§ 38. Mr. KINGasked whether it is on instructions from the Secretary of State that the Government of India has declared that the question of the site and architecture of the new capital at Delhi is not to be discussed in the Indian Legislative Council; and whether, in view of the fact that the whole cost of the new Delhi is to be borne by the Indian taxpayer and will amount to over four millions sterling, the Secretary of State will recommend the 1926 Viceroy to lay the plans and proposals before the Legislative Council?
§ Mr. MONTAGUNo such declaration has been made. In stating that they did not propose to put forward for discussion the questions to which my hon. Friend refers, the Government of India have not interfered in any way with the liberty of members of the Legislative Council to raise and debate topics of public interest. The Secretary of State does not propose to instruct the Government of India in the manner suggested.
§ Mr. KINGAre we to conclude that there will be ample public discussion in the Legislative Council of India on these proposals?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIf any member of the Legislative Council desires to discuss this matter he can put down a Motion within the rules. There is no intention of avoiding discussion.
§ Mr. KINGAre the rules of the Legislative Council as difficult for hon. Members in a private capacity as they are here?
§ Mr. MONTAGUI should not like to make a comparison, but I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the rules.
§ 39. Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary for India whether he has considered the last Report of Mr. J. Begg, consulting architect to the Government of India, and the warning therein contained against the dangers incident to the increasing employment of Chinese workmen in Indian building operations; and whether he can give an undertaking that Chinese labour will not be employed on the buildings of the new Delhi?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe Secretary of State has seen the passage in the Report to which my hon. friend refers regarding the increasing number of Chinese workmen in certain building trades of Bengal. He sympathises with my hon. Friend's apprehensions, and will bring the matter to the notice of the Government of India.
§ 40. Mr. KINGasked whether one of the selected architects for the new Delhi carries on his profession with offices in Johannesburg and the other with offices in London; whether any conditions have been imposed on either or both of these gentlemen that they should give up their private practice or spend a definite portion of each year in India; and, if not, 1927 what security will be given that the work in India will receive the necessary personal supervision?
§ Mr. MONTAGUMy hon. Friend may rest assured that the agreement to be made with the two architects will guard against the apprehensions upon which his question is based.
§ Mr. MONTAGUI do not think that is necessary, but I shall be pleased to answer any questions about them.