§ 6. Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government has accepted the proposal of the Bombay Legislative Council to appoint a committee of non-official members to investigate the charges of incompetence and corruption recently levelled against certain officials employed in the development department which constructed the works connected with the Back Bay scheme; and, if so, will he give the names of the committee and the terms of reference?
§ 7. Mr. SAKLATVALAasked the Under-Secretary of State for India, in view of the fact that the Government of India gave permission to Mr. Harvey, an official of the special Bombay Government engineering department, to prosecute Mr. Nariman for the statements contained in his evidence given before a committee of investigation, and announced its intention of paying his expenses, under certain circumstances, if he will state whether, in view of the action having been decided against Mr. Harvey, it is still the intention of the Government of Bombay to pay these expenses; what action is it proposed to take against the officials against whom evidence of corruption was proved; and does the Government propose to pay expenses and compensation for loss of time and health to Mr. Nariman who was prosecuted?
§ Earl WINTERTONMy Noble Friend has at present no official information regarding any of the points to which the questions relate, but has called for a report from the Government of India.
§ Mr. LANSBURYHas the Noble Lord's attention been called to the Press statement that it was proposed to appoint such a committee?
§ Earl WINTERTONYes, Sir, I have seen statements to that effect in the Press, but really the matter primarily rests with the Government of Bombay, and in cases of that kind it would be done in the ordinary course of administration. Notification would not be sent to the Secretary of State, but, as his attention has been called to the matter, my Noble Friend has asked the Government of Bombay for a report.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI will put down a question for next Monday.
§ Mr. SAKLATVALADoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that the whole of these matters arise from the specific statement of the previous Governor of Bombay that he was acting in this matter purely in view of rights vested in him by Parliament. In view of that fact, does not the Noble Lord realise his own responsibility to guide from here the further ramifications of this matter?
§ Earl WINTERTONI am afraid I do not quite understand the purport of the hon. Member's question, but the constitutional position is this: The matter is primarily one for the Government of Bombay, but, as I have already informed the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), my Noble Friend is asking the Government of Bombay for a report on the matter, and I will communicate the purport of that report to the House.