HL Deb 06 July 1949 vol 163 cc922-48

2.38 p.m.

EARL WAVELL rose to move to resolve, That this House, while welcoming the decision of the India and Pakistan Governments to grant the right to proportionate pension to British members of the non-Secretary of State Services who retire after November 18, 1948, regrets that this right was not made retrospective to August 15, 1947, to cover those members who were compelled by circumstances to retire between this date and November 18, 1948; and in view of the unwillingness of the Governments of India and Pakistan to make further concessions, calls on His Majesty's Government to provide these pensions for men who have given long and valuable service to their country. The noble and gallant Earl said: My Lords, I must apologise for again addressing your Lordships on a matter which has already been brought to your notice on several occasions in the last year or so by other noble Lords and myself. We would not again have troubled your Lordships had not our efforts, continued over some eighteen months, failed to secure an appropriate measure of justice for the men whose claims we represent. I will try to be as brief as possible. We believe that we have an unanswerable case, but I feel that I should state it in sufficient detail for your Lordships to act as judges and record your votes accordingly.

First of all, the men whose claims we represent are the British personnel of the Services through whom we administered and governed India other than the so-called Secretary of State Services—that is other than the Indian Civil Service and the officers of the Indian police. They are, in fact, the rank and file of which the Secretary of State Services were the officers. They are the sergeants and inspectors of police, the British personnel on the railways, the clerks at Army headquarters and other offices, and other British personnel performing analogous duties. The proposition on which our whole case rests, and which we ask your Lordships to accept and support, is simply this: that the rank and file are entitled to similar treatment to their officers. That, we submit, is in accordance with British tradition, with common humanity, and, I should add, with those principles of democracy which the present Government claim specially to represent.

If your Lordships accept that principle, it is for us to show that there has been discrimination and that it is unjustified. I must therefore give you a summary of what has occurred up to date. Early in 1947 when the changeover of Viceroys took place, the question of compensation and pensions for the Secretary of State Services was already under discussion with the Home Government and was not making much headway. I accordingly advised my successor, Lord Mountbatten, to get the matter settled before he came out to India. He did so. I certainly thought and intended that the whole of the British Services in India should be covered, but I am afraid I did not realise at the time the difference in the legal status between the Secretary of State Services and the non-Secretary of State Services, and I did not explain it sufficiently to Lord Mountbatten. Advantage was taken of that technical difference in their legal status—and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it was a technical difference only and that the moral obligation rests on us to give similar terms to all the British who served us so well in India. That technical difference in legal status was used to deny to the non-Secretary of State Services the just and generous terms that the Secretary of State Services and the British officers of the Indian Army received.

When Lord Mountbatten arrived in India and found that the non-Secretary of State Services were not covered, he at once made every effort to try to get them included and to obtain for them the same right to proportionate pensions and compensation where appropriate. When he failed, he informed me and I took up the matter here at home. After some rather unsatisfactory correspondence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, I first brought the matter to your Lordships' attention by a Question which I asked in this House in January, 1948—that is, eighteen months ago. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House then said that the matter had not yet been raised with the Governments of India and Pakistan, but in his reply he made a statement of which I will ask your Lordships to take note. He said: The United Kingdom Government are of opinion that proportionate pensions ought to be granted to officers of the classes concerned, if their conditions of service are materially changed to their disadvantage. I ask your Lordships to compare that statement with one that had previously been made by His Majesty's Government on April 30, 1947, to justify the granting of pensions and compensation to the Secretary of State Services. It was then said: They"— that is, His Majesty's Government— feel that there is a radical difference in the effect which the transfer of power will have upon the position of European and Indian officers respectively. The former will no longer be serving under the ultimate control of the Parliament of their own country and it cannot be maintained that their prospects will be the same as in the past. Why should that principle not be applied equally to the non-Secretary of State Services? If His Majesty's Government considered that conditions had changed sufficiently to justify the granting of proportionate pension to the Secretary of State Services, there seems to be no reason why the rank and file should not also have received them, and from the same date.

After some three months had passed, as apparently nothing was being done, no result anywhere was visible, and we were continuing to receive letters from personnel concerned showing that they were in a state of anxiety and often of hardship, I moved for Papers in this House early in April, 1948. The Government again said that they would consider the matter, and the spokesman for the Government, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made this statement: It remains the considered view of His Majesty's Government that proportionate pension ought to be granted to officers whose conditions of service are materially and substantially changed to their disadvantage. Another three months passed, and again no result was visible. We accordingly took a deputation to see the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, to impress upon him not only the justice of the claims of these men to proportionate pension, but also the urgency of the matter, since we continued to receive through all these months stories of hardship, anxiety and uncertainty from the men affected. When I tell your Lordships that the deputation included four ex-Viceroys, two ex-Commanders-in-Chief, a number of ex-Provincial Governors of India and several other high-powered officers, you will realise that there was a considerable weight of informed opinion behind it. Two noble Lords who are ex-Viceroys and who were members of that delegation would have spoken today but are unfortunately prevented by other business from being present, and they have asked me to state that they warmly support this motion. They are the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, and the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations again promised that the matter would be considered, but three months later, towards the end of September, 1948—I ask your Lordships to take note of these dates and the time that elapsed between any steps that were taken —the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, asked a question in this House as to what progress had been made, and was informed that the matter was still under discussion. It was not until almost the end of November, 1948—that is to say, eighteen months after the terms for the Secretary of State Services had been announced and some fifteen months after the transfer of power —that an announcement was made that the Governments of India and Pakistan had agreed to grant the right to proportionate pension to men of the non-Secretary of State Services who retired after that date. But the grant was not made retrospective, and those who had been forced by circumstances to retire during the fifteen months immediately following the transfer of power received nothing at all. I submit, therefore, that there is definite discrimination. The change in conditions, which the Government admit, occurred as from the date of the transfer of power and not from this arbitrary date in November—a date which has no logic in it at all, and which simply represented the date by which His Majesty's Government had, after long delays, taken that action with the Governments of India and Pakistan which they should have taken by themselves long before. I should like to make it clear to your Lordships at this stage that we are not accusing the Governments of India and Pakistan of responsibility for the injustice that has occurred. These are our own people, who have given long, invaluable and honourable service in India, and they look to their own people and Government to see that their services are honoured and are not overlooked.

To continue the story, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, when he made the announcement in November, said that the cases of the men who had already retired would be considered. I have always found the noble Viscount the Leader of the House most sympathetic in this matter; I believe he himself recognises the justice of these men's claims. But sympathy is not enough. Accordingly, we wrote a letter to the Leader of the House, I think in February of this year, setting forth the claims of the men who had already retired for the grant of pensions to be made retrospective. The noble Viscount passed that letter on to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations who, after several reminders, replied on May 11—that is another three months' delay—with what I am afraid we can regard only as a most unsympathetic and ungenerous letter. He now made the accusation that these men who had retired since the date of transfer of power must be regarded as having "walked out" on the Governments of India and Pakistan and, therefore, as having no right whatever to proportionate pension.

Noble Lords who are to speak later will give your Lordships some instances of the circumstances and conditions which caused these men to retire. I will only say that, if such an argument is to be used, it applies with far greater force to the Secretary of State's Services, by far the greater proportion of whom retired immediately after the transfer of power, when their pensions and compensation had been secured. There has been no suggestion that because they left immediately after the transfer of power they forfeited their right to proportionate pension. I hope that I have said enough to convince your Lordships that here is a definite case of discrimination and injustice which ought to be remedied.

I feel that I should say a few words on the question of financial responsibility, because it may be urged by the Government that the Governments of India and Pakistan cannot be asked to go further in the matter of compensation or pensions. As I have already said, these are our own people, and the responsibility for their welfare is ours. If the Governments of India and Pakistan do not accept any further financial liability, we should thank them for what they have already done and we should assume that responsibility ourselves. I would remind your Lordships that there is a precedent for this in the Judges' Pensions (India and Burma) Act which your Lordships passed last December. In that Act, as I said at the time, three principles were established: first, that those who have served in India, other than in the Secretary of State Services, could receive pensions from moneys provided by Parliament, and not by the Governments of India and Pakistan; secondly, that those awards of pension could be made retrospective to August 15, 1947, the date of the transfer of power; and thirdly, that compensation was admissible. I am not going to say much on the compensation issue, except that there are certain cases of very definite hardship, where pensions are either inadmissible or insufficient, which warrant compensation. Noble Lords who will speak hereafter in this debate may give instances of that sort of case.

I feel that I have not put forward with sufficient eloquence the case of these men. But eloquence is not in me. If it were, I might have impressed on your Lordships the long and invaluable services which these men have rendered to this country as well as to India; I might have been able to make clear how they have borne the heat and burden of the day—frequently in the face of dangers; I might have enlarged on the anxiety and definite hardship that has been caused to them by long delay and the uncertainty of waiting. I might have said, finally, that a feeling of injustice, of unworthy treatment from the country to which they have given the best years of their lives and which they have trusted to reward those services, is perhaps a very hard thing for them to bear patiently. Here is a definite case of injustice which ought to be remedied, and I leave it in your Lordships' hands. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That this House, while welcoming the decision of the India and Pakistan Governments to grant the right to proportionate pension to British members of the non-Secretary of State Services who retire after November 18, 1948, regrets that this right was not made retrospective to August 15, 1947, to cover those members who were compelled by circumstances to retire between this date and November 18, 1948; and in view of the unwillingness of the Governments of India and Pakistan to make further concessions, calls on His Majesty's Government to provide these pensions for men who have given long and valuable service to their country.—(Earl Wavell.)

3.2 p.m.

LORD ISMAY

My Lords, I have not much to add to the arguments which have been so ably deployed by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Wavell, but I feel that I might be considered a bad friend to some of the colleagues who were with me during the last days of British rule in India if I did not come out openly and unreservedly in support of this Resolution. I recollect clearly the receipt of the telegram to which the noble and gallant Earl referred, the telegram which he sent to his successor, Lord Mountbatten, strongly advising him to get this question of pensions and compensation settled before he left England. I also have a clear recollection—and, if I may say so, a very grateful recollection—of the promptitude, the realism and the generosity with which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom settled that question.

The fact that it was possible to make the announcement of those terms shortly after Lord Mountbatten arrived in India, together with the assurance that, in the last resort, His Majesty's Government would hold themselves responsible for the payment of pensions and compensation, had a most profound effect on large numbers of our countrymen still in the Indian Services, who had for some considerable time been racked with anxiety about their future. The noble and gallant Earl has said that he did not know that there was a technical difference between the status of the Secretary of State Services and the non-Secretary of State Services. I freely admit that neither Lord Mountbatten nor I, who went out as his Chief of Staff, had any idea of that difference. It was not until the terms had been published that we realised that the non-Secretary of State Services had been left out in the cold. Lord Mountbatten at once made representations on the matter, but not altogether successfully; and here we are, nearly two years later, with the matter still not satisfactorily resolved.

I mention that point only because I want to make it clear that the misfortune which these poor countrymen of ours have suffered is due to accident rather than design, because I am sure that if Lord Mountbatten had known of this technical difference the whole matter would have been settled satisfactorily to all concerned before he left for India in March, 1947. I feel that your Lordships must be shocked at the suggestion that the men who retired between August 15, 1947, and November 18, 1948, are not to have any of the benefits which the Governments of India and Pakistan have conceded; that they are to be regarded as having "walked out," and that their "crime" is made worse because they were advised not to take precipitate action. It is easy to give smug advice of that kind when one's own comfort, security and future are not at stake, but it is less likely to be convincing to these men, many of whom witnessed in those days scenes which they will never forget. They are men who have witnessed murder, arson, loot and lawlessness; men who have seen most of their countrymen embark, or about to embark, for England; men who were extremely apprehensive, and not without reason, about their own official futures and about the welfare of their wives and families. I beg your Lordships to believe me when I say that I do not want to dwell on the unhappy past, but I do not think it is right for people who did not witness those scenes to sit in judgment on the actions of men who were there. To me the wonder is not that so many resigned but that so many remained.

I am frankly bewildered at the attitude of His Majesty's Government in this matter. It is in such complete contrast to their generous and prompt action in regard to the Secretary of State Services that feel there must be something behind it which we do not understand. His Majesty's Government must know that there is not one of us with recent experience of India who does not think that an injustice has been done. His Majesty's Government must know that the very powerful deputation which waited upon the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations last June did not do so out of sentiment. They did not do so out of any desire to embarrass His Majesty's Government. They did so out of a genuine desire to see justice done. It is so easy to remedy. I do most sincerely hope that His Majesty's Government—that same Government who, nearly two years ago, swallowed a very large camel without the slightest hesitation, and with singularly beneficial results to everybody—will cease to strain at this tiny little gnat.

3.8 p.m.

LORD CLYDESMUIR

My Lords, I rise to support the Resolution moved by my noble and gallant friend, and my claim to do so is that I saw this problem from the Indian end while I served under the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, when he was Viceroy, and also under his successor, Lord Mountbatten. I can bear out what the noble and gallant Field Marshal said about the development of this problem. Your Lordships will recollect and appreciate that the noble Earl has consistently championed the cause of these men, and championed it with some success, for his tenacious advocacy has played no small part in the success which has been gained up to this time.

As your Lordships have been reminded, the Governments of India and Pakistan have agreed, following representations from His Majesty's Government, to proportionate pensions from November of last year. But there is this unhappy hiatus with regard to the men who were left out. We really come down to-day to what is a comparatively small and yet a very important point, because these few men (I am not in a position to give the number; His Majesty's Government alone can do that, but I should estimate it at 100 or so at the most) are, in general, men of humbler circumstances and with fewer resources than their colleagues in the Secretary of State Services. Yet their work and their service was absolutely essential to the success of our administration in India—the success for which the Secretary of State Services rightly gained the credit, but which they could not have achieved without the support of these men.

Of course, the transfer of power was an immense operation, and in an operation of such magnitude it is perhaps inevitable that some ends are left loose; but let us see whether, even now, we cannot tie these ends up. I wish—and I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Addison wishes—that it had been possible at the time for His Majesty's Government to urge the case of these men with the same vigour and firmness as they did that of the Secretary of State Services. If they had done so this situation would not have arisen. It may be that technically these men were the servants of the Provincial Governments and therefore not statutorily protected. But I have no doubt that each and all of them felt they were ultimately serving—as indeed they were—the Government of this country, with whom during our time in India responsibility for the maintenance of law and order rested.

I would remind your Lordships that under the 1935 India Act the Governors of Provinces were individually charged to look after the police; and they could not pass on this responsibility even if they wanted to do so, to their ministries. It was a reserved subject. The maintenance of law and order and the care of the police was a charge laid personally on the Governors by Parliament. Therefore these men of whom we are speaking were definitely protected and upheld in their work (even if they came into head-on collision with political Parties) by the Government. I therefore claim that morally, if not legally, His Majesty's Government are entitled to uphold them now, and to settle this unhappy question for these few men who are surely entitled to justice. I would remind your Lordships that only recently the Government were recruiting these men from the Army. As recently as 1945, Army Orders (India) called for recruits—precisely this type of men—coming out of the Army or the police force, and under Section 56 of the 1935 Act the Governor of a Province was, in his individual judgment, responsible for the recruitment of police services. I therefore claim that these men were indirectly, at any rate, recruited through the Secretary of State, who should retain his responsibility for them at this time.

I need not stress their gallant conduct. Many of them are holders of the King's Police Medal, and some hold medals for service in the Army before that. I have a note of six instances of men who have resigned. The length of their service between the Army and the police was respectively twenty-four, twenty, eighteen-and-a-half, eighteen, eighteen, and twenty-two years. That is a long period of service for one's country, and a certain feeling of bitterness that they have not been quite fairly dealt with is understandable. Incidentally, some of the men appearing in this list have now found employment, through the thought and care of His Majesty's Government and the High Commissioner's Office, and the only question that now arises in their case is whether their service years can be made to count for pension. I know that His Majesty's Government are considering that question.

I do not think it can be seriously contended—I am sure His Majesty's Government will not do so—that there was no change in the nature and terms of the service conditions of these men after the transfer of power. From my own experience I have no doubt that all the officers of this class under my care in Bombay were convinced that there was such a change. I will illustrate what I mean. I have a letter issued by the Bombay Government in September, 1947, a time when I was still there. Some of your Lordships may possibly remember that I was asked to stay on as a constitutional Governor in the new Dominion. I accepted with pleasure, but I no longer had direct responsibility for the police force; I was a constitutional Governor, acting on advice in the fullest sense. What I am about to read is a letter which I received at about that time. Even if I had had responsibility I should have found it difficult to dissent, for reasons which I will explain to your Lordships. This letter, on the subject of the Indianisation of the Cadre of Sergeants, said: Government has carefully considered the question of granting compensation and proportionate pension to European officers who do not wish to serve this Government any longer and has come to the conclusion that no case exists for the concession. Government desires that all European officers in the Police Department should be informed of this decision. These officers should also be informed that they will be treated equally with the corresponding Indian officers and that there will be no discrimination against them. The recent orders of Government have only removed the discrimination that was made in the past in their favour at the cost of Indian officers and such discrimination cannot, obviously, be revived. I will now give two examples to illustrate what this decision meant. First, on the question of quarters, European sergeants were formerly provided with Government quarters, or hired quarters, the rent of which was paid from a contingency fund. This was stopped, and they were made subject to the same rules with regard to residential accommodation as Indian sub-inspectors. I understand that it was natural that an Indian Government, taking over, should be reluctant to preserve a discrimination in favour of a class of Europeans serving in their forces. But the fact was serious from the point of view of these European sergeants, and I have personal knowledge of several cases where great anxiety was caused, leading in some cases to resignation, through the search for suitable accommodation. Formerly these men were usually employed in the cities, which offered reasonable facilities for their families, for the education of their children—for example, in mission or other schools. And one can imagine the difficulties of a man with a salary of, say, 200 rupees per month, who cannot afford to keep up a double establishment, if he is posted to a small country district where there is difficulty in obtaining European food and no opportunity for the education of his children, or for Christian worship for himself and his family.

Let me quote from a letter from one man. The point I am trying to make is that this was not a thoughtless walking out by the man but a case of walking out after anxious and careful thought. The letter says: After ten years in the Army and sixteen in the police force … I decided to take whatever leave was due to me and get my wife and two sons to my own country. … It has not been easy; my life savings and all I could realise from the sale of my home have all gone in paying our passages home and providing us with warm clothing for this country. The loss of pension and the laying out of his entire capital could not but have been the result of long and anxious contemplation.

I turn now to the question of promotion. Formerly these men, termed "sergeants," were members of a small cadre, restricted to European sergeants. Promotion was within the cadre, and was therefore rapid. I recognise the reason that caused the Provincial Governments to make these men sub-inspectors on terms of equality with all other Indian sub-inspectors, and so to remove the discrimination in favour of the European; but in the result promotion was very much affected. I have heard of one case of a sergeant who was fourth on the list in the old cadre of sergeants and who dropped to 204th on the new amalgamated list of sub-inspectors. It cannot be contended that his circumstances were quite the same. It is true, of course, that not by any means all the officers were placed in difficulties or were adversely affected regarding accommodation. I do not think there was any deliberate set against them. It was just the result of the changes that were made. They were not all placed in such difficulties, but it is our claim to-day that these officers, who found it necessary to resign should not suffer for their action when their circumstances were changed by events quite outside their control.

I have little more to say, except a personal word. I speak for myself only now, but I feel bound to say this. Having served in India during the critical period of transfer of power, I have been cheered and encouraged to note the great growing and unmistakable signs of friendship in that country towards us here. I have not dissented from His Majesty's Government's handling of the question of Indian membership of the Commonwealth, because I have felt that the important thing was to lay this foundation of friendship upon which we can build. To-day we are discussing a small point, but it is a point that affects the feelings of some of our good countrymen who served in India. It is about their service in India that they are unhappy. They do not know whom to blame. Perhaps they are inclined to blame their Governors who should have protected them; perhaps they are inclined to blame their senior commissioned officers in the police who got their pensions and went away; perhaps they are blaming His Majesty's Government or perhaps the Indian Government. I cannot say whom they are blaming. But one thing is sure: only His Majesty's Government can put this situation right. Therefore I earnestly ask them to-day not to spoil this good ship for a "ha'porth of tar."

3.22 p.m.

LORD HAILEY

My Lords, those who have been connected with the Indian Services will appreciate the great advantage that we have had in the fact that this Motion has been brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Wavell—and for two reasons. It is not merely the fact that his advocacy must carry great weight and great authority; it is the fact that he has been able to explain the circumstances in which he himself advocated in India the case for proportionate pensions and compensation for officers whose services were being terminated owing to the transfer. When your Lordships discussed this matter—and it was discussed at some length—on a Motion brought forward by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, in February, 1947, it was not known publicly in this country that the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, as Viceroy, was pressing His Majesty's Government, and pressing with great earnestness, for an early disposal of this question. I know that all who have been connected with the Indian Services will now appreciate the steps he then took, and feel grateful to him and to those associated with him at the time.

If I may refer to the debate of February, 1947, there is one point which seems to me to require some explanation, and it is relevant to the case which the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, has put forward to your Lordships. The Motion of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, dealt exclusively with the question of compensation to covenanted officers, a term which has been already explained to your Lordships. It made no reference at all to the large class of officers whose case the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, has now put forward —namely, the uncovenanted Services, Services which did not enjoy the same guarantees as could be claimed by members of the covenanted Services. I fear that many members of the uncovenanted Services must have felt keenly at the time —and may feel still—the fact that those who spoke in support of Lord Simon's Motion concentrated all their attention on the claims of the covenanted Services. I regret that they should have had this feeling, and I regret that, as one of those who supported the noble and learned Viscount's Motion, I did not myself call attention, and prominent attention, to the position of the uncovenanted Services. But we were arguing a case based on special grounds, which applied only to the Secretary of State Services. It was an open secret that Indian leaders were at the time opposing the grant of compensation to members of any of the Services who were retiring from India. As they said at the time, they were prepared to re-engage those officers in their own service. We ourselves were convinced that that offer, at all events so far as regards what is now the Dominion of India, was not really serious; and events have proved that we were right. But it was on the strength of that statement that the Indian leaders at the time claimed that since officers could re-engage with the new Indian Government they were not entitled to any form of compensation.

We, on our part, speaking in that debate, took our stand on the point that the British Government were under a binding obligation, based on commitments made by their Ministers and on past legislation, to secure or to guarantee compensation at all events to one class of officers—namely, the officers of the covenanted Services. It was in those circumstances that the case put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, was advisedly—perhaps unfortunately, but none the less advisedly—confined to the case of the covenanted officers. That claim secured the support of His Majesty's Government, with results for which the British members of the Secretary of State Services have every reason to feel grateful, as they have more than once publicly said. We, the British members of those Services, have not ceased to regret that His Majesty's Government did not secure equal treatment for our Indian colleagues in those Services, but we shall always feel even greater regret if fair treatment is not accorded to the British members of the non-covenanted Services whose case the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, has put before your Lordships this afternoon.

Let me turn to their position. As the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, has explained, his efforts, and the efforts of those who supported him, have secured that those who retired after November 18, 1948, shall receive proportionate pensions. We welcome the support given by His Majesty's Government to that claim, but it has left without any similar benefit those officers who retired during the one-and-a-quarter years which elapsed between that date and August, 1947, when the members of the Secretary of State Services were withdrawn from India. What can be the logic of this? Clearly, the argument on which the members of the covenanted Services were given compensation—namely, that the whole conditions of their service were radically changed—applies with equal force to these men. Clearly, as the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, has pointed out, it is not possible to maintain that those who retired during that period "walked out" on India, for that argument would apply equally to the members of the covenanted Services who received their compensation. Mark this fact—and it is a fact to which the noble Lord, Lord Ismay, has already referred, and it is one of great significance: so little did His Majesty's Government feel that that argument applied to the members of the covenanted Services that they made them- selves responsible for the payment of compensation to them should India fail to foot the bill. Your Lordships will find a clear statement to this effect in the White Paper dealing with the subject of compensation which was published in April, 1947.

Of course, there is no logic in this position, but there is a reason. It is, of course, that the case of these men was not pressed in time, or with sufficient vigour, by His Majesty's Government. I am not reproaching them with this. There may have been difficult negotiations afoot which made it hard for them to approach that particular question. I am not reproaching them, but I am using the fact as an argument —and I think it is a valid argument—for urging that they should now accept the liability for giving proportionate pensions to these men.

Sonic of their cases have been very hard. We have heard of a number of them. I will not go into great detail for Lord Clydesmuir has already given your Lordships sonic pertinent and telling details on this subject. But we know that there were men in the police force who were aware that directly the British Administration withdrew they would be the object of attack, owing to the part they had taken in quelling communal disturbances or the subversive movement which attempted to sabotage our war effort at one stage of the last war. They had been warned of this, in statements made by men holding responsible posts in India. There were others who saw their authority over their subordinates diminish and their capacity for good work destroyed by orders issued direct to their subordinates, contrary to every previously accepted canon of British administration. There were other men who saw that the promotion to which they could legitimately look forward must inevitably be denied them because Indians would necessarily be given preference. There were others who were transferred to stations where there was no accommodation for British officers, and no possibility of education for their children.

But why should we be asked to prove individual hardship or special circumstances in each of these cases? No such proof was required in the case of the covenanted Services. We are told now that we must accept the position that the two Indian Governments can go no further than they have already gone, and that they will not give proportionate pensions to those who retired between August, 1947, and November, 1948. If that is so, we must accept the fact, for certainly we have no power to compel them to do so. But surely it is not unreasonable to ask that the British Government, which was at one time prepared to undertake the heavy liability involved in providing compensation for the covenanted servants in the event of India refusing to do so, should meet the relatively small liability involved in providing proportionate pensions in these comparatively few cases.

My Lords, these men served the British Government faithfully, in activities which were every bit as essential to the purposes of Parliament as were those of the covenanted servants, and often, as I can testify myself from my memories of the past, in circumstances which placed a great strain on their physical and moral powers. If they had not the same guarantees in a technical sense as had been given by Ministers of the Crown to the covenanted servants, the difference was mainly technical, and His Majesty's Government and the British people have the same moral obligation to them as to those others. I venture to say that if that case were put to the British public at large it is not an obligation that they would hesitate to accept.

3.35 p.m.

THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH

My Lords, the case in regard to these few men has already been made with great weight and authority and I do not wish to delay your Lordships by repeating what has already been said. But we still have to convince His Majesty's Government about our case, and there are, I think, a few further arguments which might be used. I expect that all of us in this House, no matter in what quarter we sit, would wish to be guided by a principle in this matter, and that principle would be that when the prospects and conditions of service of Government servants have been affected by a great political change such as that which took place in India, arrangements should be made to meet the difficulties to which those servants are exposed because of that change, and to meet them in a spirit which is fair to them. I would go just a little further and say that I think they ought to be met in a spirit which, if it errs at all, errs on the side of generosity, because a great upheaval of government such as that does mean a great upheaval in the lives of individual Government servants.

That principle has been followed for the great majority of the European servants of government who served in India. As has already been said, arrangements have been made in regard to the Secretary of State Services, the officers of the Indian Army and the Judges of the High Court. Arrangements have been made for them by the present Government, and those arrangements are not ungenerous. But so far His Majesty's Government have not been willing to do the same for these few men of whom we are speaking to-day. What are the reasons which might make His Majesty's Government hesitate to do this? I would like to examine them. In the first place I would ask, is it denied that the conditions of service of these non-covenanted servants of government have changed? My noble friends Lord Clydesmuir and Lord Hailey have given instances which, to my mind, prove that the conditions of service have changed beyond all recognition.

I would add one or two further points. My noble friend, Lord Clydesmuir, spoke about the sergeants of police in the provincial areas. I feel rather specially concerned about them because some of those men about whom we are speaking to-day were recruited at my urgent request. They were recruited because it was felt necessary by the régime of those days that British sergeants of police should fill certain posts—posts connected with the war, posts in great cities like Bombay, and posts in other towns where there were cantonments of British troops. Therefore they were recruited because they were wanted. Under the new régime obviously there is a change. The policy is—and no one will quarrel with it—full Indianisation. Therefore these British sergeants of police are not wanted, and that, to my mind, is the main reason for the drastic change in the conditions which they face.

Let me give your Lordships one other example of the change which took place when the transfer of power was made. It is the case of a technical supervisor in what was the security printing press in India. This individual was aged 35. He had spent all his working life in that press. He would normally have had twenty more years to serve, and he would have had every prospect of rising to become an assistant master of the press, or possibly deputy master. But all prospects of further promotion of that kind vanished when the change came, because two Indian officers, formerly of the Indian Army, were appointed as assistant masters under training, with the specific and very understandable object of training them up to fill those higher posts. Therefore, that ladder of promotion for these European servants of government was at once blocked. Moreover, in this particular case, these men had lived all their working lives where there were British troops always in cantonments. Those troops all left, and with them went facilities for the education of children and for attending religious services, and—although this may seem strange, it is true —bread and meat became unobtainable. In fact, the whole of what we might call their social conditions changed overnight, and, with the change in his prospects, is it surprising that a man with a wife and children to think of should at that time, having no encouragement to believe that a Government of India which he then served was going to be persuaded to give him a proportionate pension, have decided to leave?

There can be no doubt whatever that the conditions of service changed with the change of régime in every one of these cases. But what other reasons are there which might make the Government hesitate to meet this claim? There is one which I have heard used in this connection; I will pass it over very briefly and I hope never to hear it again. It has been said that these non-covenanted servants of the Provincial Governments and Government of India joined their Services with their eyes open because they must have known that changes would take Place. Of course, it was true that for two generations constitutional evolution was going on in India, and no one could tell exactly where or when British rule would end. But of this I am certain, no one in a responsible position in India in those days ever thought or dreamt that those whom they were asking to do difficult and sometimes unpleasant duties would be abandoned and nothing settled for them. On the contrary, there was, in those days, a steady faith that His Majesty's Government would see them through, if difficulties arose when the final change came. Meanwhile, until that change did come, they continued to do their duty according to the will of Parliament.

What other reasons are there? There is one which has already been mentioned by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Wavell—that is, that it is said that the men of whom we are speaking "walked out" on the Governments of India and Pakistan. Who dares to make that charge? It was the will of Parliament that British rule should walk out of India, and it was the decision of the British Government that officers in the Indian Army and officers in the higher Services of Government were justified in Laving at that time because their conditions would be so drastically changed. What is more, it was intimated that if they felt that they should leave they would be adequately and not ungenerously compensated. That being so, how can anyone say, in a tone of censure, that a sergeant g police, bearing the whole burden and heat of the day in the bazaars of the great cities, ought not to leave? I believe it is true that shortly after the transfer of power there was not a single British higher police officer left in the Province of Bombay. If the officers left and were justified in leaving, and were compensated when they left, how can anyone say to a sergeant that he should never have left and that by doing so he would be "walking out"?

There is one other reason which may be urged for not taking this step—namely, that this is really an obligation of the Governments of India and Pakistan. It would certainly have been a happy and generous solution if those Governments had been persuaded to assume this burden. But if they do not do so—and, certainly, I can understand that they could advance arguments why they should not—what is to happen? Is there no moral obligation on the Government of our own country? These non-covenanted men served the same Governments, they carried out the same policies as members of the Indian Civil Service and the other high Services. Their conditions of service, their whole lives, have been changed in exactly the same way as those of the Secretary of State Services have been changed. It is, in fact, not possible for His Majesty's Government to wash their hands of them. This matter has been pressed on His Majesty's Government as urgent for the past eighteen months. We have in support of it the testimony of the two former Viceroys who were mainly concerned, and we know now that His Majesty's Government have tried and have not succeeded in persuading the Governments of India and Pakistan to assume the burden. It seems to me that there is now a quite inescapable moral obligation on His Majesty's Government to accept this burden. It is not a large one. To refuse to accept it will be to leave a stain on the arrangements for winding up our affairs in India, a stain which none of us believed could ever be left. From what has been said in this debate, surely it is clear that these men were overlooked at the time of the transfer of power. I beg His Majesty's Government not to stand on any technicalities but to treat them as other servants of India have been treated.

3.48 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, for obvious reasons I feel hardly qualified to intervene on this question, but I have been, as I am sure many other of your Lordships have been, so profoundly convinced of the justice of the case that has been so eloquently put by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Wavell, and those who have followed him, that I would like to add my voice, very briefly, to the moving appeals which they have made to the Government this afternoon. As so often happens in this House, the debate to which we have just listened has been extremely impressive in character. It would be difficult, I imagine, to find anywhere in this country a body of speakers better qualified by their eminence and experience, to deal with this subject. We have heard one former Viceroy, Lord Wavell, who spoke also for two other former Viceroys, the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, and the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow. We have heard three Governors of some of the most important and illustrious provinces of India, men highly respected both there and here. We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Ismay, who speaks with a lifelong experience of Indian affairs and who was in that country only recently at the time of the transference of power. I think it is typical of the British tradition, and I think we may proudly say so, that all these men have come here to champion with the weight of their experience the cause of those public servants to whom this Motion relates. No doubt they are comparatively few in number. They are, as it were, left over from the general settlement. But though they are few, that does not make them less deserving of justice. Indeed, I believe that for that very reason, they are more deserving of the protection of Parliament.

It is not for me, who speaks with far less authority than the others, to traverse the ground that has already been covered by the noble Lords who have spoken. I submit to your Lordships that the case they have made is unanswerable. I would remind the House that this is not a case of men who are asking for compensation for hardship. This is a case of men who have given a large part of their lives to the service of their country and who claim an undeniable right to a pension in respect of that service, a right which has already been granted to the members of the Secretary of State Services. It is true, and it may be argued, that they have now retired from their employment. Is that surprising? They had no knowledge at all that they would receive a pension. They waited and waited. Nothing happened, and they had their wives and families to look after. Some of them have no doubt suffered more and others less, but that is really irrelevant. What matters, as the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, himself said in his opening speech, is that these are men who (I quote his words) have given long, invaluable and honourable service to their country—men who have, in fact, run considerable risks for their country, and who now claim from their country what they feel, and what I feel, they have a definite right to receive.

It seems to me that we have a definite duty in this House to see that they do not suffer as a result of events over which, after all, they themselves had no control. Therefore I urge most sincerely on the Government that they should be generous, if anything over-generous, to this small body of public servants who trust in Parliament to protect them. If the Governments of India and Pakistan do not feel able to go further in this matter —and I do not say that in any spirit of criticism—let the Government recognise that that obligation has now been transferred to us and that it is an obligation of which we cannot divest ourselves. Any other attitude, it seems to me, would be quite unworthy of that good name in which we pride ourselves so much. I know that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is always sympathetic in cases like this, and I feel sure that he himself will be sympathetic on this occasion. I beg him to give us a favourable reply this afternoon.

3.54 p.m.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

My Lords, as the noble Marquess who has just spoken said, this has been an exceptional debate in so far as the speakers have included the eminent men whom he has mentioned and by the fact that preceding this discussion I received a letter on the subject signed by no fewer than three ex-Viceroys—a letter which I have here and which I shall be disposed to retain as a very special paper. It is fair to say that all the noble Lords who have spoken, with first-hand knowledge, have referred to the case as one of great urgency, but I think in some respects they have overlooked some of the causes with which it has been so difficult to deal. I am afraid that some of the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Wavell, were not quite so fair as I should normally have expected from him. This is not a question of discrimination between the rank and file and others. It is not that at all. There is no class discrimination in any sense. It is not a question of treating one body of men differently from another body of men because of their rank. I am sure that this Government, at least, might reasonably expect to be acquitted of the charge of discrimination of that kind. Really, observations of that sort do not help.

In this case, after considerable negotiation, the Governments of India and Pakistan did an act of exceptional generosity, which we ought to acknowledge. A large number of public servants, whom they could ill spare, had not served the full term which they normally would have been expected to serve for pension. Notwithstanding that, at the date mentioned in 1948 they were paid a pension in proportion to what they had earned, and satisfactory terms of compensation which, as noble Lords have said, were generous, were arranged. We have to remember that the Governments of India and Pakistan were seriously inconvenienced in the carrying on of many public services by the sudden departure of a considerable number of experienced officers. I do not think it would be right if we allowed the occasion to pass without making a most complete acknowledgment, as some noble Lords who have spoken have done, of the generous way in which these two Governments eventually dealt with this matter.

But there were a certain number of people left out. Maybe, as the noble Lord, Lord Ismay, has said, there was some "overlooking"—I do not know; I was not there. But it is a fact that a certain number of men retired of their own accord before the given date. They may have had good reasons, and I am not criticising their reasons. The noble Lords, Lord Scarbrough and Lord Clydesmuir, gave some poignant cases, and I am not disputing their accuracy at all. The fact is that between the dates in 1947 and 1948 these men, for various reasons, retired of their own accord before the full scheme had been agreed upon and brought into operation, and the Governments of India and Pakistan did not recognise, where they had lost the services of these men of their own volition, that they should be made responsible for the payment of pension; and I do not think in common fairness that we could claim that they were responsible.

This matter has been the subject of considerable delays, I frankly admit—not intentional delays. But at all events we recognise that it is right that these men, notwithstanding the fact that they came away of their own accord and before the appointed date, often did so for real reasons, such as those the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, and other noble Lords have mentioned, and we ought to recognise that that places a responsibility upon us. We are prepared to accept that responsibility and try to make some fair arrangement. I have here a statement of a proposal which we are prepared to make, and do make, and which I hope noble Lords who have been responsible for this Motion will receive in the spirit in which it is hoped it will be received. As the Speaker says in the House of Commons when he possesses himself of the King's Speech, "For the purposes of accuracy I will read it."

We recognise that, among those who quitted the Service between the transfer of power and November 17, 1948, there are some who were obliged to leave owing to a marked deterioration in the conditions under which they were serving. Those have been mentioned. Such men, we realise, would suffer real hardship if they lost altogether the pensionary expectations that had so far accrued to them. There are considerable practical difficulties—and I assure noble Lords that we have gone into this matter with great patience and goodwill—in deciding in individual cases whether this criterion is satisfied. If, however, the noble Earl is willing to co-operate in the manner in which I will shortly indicate, the Commonwealth Relations Office will be ready to receive applications from any who regard themselves as falling within this description; and if a case has been reasonably made out His Majesty's Government will be prepared to pay from United Kingdom revenues a lump sum as a contribution towards their loss of pension. Those men who served on "contributory provident fund" terms will receive comparable treatment.

For this purpose we should wish to avail ourselves of the help of the noble Earl, and of the other noble Lords who have been associated with him in taking an interest in this matter. We will consult them upon each case, in whatever manner is found mutually convenient; and I am prepared now—this is an answer —to give an assurance that we will accept their recommendation as to whether a grant is justified. I am sure that the noble Earl will be glad to take an early opportunity of consulting with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations as to the best method by which this cooperation can be achieved.

4.3 p.m.

EARL WAVELL

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for the way in which he has met us. I certainly am prepared to accept what he proposes and to bring forward these cases. I am sure he will realise that it will be necessary to deal with them with a promptitude which has not been evident up to date. At present they might well say with a certain character in Shakespeare, that they have: borne, and borne, and borne, and have been fobbed off, and fobbed off, and fobbed off, from this day to that day, that it is a shame to be thought on. There is no honesty in such dealing. I hope that their cases will be dealt with both generously and promptly. On that understanding, and with the proviso that I reserve the liberty to raise the matter again if they do not receive what we consider generous treatment, I am prepared to withdraw my Motion.

VISCOUNT ADDISON

My Lords, may I assure the noble Earl that the arrangements on our side have already been put in order, and if he will communicate with those with whom I will tell him to communicate at the Commonwealth Relations Office to-morrow morning, he will find that that is so.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

4.6 p.m.