CLAUSE 11.—(Business and Procedure in Governor's Legislative Councils.) (Hansard, 4 December 1919)

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "Sub-sections (1) and (2) of."
Sub-section (2) of the principal Act is left in operation under this Bill, and it is that which I seek to omit, In sub-section (2) of section 80 of the principal Act no measure can be introduced by non-official members, and that means by any Indian, in the Provincial Assembly, without the previous sanction of the Governor, if the matter affects the revenue of the Province. This procedure, of course, prevents any discussion, and deprives the Governors of all opportunity of judging whether the proposed measure affects the revenue or not. Most of the Bills which will be introduced into these Provincial Assemblies must deal in some way with finance. They must involve some charge on the Exchequer, and to prevent any private member, representing, as he may, a majority of the Indian members in that Assembly, from introducing a Bill, seems to me to be stifling the activities of Parliament. Here, of course, a private Member can introduce a Bill, and we regard private Members' Bills, or the Government do, as somewhat of an excrescence on the activities of Parliament. But when we talk of Bills introduced by non-official members in the Provincial Legislative Assemblies, we must remember that that will be almost the principal duty of those Assemblies, and I do submit we ought to allow Bills to be introduced, even although they involve a charge on the Exchequer. The Governor's veto upon the Bill still holds good. There is complete freedom, as explained in the Joint Committee's Report. He is expected to apply his veto to any measure that is undesirable, but I do not see that we ought to prevent measures being introduced and debated in these Assemblies.
For instance, in the Bombay Legislative Assembly there was a Bill introduced by a member of that Assembly, a friend of mine, calling for compulsory education. That Bill under Sub-section (2) was ruled out as being an improper Bill to discuss. I am quite willing, and the Indians are quite 696 willing, that that sort of Bill should be vetoed by the Governor, but they do urge, and I think we have a right to ask, that it should be considered that a Bill of that nature should be discussed, and that discussion should be permissible; otherwise the Governor cannot possibly tell what the purpose of a Bill really is, and, in any case, it is much better to allow people to blow off steam in public. [Laughter.] I am glad the House' is beginning to value the freedom of speech. It is much better that any measure should be discussed, and that it should not be ruled out altogether from discussion, merely because it might involve a charge upon the Exchequer. The activities of these Parliaments are to be recommended and not suppressed. What would happen if this Clause is not amended? The majority of any legislative assembly, either in Bombay, Bihar, Madras, or any of the other places may desire to bring in a Bill. This Bill will be prohibited from being discussed. That is not, by any means, the end of the thing. You may have these non-official members meeting together, in a non-official way, in some other Chamber, and—quite unofficially—debating and passing this measure. It is true that that will have no effect. But is it not much more desirable that any discussion of that sort should take place in the proper Chamber, and under proper supervision, with the officials represented as well as the non-officials, so that both sides can be shown, rather than we should give rise to a sort of extra-legal assembly which will have all the limelight thrown upon it, and which will gain the kudos and the applause of the more or less unthinking public? Is it not more advisable to have a proper discussion than that sort of wholly informal proceeding? I ask that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the possibility, later, either under the Rules and Regulations or otherwise, of allowing free discussion and amendment of any measure introduced by the non-official member, even though it does involve a charge upon the rates.

§ Mr. MONTAGU
The best way to reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to refer to the Manual Procedure of the House of Commons, with which I am sure he is familiar: The House does not…proceed upon any motion for a grant or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the Consolidated Fund or out of money to be provided by Parliament…except upon the recommendation of the Crown. We have tried to keep the procedure of 697 these Assemblies similar, though not exactly the same. Therefore, I really think he has put down this Amendment under a misapprehension. Perhaps, if he will be good enough to consider it again, he will find that is so.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
It is not quite the same thing. The Minister in charge of a Bill in an Indian Legislative Assembly is not quite in the same position as the Government Front Bench in this House. He has got the Governor and executive members of the Government to consider as well as his own wishes in the matter. We have not got Cabinet responsibility in India. If we had, the answer of the right hon. Gentleman would fit. Until we have we shall have difficulties like this cropping up. It is not fair to quote the Manual of Procedure in connection with private Members' Bills in this House in dealing with a problem which really is not comparable.
Amendment negatived.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), to leave out the words has been introduced or is proposed to be introduced, or any Amendment to a Bill is moved or proposed to be moved, the governor may certify that the Bill or any Clause of it or the Amendment affects the safety or tranquillity of his province or any part of it or of another province, and may direct that no proceedings or no further proceedings shall be taken by the council in relation to the Bill, Clause or Amendment, and effect shall he given to any such direction, and to insert instead thereof the words or any Amendment to a Bill is passed by the Legislative Council, the governor may certify that the Bill or any Clause of it or the Amendment directly affects the safety or tranquillity of his province or any part of it or of another province and thereupon the Bill, Clause, or Amendment shall be deemed not to have been passed. This Amendment deals with a. similar subject to the last, but does not involve any charge upon the Exchequer. Here, too, it seems to me that freedom of discussion is the best thing to allow. You have got the natural desire of the elected representatives of the people to the Legislative Assembly to act upon the promises they have made to their electorate. Are these people to be debarred from raising a question or putting forward a Bill, or—more important still—a proposal to repeal some existing statute by saying that the measure affects the safety or tranquillity of the Province? We all agree that anything which does affect the safety or trait quality of the Province ought not to be passed into law. I am quite ready to 698 assent to that proposition. What we do say is that discussion ought to be allowed. We say it with the more force because under the present procedure, as I understand it, of the Provincial Assemblies you can discuss a Bill of this sort in detail, and veto does not take place until the Bill has been discussed. This is, in effect, a retrograde measure depriving these local Legislatures of rights they already possess. It is a step backward. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary. I hope that I am wrong in my surmise that this is intended to detract from the existing powers of the existing Provincial Assemblies. In any case, on abstract principles I believe it is better to allow people to produce their measures and debate them, and have answers given by officials in these Assemblies so that they may get circulation in the Press which we all agree is so desirable. We ought not to stifle, discussion, and so turn it into channels which will not be as satisfactory to the administration as debate in open house is.

§ Mr. MONTAGU
The Governor remains responsible for the safety and tranquillity of the Province. Is it conceivable to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are two kinds of safety? I am quite prepared to agree that it is not in the least likely that a majority of the Legislative Council would wish to discuss a Bill affecting the safety and tranquillity of their Province—in which case this Clause would not be operative. I have never yet heard of a Legislative Council which has not got some curious members, and if one man wishes to debate a measure which it is not in the public interest to debate—some attack upon a sect; something that would disturb the peace of a neighbouring Province; some racial matter. These things are not intended to apply from day to day. Nobody hopes more than I do that these precautions will not be necessary. But if you are passing an Act you must provide for every contingency. If you are leaving the Governor of the Province responsible to this House for the safety and tranquillity of his Province, you ought to arm him with power to prevent discussion of a matter which, in his opinion, would jeopardise that safety and that tranquillity.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Really, the right hon. Gentleman is playing with his Liberal principles. He knows perfectly well, as we all know, that it is much better to allow both parties to state their case. 699 If you have an unpopular member introducing an unpopular subject into any of these assemblies he will be answered—as I am being continually. A case would be made against him. Otherwise you make a man a martyr. His views get into the Press just the same, and the other side of the case is not stated. The real reason we are educated politically in this country is because we have trained ourselves to listen to both sides, and to choose fur ourselves between right and wrong. I think it is a stupid policy, depriving a country like India, which is beginning its political career, of the chance of educating itself in exactly the same way as we have done—by hearing what is false and true, and learning which is the best way out.
Amendment negatived.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.