pay to which he is entitled, after the deductions to which I have referred? I do beg your Lordships to short-circuit this by saying that, whatever my noble friend Lord Croft may be asked to say by some financial pundit, you will not tolerate that. I ask you to say that there shall be no discrimination between officers and men in this matter. If a court of inquiry must be held before any sums are paid over in one case, that must be done in the other. This is a pure technicality, and I am astonished that the War Office, or anyone connected with it, should not have realised that such an impossible position ought not to be taken up.

The other point which is taken is that the man is, after all, not spending much while he is a prisoner, and as, therefore, he will have a nest egg later on, why should he have, it is asked, 2½ per cent. added to it? Again, of course, the answer is that the officer can have his interest, and therefore that the man must have it too; but on that general point I do ask your Lordships to reflect that all these deferred payments by the State, except in a few small cases, which I hope my noble friend will not raise, are completely overshadowed by legislation to which your Lordships have recently agreed. It is manifestly just that if for some reason the State cannot pay money which it is adjudged that a citizen should ultimately receive, he should not be robbed of the interest due to him. Under the War Damage Act, as your Lordships may remember, when in the end the money is paid over to someone who has lost his property—no doubt after inquiry, as in this case, to make sure that everything is all right—he is paid interest at 2½ per cent. I think that we can dispose of that.

There is no other matter of substance which can possibly be raised. I do not wish to anticipate what my noble friend has to say, but I do beg of him to remember the importance of this point. This refers to all three Services, and every one of the representatives of those Services whom I have seen has told me that it is absolutely essential that in a matter like this officers and men should be treated exactly alike. The War Office, I know, has been meticulous in its care that there should be absolute equality of treatment between all ranks; but here we have, if this is resisted, a flagrant case which brings to light this extraordinary law under which the officer is adjudged to be innocent until proved guilty and the man adjudged to be guilty until proved innocent. My noble friend may ask me why I did not alter this myself, when I was Secretary of State. For the reason I have given, that no actual damage was done to anybody, I did not alter it, but I agree that it was a very wrong thing. I thought that nobody knew that this shocking law existed; but, now that it has come out, it must be put right. I would not suggest for a moment that the officer should be deprived of his pay, but I do say that the man should be credited with his pay and, as in the case of the officer who can communicate with his agent, he should have the requisite interest.

These officers and men are suffering grievous hardships, as we know, in these prison camps. The suggestion in the case of the men, that they are not to be paid a single penny because, after all, they may have done something disgraceful, is very wrong and very cruel, but it is made in black and white, and I have quoted the words. In modern mechanised warfare it may happen that the most courageous men, who would never surrender in ordinary circumstances, are absolutely compelled to do so, because, in the war of tanks, when there is no more petrol for your tank you cannot get out and try to beat against the opposing tank with your fists, or even with your rifle. Surrender may be impossible to avoid in this war of incredibly swift movement, as happened in France, and as happened on a gigantic scale to Italians in the recent war. The men who have surrendered, who may be the most courageous men in the world, arc under this shocking besmirchment—if there be such a word—which is brought to the surface by this fact to which I have called your Lordships' attention. I hope that I may have your Lordships' support, unless, as I hope still more, the noble Lord will say that this wrong shall be put right.

LORD CROFT

My Lords, I received notice of this Motion by the noble Lord only towards the latter end of last week, and on Friday night and Saturday I was engaged, as he was, on the War Weapons campaign. I was unable, therefore, to look into the matter, as I told him yesterday morning. I had no opportunity of consulting with the other Services, which are, of course, equally concerned in this matter. It is true, as the noble Lord suggests, that officers' pay is paid into their bankers, and in cases where their liabilities, including the support of their families, permit, there is nothing whatever to prevent them, investing their pay in Government stock. We do everything we can to encourage the support of the War Savings movement throughout the Army, and as far as that is concerned I shall certainly consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord in the second part of his Motion.

The proposal in the first half of his Motion, however, unlike other proposals which we all welcome for assisting the national war effort, would be of no financial advantage to the State. The allowances payable in respect of the wife and children of other ranks, together with the allotments from their pay, continue to be issued while the man is a prisoner of war. Such balances of pay as remain are book entries, involving no payment from the Exchequer until they are finally drawn; and the noble Lord's proposal would in fact merely involve payment of interest by the State on those balances. Under existing regulations, the pay of prisoners, apart from allotments to their families, is credited to them, and they draw the accrued sum at the conclusion of the war, unless there is proved reason why they should not receive such payment. Meanwhile, the allowances to wives and children are paid, and the men themselves, who, unlike their comrades at home, cannot handle their pay, are in most cases saving up a considerable sum for the day when they come back. I must point out that there are day-today balances on all soldiers' accounts, and there may be other cases where such balances are in fact considerable. I have heard no suggestion that interest should be paid on these balances, nor as a matter of financial policy could I accept such a suggestion.

I just want to add one word, if I may. My noble friend quoted the case of interest paid on war damage, which he seemed to regard as a precedent. I assure him that that is in no way comparable. In the case of war damage, a house is destroyed or rendered uninhabitable, and the unfortunate owner has to secure and pay for alternative accommodation, but all the time he is kept out of funds which he might use in finding alternative premises. Your Lordships will agree that that case cannot be regarded as analogous or as applicable to the case referred to in the question. My noble friend mentioned he had had conversations with various persons on this subject. I am sure everyone would always receive him with great pleasure when he is advocating any question on behalf of the Army. I fancy these questions cannot have been looked into, with all the difficulties that exist, in the course of casual conversation round, perhaps, a Committee table. I know my noble friend feels very strongly on this subject. He himself was one of the few people who found there was a case to be looked into when he was Secretary of State, but all through the last war, if this is regarded as such an injustice, I would point out he did not take any steps.

LORD MOTTISTONE

It did not arise.

LORD CROFT

The question of discrimination, which is the whole case as between officers and men, stood all the time he was in office and all through the last war. I would merely add this. We do everything we possibly can to support the War Savings movement in the Army as in the other Services. There may have been some misunderstanding when this was raised at the Committee. It may have been thought that there was this money lying idle either at the bankers or in regimental funds. That, of course, your Lordships will appreciate is not the case. The money has not been paid over, and therefore, instead of adding to our financial strength, the proposal might act the other way.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this discussion, but my colleagues have a view to express, and I feel I should put it quite briefly. It is clear that there is this difference in the treatment of officers and men who may be taken prisoner during the course of the war—that the officers, if they so wish, are able to invest their pay in Government bonds and draw interest at the prevailing rates. Other ranks on the other hand only receive the capital sums that accrue to them during the time they are prisoners without any interest during the period of the war. In the case of a longish war, this difference may be very considerable, because the sum due to the private or N.C.O. who is a prisoner in Germany or Italy mounts up, and the interest that would be payable may therefore be quite a considerable addition to what he would otherwise receive. If the facts are as I have stated, as the result of following this debate closely, it would seem that there is a differentiation between the treatment of officers and men, and I wish to say that my noble friends and I support the noble Lord who has moved the Motion.

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, may I appeal to the Government to look at this thing from a practical point of view? Many of us have not known that there was a differentiation made between officer prisoners and those in the ranks who are prisoners, but apparently that has been the practice—at any rate, it has been existing in our system unknown to us. Now that we know of this injustice to the men, surely it is for the Government to remedy it and to consider how best that can be done. It ought to be removed. The answer which the noble Lord has given to the case made out by my noble and gallant friend behind me does not appear to be an answer at all. He has suggested that there is no money lying idle. What is the ordinary custom in the banks? A person has a credit. He has made arrangement with his bankers, perhaps, in time of war to leave a sum on deposit at 1 per cent. for a definite period. The money is not handed over to the individual, but merely credited on a bit of paper, and only when it has matured to the individual at the end of the period, when he asks for his deposit with interest, does the money reappear.

Exactly the same thing happens in the Post Office Savings Bank, where there are thousands of accounts. As anybody knows who has been Postmaster-General, these amounts are not handed over to the Post Office in order to be idle. When the individual wants to draw his money out, he gets a paper credit, and the money is then found by the Treasury. It is not a question of money lying idle, and it seems to me that the case put up by the War Office in answer to my noble friend is not really an answer at all. I appeal to the representatives of the Government on that Bench to undertake to look into this matter further so that we should not be pressed to divide the House on a matter of this character.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I am astounded at the information which my noble friend Lord Mottistone has given us to-day. It seems to me a most appalling thing that men who are fighting with their officers are not treated in exactly the same way in a matter of this nature. It is to me an astounding thing. It seems to cast a stigma on the men. Why should they be treated as if they might be cowards when we know perfectly well that it is a very rare thing to find a coward among British soldiers? I appeal most strongly to the Government to reconsider their attitude, and I certainly must support this Motion of my noble friend. I appeal to the War Office to take this matter up and put it right, and to do so immediately. I am quite certain, in view of this debate, which will get wide publicity, that there will be strong feeling throughout the whole country.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, as a serving officer I am quite amazed at this disclosure this afternoon, and I am sure all serving officers would feel that they should not have any advantage over their men. They would like to be treated in exactly the same way. The payment of officers' pay through agents is only a convenience adopted by the Service Departments, and the fact that the men are paid through the Paymaster should have no bearing on the matter. I feel very strongly, and I must support Lord Mottistone's Motion.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone has rendered a great service in bringing to light a fact that was quite unknown previously, and the noble Lord, Lord Croft, if he will forgive my saying so, did not give any reply at all on this point of discrimination between officers and men. He did not even attempt to reply. He merely stated the fact that the officers in this regard had certain privileges denied to the men, but no justification was given for the fact and no reason offered for not redressing it. The noble Lord said that if you are to regard these balances, as they are called, as investments, and pay interest upon them, why should you not be called upon to pay the same on all balances which stand in the names of various persons or institutions in the books of the Treasury? The answer, of course, is, that this is not an ordinary balance. It does not in any way resemble an ordinary balance; it is pay that is withheld owing to the fact that the man is a prisoner of war and unable to control his expenditure. That is not in the least like an ordinary balance which is just awaiting disposal by the person to whom it belongs.

The prisoner of war is not able to make use of it. He is not able to dispose of it on account of the fact of his imprisonment. Now a man who is not a prisoner receives his pay and can invest it, and, as Lord Mottistone said, very often does. Millions of pounds are invested in that way, and the men who do so invest receive the interest, which they may obtain after the war is over as a lump sum; but the prisoner is unable to do this, and, consequently, the Treasury does not pay over the money, and, through not paying over the money, it is in exactly the same financial position as if it had the money put at its disposal by the soldier. In the one case the soldier gives his pay to the Treasury in the form of an investment at a modest 2½ per cent. In the other case the Treasury does not have to pay any interest on these, possibly, very large amounts. The financial effect is really the same as if the money had been borrowed free of interest. The money having been withheld from the soldier, he is not able to invest it.

The Treasury has, in effect, the use of that sum through not paying it over although it has legally been earned, and is due. Consequently, it is not a question of imposing a new charge upon the Treasury but rather of requiring the Treasury not to escape a charge which in normal circumstances it would have to pay. The noble Lord said: "After all, this was not done in the last war, and why should we do it now?" Surely that is not an argument that could be accepted by your Lordships' House. If such a grievance existed in the last war and was not brought to light and remedied, that is no reason for saying: "This is a precedent which we mean to follow; it is an injustice, but let the injustice continue." I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Croft, on consideration, will see that the sense of at all events a large part of the House is against him in this matter and will give it further consideration.

LORD CROFT

My Lords, with the leave of the House may I be permitted to say one or two further words? I have been very interested in the debate. I told your Lordships that the whole question was only brought before me yesterday, and that I had had no opportunity of consulting other Departments. I learn from the speeches that have been made that the subject is regarded from various angles. I want, however, to make one thing absolutely clear, not because there is any doubt about it, and that is that there is no question of any discrimination in favour of the officer as against the man in the matter of pay. They both get their pay. The only difference is that the prisoner of war's pay is accrued for him and is handed over to him at the end of the war. The point of the noble Lord is whether the prisoner of war should receive 2½ per cent. interest which officers get should they, after providing for their families, have any spare cash to invest. That really is the point at issue. There is no other point, but the fact remains that it is clear, after what the noble Lord who brought this matter before the House has said, that many of your Lordships appear to share the view that this question should be looked into further. I am prepared, in the circumstances, to ask my right honourable friend if he will look into the question again in the light of the information which has been disclosed to-day.

LORD MOTTISTONE

My Lords, that is a most astonishing suggestion to me. I should suppose as I look round your Lordships' House that every single one of you takes the view, now that the matter has been raised, that this differentiation between officer and man should not be allowed to continue for another moment. I gather that that is the universal view in the House. I have not observed one single note of opposition to that. It is so manifestly fair. You all say, "Why were we not told of this before?" As this bombshell has been sprung upon you and as we are all absolutely at one, I cannot accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Croft, who himself has said that he has only just heard of the matter. In his reply he made certain financial remarks which have no bearing whatever upon the case. As we are all of one mind, and also as all three Services are involved, I suggest that whoever is acting as Leader of the House should say on behalf of the Government "I appreciate that with regard to all three Services all differentiation between officer and men in this matter of officer and soldier prisoners shall come to an end, and we will carry that out." That would meet the case. If the accrued pay of these men, which they cannot touch, is put into the Post Office Savings Bank as a separate account, which is the course I would recommend because it would entail very little extra clerical trouble, that would make the sense of fairness complete.

The point is that both officers and men should have exactly the same status in this matter. Whether you pay it by regarding it as a balance or do as I suggest, pay it in the Post Office Savings Bank, is a matter of detail which can easily be settled. If the representative of the Government will say: "We quite appreciate the point that there is an injustice and that there shall be no differentiation from to-day onwards between officers and men," I will at once withdraw the Motion and leave the Government to carry it out in all three Services. I do not accept the view that there is any reason for leaving the matter over for further consideration, because we are all agreed and are of one way of thinking. If the noble Lord likes to find himself alone in the Lobby, as would happen—and it would not be the first time he has shown that courage which we all admire—he may do so, but if so he will show that he is very misguided in this matter.

LORD CROFT

My Lords, may I say that I have given the most explicit undertaking? Views have been expressed from so many quarters of the House that I will at once approach my right honourable friend and ask him to reconsider the question. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, with all his years of experience of Parliamentary life, will realise that one could not do more than give the undertaking which I have already given.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

My Lords, may I say one word? I have listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and to that of my noble friend behind me, but surely we must be very careful what we do in a matter of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, have pressed your Lordships—not so much His Majesty's Government but your Lordships—to take a certain action, and that is to bring pressure to bear upon the Government to take a certain course with reference to the pay of the soldier prisoner of war. I understand that his pay is withheld for the time being by the Treasury. This is surely a question of Privilege. I think if we are not careful we may very well receive, to put it quite vulgarly, a snub. It is a question of Privilege, and surely my noble friend Lord Croft has gone as far as anybody on the Government Bench could do in this House, by giving an undertaking that he would take the whole matter into further consideration and bring it before His Majesty's Ministers. I do ask your Lordships to be careful what you do.

LORD MOTTISTONE

My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of your Lordships. I do emphatically say, perhaps with more vehemence than you are accustomed to in this House, that we must put this matter right. I remain of that opinion. I also realise that the noble Lord has said he will reconsider the matter. I thought he had asked me to reconsider it, but no doubt he meant he would reconsider it. Very likely I misunderstood him. I understand, however, that the answer in the negative does not stand, and that further consideration will be given to the matter. Therefore, I will raise the question again at a convenient time and I will ask leave now to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.