CLAUSE 236.—(Conditions of service, pensions, etc., of persons recruited by Secretary of State.) (Hansard, 4 April 1935)

§ Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX
I beg to move, in page 130, line 15, to leave out from "Governor-General" to "and" in line 18, and to insert: in the exercise of his individual judgment. I gather that civil servants who have been appointed by the Secretary of State are not altogether satisfied with the first part of this Clause. Under Section 1 (a) the rules regarding their pay, leave, and pensions are to be prescribed by the Secretary of State, and with that they are perfectly satisfied. But under Subsection (b) it is laid down that many other things which are very important such as home allowances, travelling allowances, medical attendance and such like may be handed over to the Governor-General to make the rules. That, they do not like so much, but what they really object to is the power of delegating that rule-making power from the Governor-General to subordinates, who may possibly be Indian Ministers. They do not like that; and, therefore, to meet their wishes it would be very much better, if possible, to omit lines 16 and 17 and to put in the words which I suggest.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I suggest to the Committee that there is no need to accept this Amendment. The principle of the Clause is this: We are taking out the important conditions that really matter to an official, namely, pay, leave and pensions, and with reference to those things we say that the Secretary of State must prescribe the rules. With reference to the less important matters, we say in the subsequent paragraphs of the Clause that the Secretary of State has the power to prescribe them if he wishes, but if he wishes to delegate any of them to an Indian Minister or to another authority he can do so. I think that is quite safe, and I think it is a necessary provision. Some of these rules will be of a very detailed character. Some of them will vary constantly. For instance, I am told that travelling allowances, which are meant to be charges for the reimbursement of travelling 'expenses, do change constantly as new methods of communication develop. It would be putting too great an obligation on the Governor to say that he must make rules about all these detailed matters. The Clause leaves him free to make rules if he thinks it necessary. It also leaves him free to delegate his power. I suggest to the Committee that this is really the wise thing to do—to pick out the important rules and to ensure that in these cases the Governor does make the rules; but in the more detailed rules to give him the power of delegation. If my hon. and gallant Friend or any other hon. Member can suggest to me rules equal in importance to the categories mentioned in paragraph (a), we might put something more in that Sub-section but I feel sure there must be the power of delegation.

§ Mr. G. NICHOLSON
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the power to make these rules, having been delegated by the Secretary of State, or the Governor-General or the Governor, can be resumed?

§ Sir S. HOARE
Certainly, at any time.

§ Mr. WISE
I think that the right hon. Gentleman has not made entirely clear to the Committee what the Government really mean by this. The Amendment proposes to leave the power of delegation still to the Governor-General, but prescribes that this must be in the exercise 650 of his individual judgment. But without the Amendment the power of delegation is in the power of the Ministers who advise the Governor. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, what he really wants to get is purely the power of delegation. Could he not make this concession and allow the Governor or Governor-General to make his delegation without consulting his Ministers? I think that would entirely satisfy those who put forward this Amendment, and would withdraw the thing front the sway of party politics, against which we wish to protect these servants of the Crown.

Duchess of ATHOLL
We would really like to know whether, if these words are inserted, the Governor-General or the Governor will have the power in the exercise of their individual government to delegate rule-making power. Will they be perfectly free to withhold the power if they wish to do so? If they have delegated the power, will they have power to require the rules to be submitted to them for final approval? That seems a very important matter. My right hon. Friend spoke of only one of the subjects with which these rules would deal. He mentioned by name the question of travelling allowances, and said that the manner in which such allowances might be assessed might vary from time to time. I am told that such things as house allowance, and perhaps medical treatment, would also be among the rules with which this Clause gives power to deal. Provision for medical treatment and house allowances are not things which are likely to vary in the way that transport may vary. These matters are of great importance. The question of house allowance is a very important pecuniary consideration. It is a considerable part of a man's means. To hand over that power to an Indian Minister without the Governor-General being free to say whether it should be given over or whether any powers should be retained for the approval of any rule is a matter of considerable importance. It is the same with regard to medical treatment. I do not know what it covers, but it is an important matter and a considerable pecuniary consideration. 1 should be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give answers to the questions which I have put, because I do 651 not think that the statement which he has made to the Committee completely covers the point.

§ Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN
I do not think that that is really the worst of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at lines 16 and 17, or 20 and 21, he will see that the Governor-General and the Governor might hand over authority to make rules to an Indian official, and it is obvious that very great pressure might be put upon him in those circumstances. He might be compelled to do things under the rule that he would not do if he had acted in the exercise of his own individual judgment. Therefore, I think that the proposed words are really essential. I cannot see any harm in them. That is done to protect civil servants because they would know that whatever rules and regulations were delegated it would be done in the exercise of the individual judgment of the Governor-General or the Governor.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I hope that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene at this stage. It is worth while, before coming to the particular points which have been raised on this Clause, to make passing reference to the many safeguards in the Bill with respect to conditions of service, emoluments and so on not being impaired below the level of the conditions when the officers received their appointment. Also the special provision with regard to complaints and the special responsibility in the interests of members of the services arc factors in the consideration of this Clause. In considering special points raised on the Clause, I think that the whole Committee will agree that it is undesirable and unnecessary for us to raise or to anticipate conflicts between ministers and the Governor. If you can get adequate safeguards, it is evidently better to contemplate the machine going forward on the main lines.
In this matter, as the Committee will see in paragraph (b), the Secretary of State has complete power to make rules himself on any conceivable subject, as, for example, house allowances, which are no doubt important. If there are any complaints, or any anticipation that just treatment may not be exercised, the 652 Secretary of State has complete power, in any part of the area to be governed by these rules, to step in himself and see that the rights of the servants as provided for by the rules are protected. With that overriding power in the background, we think that it is better that the responsibility should be put upon the Minister in advising the Governor or Governor-General, and, if necessary, in minor matters delegating them to take the responsibility themselves of framing proper rules. If there is any complaint, there is always power in the background for the Secretary of State to step in, and we think that that is better than putting in the words "in the exercise of his individual judgment" to anticipate, to some extent, what would obviously be undesirable. If Ministers did not make proper rules in these matters for their officials and put the responsibility on the Governor it would enable the Ministers to wash their hands of the responsibility. We believe that the position is completely safeguarded, and that everything that has been done in the Bill to safeguard the position is better than the method suggested in the Amendment.

Duchess of ATHOLL
I thought I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that no officer would have any allowances less than what were due to him when he joined the service. Does the word "remuneration" in the proviso to Clause 236 cover all these various allowances as well as pay?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I did not mean to put that matter too widely, I may have gone too far. I merely wanted to remind the Committee that on the major conditions of service there are—and I do not want textually to tie myself down to what exactly they cover—the broad safeguards that the conditions of service which exist when a man's contract is made are not to be altered to his detriment. I do not want to tie myself down to any particular question of allowances or anything of that kind but I merely thought it right to remind the Committee that there was that safeguard behind these conditions.

§ Lieut.-Commander AGNEW
Are we to understand that normally the position is that in formulating these Instruments of Instructions the Governor-General or 653 the Governor, as the case may be, acts on the advice of his Ministers as to whether or not he should make a delegation of his duties in some parts, and that the safeguards would be first, the Secretary of State's power to make covering rules over the whole field and, secondly, the Governor-General or the Governor specially responsible with regard to conditions of service. Is that the position?

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Textually, that is so.

§ Sir A. KNOX
Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of amending these three categories of home allowances, travelling allowances and medical attendance by adding them to paragraph (a), that is, to reserve them to the Secretary of State? Would he consider the possibility of 'doing that before the Report stage?

§ Sir S. HOARE
I do not think that we could put in lines like travelling allowances. I ask the same question myself and the answer is that it varies almost from week to week and from month to month, and from one place to another, and you could never make a uniform rule. I will look into the other two questions. They do not come into the same categories but I will look into the matter.

§ Sir A. KNOX
In view of the explanation which has been given by the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. BAILEY
; I beg to move, in page 130, line 28, at the end, to insert: Provided further that no such person as aforesaid who is for the time being suspended from office shall suffer any reduction of pay (unless the Governor-General or the Governor in his discretion otherwise directs) during the period of such suspension until the final order relating to the matter for which he is suspended of the final authority leas been made and any reduction of pay ordered by or after such final order shall not be operative in respect of any period previous to the date of such final order. In moving this Amendment, which also stands in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp), I would ask the Government, if they possibly can, to accede to the purpose of the Amendment.
654 It is not an Amendment brought forward with any desire to embarrass the Government. It is not one of those Amendments, the origin of which, is in the minds of those of us who are opposing this Measure on these benches. The Amendment proceeds from the deep fear of the sense of peril, if something of the sort is not introduced into the Bill, which exists in the mind of those Civil Servants in India to-day who have been exposed in one way or another to terrorism and so forth. They fear that unless this question of suspension is placed in the hands of the Governor-General or the Governor, in fact suspension will be another word for dismissal, and that when a man has been suspended his case may very well not be heard for several years afterwards. In order to show that this point is no mere figment of the imagination of my hon. Friends and myself, I should like to trouble the Committee with the actual words of the memorial of the Indian Civil Service (Bengal) Association itself. They say: We apprehend that, especially in the peculiar conditions existing in Bengal, under the new Constitution it may be possible for political animus to operate against an officer in such a manner as would, under the existing rules, demand his suspension. Even under present conditions the delay in passing orders in such eases is very considerable, and we feel that in the future such delay may be extended. The existing rate of subsistence allowance is insufficient for an officer to defend himself or to fulfil his obligations to his family, except by borrowing, or spending his savings, if any. That is the opinion of the men on the spot, and no amount of soporifics should allow the consciences which I believe exist somewhere among hon. Members who support the Government to be lulled into the belief that the fears of those who will have to face the situation in India when this Bill has become law, if it does become law, are not justified. As has been said many times before, we can only oppose reason to force. We cannot call 200 persons or more from the smoke-room to reinforce our opinions. All we can have is a majority in this Chamber listening to the discussion, but we cannot, as it were, drive reason through a brick wall. I am speaking in a spirit of truth, rather than with any intention to wound the feelings of those who may not be listening to what I am saying. But can we not on this 655 one occasion have a concession from the Government, when we are appealling for our fellow countrymen and asking for a concession which experience has shown to be needed? Surely the Minister will be able to see his way to make what is, after all, a very moderate concession. Why should this concession in any way worry the Indian Ministers? Why should it hurt their pride that the Englishman who is suspended should have his case tried?
I imagine this Amendment will appeal to the sense of justice of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and some of his friends. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get up and bow!"] I do not want any such public demonstration from the right hon. Gentleman, but surely to ask that Englishmen in the civil service in India who are faced with the utmost difficulties, perhaps under ministers who are disloyal, should, if they are suspended, have their cases heard through is not asking anything unreasonable or unjust. If the actual reason of our case does not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, I am afraid that no words of ours can, but I would say to the Government that it is taking upon itself a heavy burden of responsibility if it refuses to grant that which those who have experience of the matter in India say ought to be granted, if injustice takes place in the future and if in fact, through the weapon of suspension, the efficiency and even the integrity of the civil service in Bengal is broken up.

§ Sir S. HOARE
My hon. Friend has his own way of making an appeal, I will not say an appeal to our reason, because it is obvious that in his opinion that does not exist, but, apart from the manner of his appeal, let us look at the substance of the Amendment. I am anxious wherever it is possible to leave responsibility on the shoulders of ministers. For good or bad responsibility is the basis of the proposals which we are making, and I think that, provided there are cases which are safeguarded, it is better to leave this responsibility in the first instance with the ministers. I do not see how there can be the kind of delay suggested by my hon. Friend and by the memorialists, 656 but I think that neither he nor they have given sufficient attention to Clause 237, which gives these officials a. very effective and prompt way of getting their complaints heard at once by the Governor or the Governor-General.
I should have thought that Clause 237 really did give the official all the safeguards which he needs in the event of his being unfairly treated by a minister or by a departmental chief. Clause 237, in addition to the Governor's special responsibility for safeguarding the interests of the service, I should have thought was sufficient. The last thing in the world that I wish to do, or that I wish the Committee to do, is to commit any act of injustice upon the civilians or to make their work any more difficult than it need be otherwise, but I should have thought myself the right course would be to leave the primary responsibility with the ministers, provided that we do ensure the official being able to make his complaint without delay to the Governor, the Governor being himself responsible for redressing the legitimate grievances of the officials.

§ Viscount WOLMER
This Amendment surely does not impinge in any appreciable degree on the powers of an Indian minister, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is so anxious to preserve. The Amendment says that a civil servant who has an accusation brought against him should not have his pay reduced until he has been tried and found guilty. That is the only effect of the Amendment, and the Amendment is moved at the request of the Indian civil servants themselves, the men on the spot. The Secretary of State referred to the memoralists. He admitted that the memoralists have put this demand forward. He did not mention, but I know that he will not deny, that the memoralists represent a committee elected by the civil servants of Bengal, at any rate, and I think the memorial is endorsed by the civil servants in other parts of India as well. Therefore, it is not an individual memorial but a representative memorial that has embodied this point. Why did they embody it? Why do they attach so much importance to it? Because they have had bitter experience. There has been under the 657 present regime, and the Secretary of State knows it perfectly well, cases of officers who have had very serious allegations brought against them and who have been suspended and kept on half pay for six, eight, ten and I believe even more than 12 months before the matter has been disposed of and the officer acquitted.
We say and the memorialists say that it is utterly unjust to put any servant of the British Crown or any individual in such a position. These men have not great private resources. They may have large families who are being educated in England. They may have heavy personal. commitments. What we are asking for in this Amendment is that their pay should not be reduced until they have been found guilty of the offence with which they have been charged. The Government are asked that by a committee representative of the Civil Service in India, whom the Lord President of the Council has assured us are in favour of the Bill and whom the Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State have given us to understand are wholehearted supporters of their policy. They put this matter forward because they have a real fear. Is that fear exaggerated? Let hon. Members consider what happens. What happened at Karachi the other day There was some communal disturbance. The British troops fired on one party and killed a number of members of that party. At once the protagonists of that party, the leaders of the party, bring accusations against the Government, against the agent of the Government of having been either callous, negligent, or mistaken or panic' stricken. They bring accusations against them and the whole neighbourhood is in a state of hysteria.
In many cases it is not unreasonable for the Government to say that the matter should be inquired into and that the accused should be put on trial and answer for his action, but if he is suspended during that period, and if the inquiries take months, as they have done in the past—the Secretary of State will bear me out when I say that some of these inquiries have gone on for a year— is he to be kept on half pay all the time? Are you going to put these men, who are bearing the responsibility of the whole British raj on their shoulders in these 658 areas, in the position that for eight, nine or 10 months or more. they may have to live on half pay, educate their families and bear all their charges all the time? We are asking for a small thing which is not likely to affect more than a very few individuals. We are asking that these men shall be safeguarded from rank injustice. The Secretary of State in giving us what we ask for in this Amendment will not be acting contrary to any principles for which he is standing in the Bill, but he will be doing something which will enormously relieve the minds of civil servants in India

§ Mr. D. D. REID
Is not the Secretary of State suffering from some common fallacy in the reason that he gives for rejecting the Amendment? He talks about the responsibility of Ministers. I can understand if you are setting up a professedly democratic system of government that the responsibility of Ministers is a necessary part of that system. What does the responsibility of Ministers mean? It means the responsibility of Ministers to the Parliament or legislative body which has the executive power. We have seen in this House in past days, even during my membership of it, occasions where the police were supposed to have acted in a somewhat arbitrary way, and the House has risen as one man almost to defend the rights of the subject. But we have not got that sort of case here. This is the case of a man who is a member of the Civil Service in the employ originally of a legislative body not of the same race, not of the same colour, not of the same religion. Why should that legislative body act in such a case when the bulk of them would consider him an alien official in India? It seems to me that when the Secretary of State talks about the responsibility of Ministers in a case like this he is merely being blinded by the similarity of words. I always thought that it was a maxim of English law that a man was innocent until he was proved guilty. If a native Minister chooses to suspend a member of the Indian Civil Service, why should not that member of the Indian Civil Service be considered an innocent man until the charge against him has been proved? I do not know what the answer may be, but I should be surprised if there is an answer.

§ Sir S. HOARE
My hon. Friend seems to think that this is a racial question. It is not that at all.

Mr. RElD
No, I think you made a mistake in using the word "responsible."

§ Sir S. HOARE
The hon. Member talked as if this affected Europeans only. Certainly half the officers affected would be Indians. I thought that Clause 237 and the special responsibility of the Governor did cover the position, and still think that the Governor could stop a suspension if he thought that it was an unfair suspension. However, I am most anxious to stop even the possibility of an injustice, which I think is much more remote than my Noble Friend fears. Be that as it may, I am prepared to accept the substance of the Amendment, although I am not quite sure about the drafting, in order to make the position doubly sure.

§ Viscount WOLMER
May I thank my right hon. Friend for the action he has taken. I think we might pass the Amendment and leave the wording to be put right, if necessary, on the Report stage.

§ Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS
I should think that the right hon. Gentleman is not accepting the last line of the Amendment. I do not think that the Noble Lord would want that. Suppose a man should be found guilty, it is clearly right that the deprivation should go back to the date of the original crime.

§ Viscount WOLMER
That would depend upon the sentence of the court.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
Surely in the event of his being found guilty the deprivation should go back to the period when the suspension was made. Obviously, there are grave things that might happen where it would be right that the man should immediately suffer deprivation of office, but the Amendment, as worded, would make it impossible for that to happen until the final verdict in the case. I hope the Secretary of State will make the necessary alteration in the Amendment so that it will not be a permanent provision that in no case could it happen that deprivation could not take place until the date of the final decision.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I suggest to my Noble Friend that the best course would be for his friends to withdraw the Amendment, and I will consult them as to the words.

§ Viscount WOLMER
If the right hon. Gentleman says that he will give us what we ask for in detail, we will leave the wording to him.

§ Mr. BAILEY
On behalf of my hon. Friends arid myself I completely accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman and we are exceedingly indebted to him for the way in which he has met us. I have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.

§ Sir H. CROFT
I beg to move, in page 130, line 42, to leave out from "made," to the end of the Sub-section.
I should be distinctly grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would consider accepting this Amendment, because it appears to us that it would be highly desirable if the Section stopped at the words "shall be made." We see no reason why the consent of the Secretary of State should be called into this matter at all, arid we think the words without that point are quite clear and definite.

§ Sir S. HOARE
This provision is, so I understand, continuing the present arrangement. We continue the rights and privileges of the service of the Crown as they exist to-day, and this is one of the conditions under which, I understand, they now serve. I suggest to the Committee that there may be cases in which the Secretary of State might have to exercise his power. It does seem possible that there might be cases of an official in which for some reason or other he is not entitled to his full pension, and unless I hear some stronger reason for making me think that we ought to change an arrangement that has been in existence for many years, I am inclined to think that we ought to retain it.

§ Sir R. CRADDOCK
The provision covers a particular class of cases in which extra pensions are given to persons who 661 hold administrative posts like supervising engineer, conservator of forests, and inspector-general of police. They are given them on condition that their service while they hold the post is approved. It is clear that future approval might be unfairly withheld by the Minister in charge, and in that case the Secretary of State might find it difficult to overrule the position of the Governor given on the advice of his ministers. What is aimed at is that if an officer is allowed to complete his tenure of a post that carries this extra pension, presumably the service is approved, otherwise he would have been put under disciplinary action or would not have held it all these years. The rules about this approved service are very hard to work for this reason. A man is appointed to be a chief engineer or a conservator of forests, which gives him, if he holds it for three or five years, a considerable increase of his pension, providing his service is approved. A man having held a post for the three years the general tendency would be to allow him to have the extra pension carried by the post, but in the past it has sometimes been prescribed that his approved service means something rather above the average, and consequently it is a very difficult question sometimes when a man comes to retire whether his service has really qualified him for a pension or not. The ordinary class of person who is- fairly easy-going, as long as a man has done tolerable work, would pass his service as good enough for a pension.
This particular condition of service ought to be modified so that if a man has held a post and not been turned out of it, censured or otherwise punished, his service should be regarded as approved for the purpose of this pension. If the rule is left as it is now, it is possible for a minister to hold up this question of a pension for a long time, and it would be certainly much better that that should be prevented. I have known one or two cases of heads of State departments in which the question of whether they should get this little extra pension or not was held up for months by the minister, and it was with some difficulty that eventually at the instance of the Governor the minister was persuaded to pass it. That is the special grievance that it is thought to avoid by not allowing this pension to be reduced in any case.

§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
It seems to me that the Movers of this Amendment have gone badly adrift. The Subsection says: No award of a pension less than the maximum pension allowable under rules made under this section shall be made. Then we come to the words which hon. Members desire to cut out: except in each case with the consent of the Secretary of State. If these words are cut out, it means that you will not be able to grant a beneficent pension to someone who has served well but who has not just qualified for pension. You will make the position worse for civil servants.

§ Viscount WOLMER
The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is quite wrong. If he will read the Subsection again he will see that it states that a person must receive the maximum pension which the rules allow, unless the Secretary of State allows otherwise. We want to cut out the latter words in the Sub-section. We think that men who have served a certain number of years and have qualified for pensions should get them.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I quite agree. I do not want to give power to cut down pensions, but if people have not qualified in point of time and the Amendment is accepted you cannot make a beneficent pension to them.

§ Sir S. HOARE
.The speech of the hon. Member for English Universities (Sir R. Craddock) confirms me in my view that we should do better to leave the position as it is in the Bill. He admitted that there may be cases in which a pension might be reduced. I should have thought that the general position is safeguarded under paragraph (a)of the Clause under which the Secretary of State draws up regulations and rules for pensions. In those rules he can make it clear that in the first category of cases mentioned by the hon. Member for the English Universities cases, where adequate time has been fulfilled and a satisfactory report has been made, the full pension will be given, but over and above that there is a necessity for Sub-section (4) to enable some exception to be made sometimes in the cases to which the hon. Member himself referred.

§ Sir H. CROFT
I do not press the Amendment.

§ Sir H. CROFT
On a point of Order. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) rose to attract your attention before you had put the question.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am very sorry, but really I looked all round the Committee before I put, the question, and I paused before doing so. There must be some limit to the extent to which the Chair is asked to go outside the rules. I paused before I put the question.

§ Sir A. KNOX
I thought that you were going to call the hon. Member opposite who has an Amendment to leave out Clause 236.

§ The CHAIRMAN
A notice to omit is not an Amendment. It is true that the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) has been interesting himself in matters which do arise on this Clause and I therefore looked specially at where he sits, but he did not rise when I put the Clause to the Committee. I saw nobody rise.

§ Sir H. CROFT
I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe did address you before you actually put the question.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
Although it is true that you rose to put the question you did not declare it carried, and, in those circumstances, I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) is entitled to speak.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) for giving me his opinion, but I do not agree with his view. My Ruling is that the voices had been collected.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
You had not.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have given my Ruling and have collected the voices. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) will please treat the Chair with respect. Otherwise, I must ask him to leave the Chamber.