HL Deb 18 October 1944 vol 133 cc597-608

2.14 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any further statement to make about the pay of His Majesty's Armed Forces, in particular whether they have considered the situation of Service personnel in India and the Pacific theatres of war and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name which explains itself. There has been a recent rise in pay for His Majesty's Forces which was welcome but I hope it was only an instalment. Without going into the rather complicated figures, it is broadly true to say that the rates of pay of the other ranks in the Far East now approximate to about two-thirds of the American rates and at home the comparison is less favourable to our men. The pay of officers compares rather more favourably under the new rates with that of the American and Dominion officers, but actually the British soldier's pay—and this applies to the Royal Air Force, and to a lesser degree to the Royal Navy because of the different conditions at sea and in port— is worth less to him in comparison with the American troops because of the greater amenities and other advantages enjoyed by our Allies in the same theatres of war.

I want to say at once that I am sure your Lordships will be very glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has gone to India to inquire into welfare. All I can say about that, besides sharing that satisfaction, is that he should have been sent two years ago. These are some of the things he will find. Local leave is too expensive under present conditions for the troops to be able to take advantage of it. My noble friend Lord Moynihan, whose eminent father was so well known to your Lordships, has just returned from the Far East where he has been for three years, and he gave an interview which was published in the Daily Mail, a paper which I do not always see 100 per cent. eye-to-eye with but in this matter I think it performed a great service. Lord Moynihan is good enough to allow me to quote from his interview. In it he said: No ordinary soldier there" (meaning India) "could enjoy leave in any of the big towns because prices of even the cheapest pleasures were beyond his means. He went on to suggest more leave centres with free entertainment and a holiday atmosphere, and many more concert parties and shows for the men in out-of-the-way places. With regard to the leave centres, I understand that there are very few Hill stations arranged as leave centres for the troops, which means that local leave is taken in the big centres like Delhi, Calcutta and Bengal and that is not any advantage to the men's health. If they could go to rest centres and leave centres in the Hills and have their sports and other amusements there it would do their health good.

This is very important because many of the troops have been a long time abroad already in many cases, and if the four or five years' rule is adhered to the hardship will be very great. I see that the Secretary of State for War answered a question on this matter in another place yesterday, when he said that 7 per cent. of men serving in the Middle East had served overseas continuously for four years. I have not the percentages in the other theatres, but I should rather think that in India they are about the same. My noble friend Lord Croft, or the noble Lord who is to answer, can perhaps inform the House on that matter. A great many men have been out a long time and, incidentally, in India particularly, there is, I understand, a good deal of complaint amongst the soldiers that the Royal Air Force sends its men home as a general rule after three years, whereas our Army men have to serve four or five years or even longer. I do not know how that is explained. I have always heard the criticism that the Royal Air Force, while it is tactically mobile is strategically immobile and that it is difficult to move Air Force personnel and ground staffs. But apparently that difficulty has been got over in India with regard to the Air Force, though not with regard to the Army.

I lost a nephew, my wife's nephew, recently in the Burma fighting. He was a young officer in a British Regiment who afterward transferred to the Ghurkas. This matter of pay did not affect him personally because his father, a wealthy man in Rhodesia, sent him what he required, but he wrote to us on many occasions about the hard lot of his men in regard to this leave question and about pay. What he told us bears out what Lord Moynihan said and what other people have also told me who have recently been out there amongst the men serving. In the Army there are men in all ranks, officers and other ranks, who have private means and in some cases the firms who employed them have made up their pay. I want to say to your Lordships that I practise what I preach, because the steel companies with which I am associated have, throughout the war and will continue to do so, opened a banking account for every one of its men who joined the Forces. We allow them half what they were earning with us, whether they are promoted or not, and whether their pay is raised or not, and pay it into the bank monthly. A man can withdraw the money as he wishes. Many other firms, I believe, have made similar arrangements and these men are comparatively well off. The same practice was followed in the companies I am connected with in regard to other men who wanted to serve but because of their skill were sent to munitions work. We made up their pay to the figure they were earning with us. I believe some of the municipalities have done the same thing. But these men with private means or with their wages made up are probably in the minority, and I think most of the junior officers and men of other ranks have a purse which is very narrow indeed. Since Sir James Grigg and Sir John Anderson and the Prime Minister performed their eminent services in India the whole situation has altered monetarily. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, had the privilege of serving in India.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

A good many years ago.

LORD STRABOLGI

When he was there a young man could live like a fighting cock on a modest income. Living was cheap, houses were cheap, servants' wages were low. That is not the case now. There has been a certain amount of in-nation in India and nearly everything now is very expensive. Ordinary amenities, beer, clothes, the cinema, all the small luxuries which a soldier wants and which make all the difference to his life have gone up enormously in price so that while these increases may seem alright on paper in practice they are not enough. When we compare the position with that of the Americans we have to acknowledge that our Allies have been most efficient in all welfare organization. From all we hear when the American soldier in North Africa and Italy and elsewhere sets foot on shore there springs up a whole system of excellent clubs and cafeteria with charming American ladies to look after the men and provide a home atmosphere. The charges are reasonable and in every way the men are well looked after. The less said about our provision of amenities in these theatres of war the better. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will have something to say about these things when he returns from India.

Take such items as hospital charges. Why should an officer in India who goes sick on active service have to pay a hospital charge of 6s. a day compared to 2s. 6d. at home? All officers in Indian Regiments or attached to regiments with Indian troops are supposed to have bearers. At the time when Lord Temple-more strode the plains of Hindustan his bearer cost him 30 rupees a month. Since the Americans arrived you cannot get a bearer under too rupees a month. Then there is another matter which directly affects the question of pay, and that is the allowance of clothing. I hope this matter has now been remedied, but until recently at one large depot at Deolali, some 120 miles north of Bombay, British troops were only allowed one pair of boots, two shirts, one pair of shorts and one pair of slacks. If they arrived with more, if they had two pairs of boots, for example, the extra pair was taken away. Under those conditions it was almost impossible for a man to look smart and clean and soldierly. Our men compared badly in this respect with Indian soldiers who were always well turned out and who had more kit. That is not a good thing. It is a good thing for Indian troops to be smart, but it is bad luck on the British soldier if he is not given enough clothes to be able to keep himself smart and cannot afford to buy more. That may have been due to shortage of hoots and clothing, but I hope it has been remedied now. That also directly affects pay because if a man is properly paid he can buy from the Indian tailors any extra clothing and boots he requires.

I referred just now to American canteens. There is still no N.A.A.F.I. in India. Soldiers have to buy from canteens run by native contractors who are making, large fortunes—or they ought to be because the prices they charge are enormous. To take one item only: a soldier who has to buy a tin of Colgate's toothpaste is charged 7s. 6d. fur it. There is another matter I want to take the opportunity of mentioning. Apparently all soldiers from the ranks who are commissioned in India—not those who go out with Commissions—automatically come under Indian. Army Regulations which affect their post-war leave and affect them in other ways adversely. Incidentally they deprived of a vote because they cannot go on the English Parliamentary Register. I think that should be remedied.

I have mentioned India particularly but there are many complaints from other theatres of war, notably North Africa. There has been correspondence in The Tines about Italy and Naples, which no doubt Lord Templemore and other noble Lords have seen. I understand the situation is now better in Naples. The fact is that the whole welfare organization for troops in these theatres of war needs overhauling. No doubt it will take a fairly long time to alter some of these anomalies, but it would be a simple and quick matter to raise the pay of our soldiers to the same rate for a job as that given to American and Dominion troops. The process of improving welfare services in the East is bound to be slow. In India the Delhi Government cannot be hustled. .It has inherited some of the faults as well as the machinery of the Government of the Moguls. It is the most slow-moving machine, I suppose, in existence. But you can raise pay by a stroke of the Treasury pen. This lack of amenities and the high cost of living applies also to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, but in the case of the Navy not to such a great extent. The ships of the Navy go to old-established bases where there have been amenities and clubs and canteens for a long time and in any case the sailor lives aboard ship and is used to these things. But the soldier who has gone into the Army in this war—not the professional soldier who is settled in the East with his family on the strength and enjoying a fairly decent life—feels the loss of these amenities and ordinary advantages which his comrade at home enjoys as a matter of course and of right. That is the case. It applies in all theatres of war overseas. Rates of pay should be the same for the job whether a man wears the uniform of the American Army or the honoured khaki of the British Army. I beg to move.

2.30 p.m.

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, I intervene for a moment only to ask the noble Lord opposite to have regard to what my noble friend has said with respect to amenities and general welfare arrangements for our troops in India. I think most of us must have received complaints from time to time. We are all glad to know that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has gone out to India to inquire into conditions there. It may well be that the War Office is quite well disposed, but there may be difficulties raised by the Treasury. I do not think all these things need wait until we have received the full report which the Earl of Munster will make. Some improvements in the welfare and canteen arrangements could be effected, I think, without great loss of time, and are really very urgent in some parts. I hope that the noble Lord will not defer them all until the noble Earl returns to this House and makes his Report.

2.31 p.m.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

My Lords, I feel that in many ways it would have been more suitable if my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for War had dealt with this question to-day. But as the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, dealt very largely with India, in the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for India and Burma I have been asked to reply. As your Lordships will have noted, Lord Strabolgi has raised many points, but, in a way, the note running through the whole of his speech was that the recent advance of pay was not really sufficient. As regards that matter I am afraid that I cannot enter into any great discussion because it is only a month ago since the Command Paper 6553 was issued setting out the additional benefits for prolonged service and service in the Far East, which His Majesty's Government had decided to introduce. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that I really cannot, to-day, add anything to the provisions of that White Paper, and, with his leave, I will now proceed to deal with some of the other subjects in the speech which he made.

He spoke about the meagre opportunities for leave which are enjoyed —specially by other ranks—in India, and he suggested that leave centres, with what he called a holiday atmosphere, should be established. He proposed that there should be more entertainments and facilities for recreation at these places. I have just been informed, and I have great pleasure in telling him, that leave camps have been established in the Hills in India. There are, I understand, forty-two of these camps now in existence.

LORD STRABOLGI

Will my noble friend forgive my interrupting? That is a very interesting piece of information which he has just given, but can he add to it by telling us how many people these camps will accommodate?

LORD TEMPLEMORE

My Lords, I dare say that I may be able to tell my noble friend that towards the end of my speech. I will try to get him the information. At present it is not in my possession. The noble Lord dealt with hospital charges—what we used to call in days gone by "hospital stoppages." He complained that while hospital stoppages for officers in this country are 2s. 6d. a day, in India they are 6s. a day. I think that is based on a misconception if I may say so, and it is illustrated by the similar complaint sometimes heard that while the maximum mess bill at home is 1s. 6d. a day in India it is 5s. 3d. a day. The point in this connexion is that while pay in Britain is made up of certain allowances, in kind and in cash, in addition to the basic money rate, in India the pay is consolidated and includes most of the British allowances. The 1s. 6d. I mentioned is therefore an extra amount paid by the officer after the deduction of his rations, while the 5s. 3d. represents the total amount payable, value for rations being already included in the pay. Similarly, in regard to hospital stoppages. To the 2s. 6d. which my noble friend has mentioned should be added ration allowances of 2s. 10d. When you add these two together, they make 5s. 4d. which does not compare too unfavourably, I think, with the Indian 6s. a day.

The next complaint which the noble Lord made was about the increased charge made for that well-known servant, the bearer, in India. The noble Lord is quite right in thinking that I enjoyed the services of a bearer in India. I believe that I paid him 30 rupees a month. It is certainly true that the cost of bearers has greatly increased, and the reply of the authorities in India is to encourage officers not to have bearers but to have soldier batmen instead. With regard to the shortage of clothing at the Deolali depot, I have not been able to find out anything as yet. With the few facts which the noble Lord has given me I may be able to ascertain something. His facts will be passed on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and he will make inquiries about this matter.

Then we had a question about the N.A.A.F.I. My noble friend complained that N.A.A.F.I. did not function in India. The answer is that it does not do so for the reason that N.A.A.F.I. are not prepared to take over in India owing to administrative difficulties and because of the strain on British man-power. But while on this subject I should like to read the noble Lord one or two facts about canteen services in India which will show him that the Government of India have not been idle in this matter. Since July, 1942, the Government of India have completely re-organized the canteen services in India. Prior to that date canteens were run and provided by the Canteen Contractors Syndicate. Members of this syndicate had to be approved by the Quartermaster-General, and procure their supplies through the Syndicate. This system worked well in peace-time, and was well suited to Indian conditions and popular with the troops. In July, 1942, this system became inadequate because of the sudden increase of British troops in India due to the threat of Japanese invasion, and because, in war conditions, a commercial organization was not in a position to procure goods from overseas or to import what they could procure.

A new organization—Canteen Services (India)—was therefore set up. This is administered by a Board presided over by the Quartermaster-General, India, and other officers and officials. It is financed by the Government of India, obtains its goods through the Canteen Stores Department of the Government of India, and fixes prices in canteens throughout India. The contractors are now merely retail distributors in the non-operational areas. The idea that they are private profit-making firms is difficult to eradicate but really it is totally unfounded. In outlying training areas and operational areas canteens are staffed by the Indian Canteen Corps, a special organization raised by the Government of India to deal with these areas. These men go right forward with the troops, and now some of them have actually been overrun by the Japanese forces. Owing to the lack of time and shortage of man-power it has been necessary to continue to use the contractors as distributors in the rest of India. This Corps consists now of 3,088 officers and men, including 86 British officers. The prices of goods are fixed by the Canteens Board except in the case of fresh perishables for tea and supper trade, which are fixed by local commanders in conformity with local prices.

Canteen Services (India) have had great difficulties to contend with. For example, on corning into being only small stocks of sores were available; for the first nine months it was impossible, owing to shipping difficulties, to provide stores from overseas; large increases of troops and Royal Air Force personnel followed the fall of Malaya; the necessity for jungle training led to troops being posted in remote and inaccessible areas. In spite of this the sale of goods was expanded on an enormous scale. Thus in August, 1942, the first month of its operation, sales totalled £106,628. This was raised to £373,842 in March, 1943. The total sales for the year March, 1943, to April, 1944, were £7,500,000, a monthly average of £633,962, of which over one-third was in operational areas. That is rather a long story, I know, but I felt bound to give the noble Lord those facts to show that the Government of India have been in no wise idle as far as this matter is concerned.

The noble Lord went on the complain, as I understood him, that the officers of the Indian Army were deprived of their votes. This question is rather complicated and has been very much misrepresented. When the relevant Act was drafted it was drafted in such a way as to exclude emergency commissioned officers of the Indian Army and of the Royal Indian Navy. Directly this matter was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for India, he took it up energetically with the Home Office and is still doing so; and I can inform the noble Lord that the question of amending legislation is under consideration. What has caused a good deal of misunderstanding is the fact that an Indian Army order recently issued to explain to British troops the procedure to be followed under the Act stated, purely as a matter of fact, that the Act did not apply to British officers of the Indian Army. This was misrepresented in certain quarters as an arbitrary deprivation by the Government of India of British officers of the Indian Army of the right to vote. It was, of course, nothing of the kind.

I promised my noble friend that I would get him information with regard to camps in the Hills' and the numbers there. I am sorry that I am unable to get those numbers now. The Secretary of State will inquire into the numbers to be accommodated in these various camps and either he or I will let my noble friend know.

I think I need say no more. I have dealt, I hope not at too great length, with the various points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. As he and the House are aware, my noble friend the Under-Secretary has gone to India to inquire into all these questions and, from what I know of my noble friend Lord Munster, I am sure that he has the capacity and the will to deal with the matters entrusted to him very well and very thoroughly. On his return my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to lay Papers before Parliament giving a full statement of all that has been and is being done by the Government of India in connexion with the welfare of the troops, and, when that happens, I think it most probable that my noble friend opposite, or some other noble Lord, will bring forward a Motion in this House so that the question can be discussed again. My noble friend Lord Munster will then be here to answer in person.

In the meantime, I can assure Lord Strabolgi and the House that His Majesty's Government are not unmindful of these matters. I sometimes think that the war in Europe is so vast and fills our thoughts every day to such an extent that we are inclined to overlook the immense campaign—really almost a world war in itself—which is being carried on in the Far East. It is being fought against a very skilful, cruel and most unscrupulous enemy who is, in my opinion, just as much an enemy of the human race in the East as the Germans are in Europe. It is being fought under conditions of the greatest hardship, in frightful weather, and the one thing to be guarded against at all costs is letting our officers and men out there imagine for one moment that they are forgotten at home or that their immense campaign is looked on in any way as a side-show. In this matter nobody has been more frequent in his remarks to the contrary than my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who has never failed to emphasize the vastness and importance of the war in the East. I can assure my noble friends and the House that His Majesty's Government have these matters very much at heart and are fully alive to the need to relieve, as far as possible, the hardships of the very gallant soldiers of the Indian Army and of the British Army in India.

2.45 p.m.

LORD STRABOLGI

My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, for his reply. It was refreshingly full of facts and information, and I wish he spoke more often for a Government Department, and especially for the India Office. The point which particularly struck my noble friends on this side of the House concerned the Naafi. Why have Naafi the right to refuse to go to India? I thought that they were a Government Department. It is a most extraordinary state of affairs. If they are needed out there, the sooner they are sent the better. There may be other reasons for their not being sent; I do not know. I should like to ask what profits there are on the turnover of £7,500,000 a year from the existing canteens. I presume that such profits go into some Army Fund, as in the case of Naafi. Perhaps my noble friend will let me have that information later.

LORD TEMPLEMORE

I should not like to answer that off-hand.

LORD STRABOLGI

I did not give notice of it, but there must be fairly large profits judging by the prices, and I should like to know where the money goes. On the main question, I should like to assure my noble friend that we shall not disappoint him; we shall certainly return to this matter. Two of your Lordships, among others, by most persistent hammering at the Government have obtained concessions—the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, on civil aviation, and my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery on pensions for officers. I can assure the Government that on this question of the pay of the troops we intend, especially when the European war is over and fighting is intensified in the East, to press for something to be done until we get satisfaction, and to do so both here and in another place. We have been shown what persistence can do. The examples I have given have been merely to show that the case for the raising of the pay to the American rates is unanswerable. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and I am sure that noble Lords on these Benches echo what he said about the splendid services of our far-from-forgotten Army in the Far East. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.