(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about the grant of compensation to members of the Indian Services on account of the decision to transfer power in India by a date not later than June, 1948.
Yes, Sir. A decision has now been reached on the compensation of members of the Indian Services whose careers will be affected by the transfer of power. This decision needs to be viewed against its historical background and I will, with the permission of the House, explain the circumstances which have led up to it.
The Act of 1919 placed officers appointed by the Secretary of State in subordination for the first time to Indian Ministers under the system of dyarchy established in the Provinces. This was considered to make a radical change in the conditions under which they had been appointed to serve and Section 96B of the Act was enacted to provide compensation in the case of persons appointed before the commencement of the Act. But the altered conditions of service created doubts in the minds of possible candidates as to future security of tenure and, in order to dispel these doubts and to ensure the necessary flow of recruits, authoritative explanations which carried assurance of a permanent career in India were given at the universities and elsewhere. The principle of assured service or, in default, compensation was enunciated in 1934 by the joint Select Committee of Parliament without limitation to those appointed before any particular date. In this form statutory effect was given to it by the detailed provisions contained in Part X of the Government of India Act, 1935. It was thus the intention of Parliament that officers whose careers and prospects were prejudiced by constitutional changes should receive such compensation as the Secretary of State might consider just and equitable. When in 1945 recruitment for the I.C.S. and the Indian Police was resumed, with provision for compensation if for constitutional reasons service was terminated prematurely, the then Secretary of State undertook, at the request of the Government of India, that officers already serving would, if their services were similarly terminated, be granted terms not less favourable considered as a whole than those applicable to the new recruits. His Majesty's Government have, therefore, considered what arrangements should be made to compensate these and other officers appointed by the Secretary of State for loss of career and prospects. There is also a further important factor to be considered. The Government of India inform His Majesty's Government that they are most anxious to avoid the loss of experienced officers. They have stated that they are prepared to give to those members of the Secretary of State's Services who continue to serve under government in India the same terms as to scales of pay, leave, pension rights and safeguards in matters of discipline as hitherto. Provincial Governments are being asked to give a similar assurance to officers continuing to serve in their Provinces. In the case of Indian officers they feel that sentiments of patriotism will impel them to continue to serve their country and that they can look for a positive improvement in their prospects. They agree, however, that compensation should be payable to Indian officers who—May I ask the Prime Minister, first, whether an equivalent statement is likely to be made dealing with uncovenanted services and the smaller services serving Provincial Governments; and, secondly, whether he realises that it will be necessary for us to consider in detail the implications of his important statement, the tables to which he has referred, and so forth, and whether we may have time to consider them so that we can give a considered view on this matter?
In answer to the second question, I quite realise that this is a difficult matter, and that hon. Members will also want to study the scales before they ask further questions. On the actual point that has been raised, the provisions of the White Paper cover all members of the Civil Service in India appointed by the Secretary of State, including the members of the old Indian Agricultural, Educational, Forestry and Veterinary Services; they do not cover officers appointed by authorities other than the Secretary of State.
Will this require legislation?
Yes, I think this will require legislation in due course.
Will that be during this Session?
I cannot say at the moment.
Could my right hon. Friend say whether members of the Indian Ecclesiastical Establishment are covered?
Yes, Sir.
Could my right hon. Friend say whether any active steps are being taken to encourage British officers in India to remain in India after June, 1948, instead of taking compensation?
Yes, I indicated that in my statement.
There is one other very important matter. The Prime Minister referred to the Government of India accepting liability for retiring pensions and proportionate pensions. We are very glad to know that. In the event of the present Government of India not being the Government to which power is transferred, can the right hon. Gentleman give any undertaking that the successive Government, or Governments, will accept similar liabilities?
That is a matter which, of course, will have to be dealt with in making the general arrangements for the transfer, but the point of making the statement now is that we have this assurance made on behalf of the present Government of India, in so far as they can speak for affairs in India. It is quite essential that His Majesty's Government here should make quite plain the obligation we accept towards our subjects.