GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (REPRINTING) BILL [Lords]. (Hansard, 16 December 1935)

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill has come to us from another place, and I think it would be convenient if I give a short explanation of it. It does not raise any question of substance. All that, is intended is to reprint the Government of India Act in two parts, one for India and the other for Burma. The House will remember that when we were discussing the Government of India Bill at interminable length it was discussed as one Bill, and it was passed as one Statute. That was done to save Parliamentary time, to save repetition which otherwise would have been more marked than actually was the case. I need not recall to the House the many discussions we had on the Government of India Bill and in fact that point really does not arise. The Bill I now recommend to the House is one to authorise the reprinting 1450 of the Government of India Act in two parts.
It is particularly suitable, I think, at this time when Burma is setting out as a separate unit within the British Commonwealth, that she should have an Act entitled the Government of Burma Act. That will be the result of printing the two Acts separately. One will be an Act for the Government of India and the other an Act for the Government of Burma. It is a reprinting Bill with no alteration of real substance or principle. There is one place to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, where the meaning in the original Act was not clear and we have taken the opportunity in this Bill of clarifying the intention of the original Act. Before explaining that point I will run through the Bill as it is presented. Its objects are set out in the long Title at the beginning of the Bill. It is: A Bill to divide the Government of India Act, 1935, into two portions and to make in the wording thereof certain changes which either are consequential on the division or remove minor errors; to provide for the certification, the deposit with the Rolls of Parliament, and the printing, of the said portions as if they were separate Acts of Parliament; to secure that the said portions have effect in lieu of the said Government of India Act, 1935, as from the date of the passing of that Act; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. The operative part is contained in Clause 1, divided into three Sub-sections, which give instructions for the reprinting of the Act. The second Clause includes the short Title. When we come to the Schedule I am able to explain to the House more closely the nature of the Amendments proposed. The Amendments may be divided into those which may be classed as printing errors, of which the first is an example, in Part II of the First Schedule. I do not want to say that these errors were due to printers' negligence. They can just as well be attributed to the material handed to the printer, but they can be treated, I think, fairly, as printing errors. The second set of Amendments can be regarded as drafting matters, of which a typical example would be that in line 31, in page 4 of the Bill. A third Amendment, to which I said that I would draw attention is the second Amendment on page 3, Part II of the First Schedule, which alludes to the Chief Commissioner of Baluchistan. That particular Amendment 1451 makes the original meaning of the Act a little clearer. It reads: In Sub-section (1) of Section ninety-five, the words 'through the Chief Commissioner' shall be omitted. This is the only possible case where there is any question of any real interest in the Bill apart from printing errors. If hon. Members will turn to Sub-section (3) of Section 94 of the Government of India Act, 1935, they will see that it reads as follows: A Chief Commissioner's Province shall be administeerd by the Governor-General acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through a Chief Commissioner to be appointed by him in his discretion. The first Sub-section of the next Section, 95, reads: In directing and controlling through the Chief Commissioner the administration of British Baluchistan, the Governor-General shall act in his discretion. There was a fear that if the words "through the Chief Commissioner" were left in Section 95 it would be thought that the Governor-General could only act in his discretion if he acted through the Chief Commissioner, and that therefore the previous Sub-section (3) of Section 94 would not have the meaning we intended it to have. This is the only instance where the original Act has been clarified. Otherwise, the Amendments are mere questions of printing or drafting. The ones that are not concerned with printing or drafting are the necessary machinery consequential on the decision to divide the Act into two parts. I hope therefore that the House will realise that I have drawn their attention to the only point which can be regarded as of any substance whatever, and that does not alter by one iota the original intention of the Act but will make the Act as reprinted clearer than before. I hope the House will see that no point of controversy need arise and that they will regard this first discussion on Indian affairs in this Parliament as a happy harbinger of future harmony in the discussion of Indian affairs. As a result of the reprinting we shall be able to start equal, because we shall all have to re-learn the numbers of the Sections which we had so laboriously to learn on the previous occasion.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
Will the Under-Secretary say something about the necessary arrangements owing to the divorcement of one Act from the other?

§ Mr. BUTLER
The hon. Member desires that I should say a little about the actual machinery for the separation of the two Acts. If he will refer to Clause 1 of the Bill he will see that it is provided that: The Clerk of the Parliaments shall forthwith prepare two documents containing respectively— (a) a copy of the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule to this Act, with the changes of wording mentioned in Part II of that Schedule; We take the Government of India Act and we reprint the parts included in Part I of the First Schedule, with the changes included in Part II, and we shall do the same thing in regard to the Government of Burma Act. If the hon. Member wishes to look at the changes in detail, he will see that the first change is one of printing, the second change raises a question of some slight substance, the third is again the question of printing, the fourth is a question of printing, and the fifth is consequential upon the decision to reprint the Act. For instance, it says: In Section two hundred and fifty-three, after the words 'notwithstanding anything in this Act,' in both places where those words occur, there shall be inserted the words 'or the Government of Burma Act, 1935,". I could go through the whole of the Sections and show the hon. Member how each applies to the decision taken by the House, if it passes this Bill in the terms of Clause 1. If the hon. Member will turn to page 2 of the Bill he will see that the second Schedule of the Act is referred to in Sub-section (1) (b). The same process is applied to the Burma part of the Act. He will see that the Bill is a simple Bill to reprint the Government of India Act in two parts.

§ Mr. MORGAN JONES
I think I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side that we shall not take any objection to the purposes which the Under-Secretary has outlined. There is everything to be said for dividing the Act into two parts so as to provide in the one part the provisions for the government of 1453 India and in the other the provisions for the government of Burma. Therefore, so far as I and my hon. Friends are concerned we shall take no objection to the principle that has been indicated by the hon. Member. But we are going to be asked to-morrow to consider the Amendments in detail. In those circumstances I must ask the Under-Secretary which A ct we are to amend. I have a copy of the Government of India Act and I have a copy of the Bill that we carried here. The first Amendment to the Schedule in Part II refers to the changing of the words "of India" to the words "in India." In what I may call the Indian copy—I will call it the Indian copy for convenience—the words are there as they are proposed to be altered, but in the English copy the words are "of India." Those words obviously ought to be altered to "in India," and we ought to know which copy we are going to amend, which is the right and which is the wrong one. That, obviously, is another printer's error.
Most of the Amendments are purely verbal and are obviously necessary, but, as the hon. Member indicated, there are one or two Amendments which seem to be of substance. I do not know what the explanation may be of the alterations proposed, but as I see them there are to be specific and somewhat substantial changes proposed in the Amendments laid down to the Schedule. I will not discuss the matter to-night because no doubt we shall have an ample explanation to-morrow. I content myself with saying that we offer no objection to the Second Reading, but that we reserve what we have to say to any possible discussion on the Amendments.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I would not have intervened had it not been for a particularly felicitous phrase used by the Under-Secretary, when he talked about this Measure as a happy harbinger of future accord between this country and India.

§ Mr. BUTLER
What I intended to say was that I hoped this Bill would be a good harbinger for the future discussion of Indian affairs in this Parliament.

§ Mr. MAXTON
I misunderstood the hon. Member I thought that he was expressing a wider hope than that. From 1454 his experience in the past he has no reason to doubt that any discussion there may be on Indian questions will be of a harmonious nature. The reason that I rise is because I was in the House at Question Time to-day, when the hon. Member was asked a number of questions about the treatment of Indians in India.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)
That matter cannot possibly arise on this Bill.

§ Mr. MAXTON
Surely it is within my province to move the rejection of the Bill and to offer reasons for so doing.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Obviously it is in the hon. Member's power to move the rejection of the Measure, but the objection must be relevant to the Measure itself. This Measure is very narrow.

§ Mr. MAXTON
It is a very narrow point that I am proposing to raise. I do net want to trespass against your ruling, but I should have thought that when the House was discussing a fundamental change in a Measure which it passed only a few months ago, dealing with the better government of India, I might have been allowed to raise this point. We are asked to split the Act into two parts. While I would not dream of attempting now to reopen the whole issue of the government of India, I do think that this occasion presents an opportunity for raising matters affecting the Indian people. It would be well within the power of the House to discuss every Clause of the Government of India Act and every Clause of the Government of Burma Act. This is a new Parliament and this is a new issue for this Parliament. I do not want to do anything of the kind. I merely want to raise a question arising out of the phrase "the happy harbinger for future harmony;" that is, that I think it would be desirable that the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend should consider approaching the question of political prisoners in India in a somewhat more generous manner—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I really cannot see that that question arises on this Bill. It may come up as a matter of administration or on a substantive Motion, but it does not appear to me that this Bill, whether it is carried or not, can possibly affect that question.

§ Mr. STEPHEN
Surely, it is in order to suggest that further changes should be made in the Bill in order to get a more satisfactory state of things in India; that there shall not be all the troubles with particular sections of the Indian people? When a substantial alteration is proposed surely it is within the right of hon. Members to propose other substantial alterations in the Government of India Act with regard to the penal Clauses of that Act in order that the people should be decently treated?

§ Miss WILKINSON
May I put this point of Order? Is it not possible for hon. Members to move that the Bill instead of being divided into two parts should be divided into four parts until such time as political prisoners in India are decently treated? I am prepared to propose that the Bill should be divided into any number of parts in order to raise the matter.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I think if the hon. Member could show that it was possible to divide the Bill into more parts it might be in order to do so, but not for the purpose which she has indicated. In reply to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) this is not a Bill to amend the Government of India Act. It is only a Bill to make minor and consequential alterations where necessary, and on that we cannot possibly go into the merits or demerits of the main Act.

§ Miss WILKINSON
May I put this point of Order to get your Ruling? If the present Government of India or the Government of India in this country has managed its affairs so badly that it has to bring in a Bill to reprint and redivide, pulling the Act about in various jig-saw ways, surely we have a right to call attention to the fact that they have mismanaged India in other ways; by the treatment of political prisoners?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That is a matter of administration, and cannot be raised on the Second Reading of this Bill.

§ Mr. MAXTON
May I put this point? I do not want to push the matter unduly. The Government say that this is merely a division of the Bill into two parts, but the Under-Secretary has intimated that they desire to be allowed to make one or two other substantial changes as well.

§ Mr. BUTLER
I only interrupt in order to correct the hon. Member, that we are making one or two other alterations. I said that there was one place in which the meaning of the Act was not clear and that we are clarifying the original intention of the Act. But I explained that there was no alteration of substance.

§ Mr. MAXTON
In the original Act it is laid down that the Governor-General shall act through a Commission, but the change now proposed means that the Governor-General can act without a Commission—a substantial change. The Under-Secretary says that it is only a change in wording, to make it more clear, but it is one thing for the Minister to say that and another for the House to accept it, and for you Mr. Deputy-Speaker to rule that the procedure of this House is for the convenience of the Government and not for the convenience of hon. Members.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is now making a direct charge against me as to my conduct in the Chair.

§ Mr. MAXTON
No, I am not doing that. But the Under-Secretary has usurped your position in the Chair by telling you that this is merely a verbal change. That is not his business. It is the business of the Chair to decide whether it is a verbal change or a point of substance. I make this point, very moderately, that if the Government are entitled to make certain substantive changes in this Measure I am entitled on the Second Reading to discuss the measure with a view to inserting other changes which I think are desirable for the purpose of clarification, and that you should accord to me, one of the Opposition in this House, the same right of approaching a Measure as you accord to the Government. I only want to deal with a minor matter, the treatment of political prisoners in India, which is no more a substantial point in reference to the whole question of the Government of India than the substitution of the Governor-General for Governor-General with a Commission. Am I not in order in raising this matter at this stage?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not in order. It is perfectly true that on Second Reading a great deal 1457 of latitude is allowed, and I hope that that will always be the case, but the arguments must be connected with what the Bill does. We cannot deal with questions which are matters of administration, and the question of the hon. Member is one of administration which this Bill, whether it is carried or not, does not affect. In my judgment the hon. Member is not in order.

§ Miss WILKINSON
May I ask for your Ruling on another point? There is an Amendment to Sub-section (1) of Section 95 to omit the words "through the chief commissioner." Would it be in order to move to delete this Amendment in order to give reasons why we consider the Governor-General should not have this power?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member can hardly expect me to anticipate a Ruling of the Chairman of Committees to-morrow.

§ Miss WILKINSON
Am I not allowed to move that Amendment now?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Obviously the hon. Lady cannot move an Amendment of that kind on Second Reading.

§ Miss WILKINSON
I realise that I am not in order, in moving an Amendment on a point of detail like that, but will you permit me to make this appeal to the Minister on the whole question when he deals to-morrow with these matters in detail? I am sure that he would like to get the business through as quicky as possible, and if he could give us an assurance with regard to political prisoners he would find that harmony, to which he has alluded, would be the prevailing mood of the House to-morrow, whereas, if he takes the present attitude of the Department, that nothing can be done with regard to these unfortunate men, thousands of whom are detained in prison without any charge whatever—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Order! order! I thought the hon. Member was raising a point of Order, but she is now making a speech and asking the Under-Secretary of State to do what I said the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) could not do.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
May I put this point of Order? If the Bill was rejected it would probably render inoperative to 1458 some extent, possibly to a large extent, the Government of India Act. Is it possible for us to move a reasoned Amendment to reject the Bill on the grounds that we do not want to allow the Bill to be reprinted, because we want to render it inoperative owing to the treatment of Indian political prisoners; that we consider the Government is not a fit body to be trusted with the administration of the Bill? I think we can move a reasoned rejection of the Bill on the ground that it would make the Government of India Act inoperative, because this Government should not be allowed to work it owing to their treatment of Indian political prisoners.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I am not quite certain that I follow the hon. Member. The question of whether the Government of India Act will be operative or not if the Bill is passed is not one upon which I can pass judgment. It is a matter of opinion, and a matter of administration, which is not the business of the Chair. With regard to the suggested reasoned Amendment I should prefer to see it in writing before I give an opinion.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
I desire to ask one or two questions which I hope will not be irrelevant and, therefore, subject to your adverse Ruling. The Under-Secretary of State has said that this is a new House of Commons and as such is facing a new situation in discussing this Bill. Therefore I claim the indulgence of the Under-Secretary if I put questions which may perhaps be a little lacking in instruction as to where we are. This is one of those small inoffensive Measures which not infrequently are not so small and ineffective when their results are realised. I want to ask why is there to be this division between the Government of India Act and the Government of Burma Act? What has inspired this division? Who asked for it? If there was anything more distressing than another during the Debates which took place in this House on the Government of India Act it was the confusion of thought which permeated those discussions as to the attitude of Burma regarding that Act. Has Burma asked for the Bill we are now discussing? Burma did not ask for all that was given her in the Act. The case for Burma was never 1459 clearly stated in this House in the discussions, and the Act was forced on Burma against the will of the people of Burma.
I ask: who has inspired this Bill? Has Burma asked for it? Is it in the interests of the democracy and the good administration of Burma that this division should take place? There is much anxiety in India and in Burma as to what may happen if a cleavage takes place between those two countries under the new Constitution. If the separation is made complete then, of course, any common benefits which the two countries have enjoyed will come to an end. Therefore I press my question. I do not want to hold up the progress of the Bill, but I really do want to know what is behind it. There is more in it than meets the eye. Going through the Indian Press, as I have to do every week, one is struck by the tension which exists among the parties concerned both in Burma and in India as to what is likely to happen in regard to the relationship between the two countries when the new Constitution is in full working order. Both Indians in Burma and Burmese communities in India are apprehensive. They are anxious about what is to happen to their property, in both cases, if the cleavage between the countries is made complete, not to speak of trading relationships and the possibility of tariffs by one country against the other.
I only regret that I was not in the House when the Burma proposals were being considered. Burma never asked for this Constitution which is now being foisted upon her and, bearing that in mind, it is imperative that we should know what is behind this so-called simple little Bill. I know, Capt. Bourne, that I must keep within the Ruling of the Chair and be content with having "got over" as much as you have allowed me to "get over" on this occasion, but my sympathies, which are not very often with the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) are with him on this occasion. Since we cannot now have the wider debate we would like to have, I hope the Under-Secretary will answer the points, which I put and which are, I think, relevant to the present Debate.

§ Miss WILKINSON
When I intervened previously it was to raise a point of 1460 Order, and you, Captain Bourne, rightly pointed out, I went rather beyond the point of Order. I rise now to offer some remarks on the Bill in general. I wish to say frankly that I disagree profoundly with the idea that any Bill introduced by this Government in regard to India, however small even if it wire only to alter the word "and," ought not to go through the House without examination and discussion while the Government are acting as they are acting in India to-day. I warn the Government that unless we can have before us to-morrow, when we take the Committee stage of the Bill, some guarantee either that there will be an amnesty, or that something will be done for those who are now being detained in India without trial, we shall go through this Bill Clause by Clause and make it extremely difficult for the Government to get it.
Those of us who have been taking an interest in Indian affairs are tired of the assumption that ran through the Minister's speech, the assumption that all these matters are non-controversial and that what is happening in India to-day is not a subject for discussion by this House. I have no wish to transgress even by one inch the Ruling which you, Capt. Bourne, have given, but if the Under-Secretary thinks that he can get this "simple little Bill" as it has been called by a courteous wave of the hands and a sweet smile and that it will be treated as non-controversial, he is mistaken. The hon. Gentleman's Department is one of the most controversial Departments in the Government. If the Government of India cannot manage its own affairs better and has to come to the House with all these Schedules and verbal changes, I do not see why we in this House should be asked to put our names to a blank cheque in the form of a Bill of this kind. I raise my voice in protest against this Bill going through as a non-controversial Measure, while thousands of Indians, whose only crime is love of country, are being kept as prisoners or detenus without trial.

§ Mr. KELLY
The question has already been asked, why this Measure is being divided into two parts, and I wish to ask further whether it means that there is to be any difference in treatment between the people of Burma and the people of India. Reference has also been made to 1461 the political prisoners in India. I am not going to raise any points of administration but I wish to know also whether the division of the Measure into two parts means that there will be any difference in the treatment of the prisoners in India and of the prisoners in Burma.

§ Mr. BUTLER
I can speak again only with the permission of the House, but I should like to answer some of the serious and legitimate points which have been raised by hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) raised a question as to the Indian copy of the Act. My answer is that this is a copy of the Government of India Act, 1935, as passed by Parliament and published by the King's printer which we are considering. To use the hon. Gentleman's phraseology, it is the home copy of the Act, therefore, that we are considering, and this is the copy that has authority, since it is published by the King's printers. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) asked why the Act was being divided into two parts. It is because the House took the decision that Burma should be separated, when it passed the Government of India Act. It has been thought more convenient and suitable, now that Burma is to be a separated entity, that there should be two Acts, one relating to the Government of India and the other relating to the Government of Burma.
I cannot now go into the whole question of the separation of Burma, and on reading again the long Title of the Act, I agree that it would not be in order to do so. The reason, therefore, for the division of the Act in the manner proposed is simply that the countries concerned are now to be separated and it is more appropriate, in that case, to have one Act entitled "The Government of India Act" and another Act entitled "The Government of Burma Act." It will be more convenient in regard to future references, for instance, that there should be an Act relating solely to Burma, when she has set out on her course as a separate unit. I am afraid it would not be in order to pursue the constitutional points which have been raised nor is it possible for me on this occasion to speak of some of the other points which hon. Members have men- 1462 tioned. I can only say that I am ready at any time to debate in the proper place the points which have been raised. My hope was that this Measure, which is restricted solely to the reprinting of the Act, with one or two minor alterations, would not be regarded as unduly controversial, and would be accepted by the House when the House had been put in possession of the mind of the Government on the subject. I can understand that there may be matters of controversy and, where matters of controversy can properly be raised, there is nobody more ready than I am to place my knowledge at the disposal of the House and to attempt to answer questions raised by hon. Members opposite. But I do not think it would be in order to deal with those matters on this Bill, and I therefore ask the House, with that explanation, to let me have the Second Reading.