§ Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to indicate the composition of the British side of the forthcoming Indian Conference?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe House will remember that the suggestion of a Conference was first made in the letter addressed to me by the Chairman of the Indian Statutory Commission on the 16th October. He suggested 275
that in this Conference His Majesty's Government would meet both representatives of British India and representatives of the States.His Majesty's Government have been considering how, without changing the character of the Conference as indicated in this letter, it can be used so as to give an opportunity to the representatives of India and this Parliament for exchanging and discussing views on the problems with which they are dealing and for understanding each other; and His Majesty's Government are impressed by the advantages that would result from the presence in the Conference of representatives of the other parties in Parliament. Thus we believe that difficulties and differences will be removed and that the legislation to be undertaken hereafter will be facilitated. For this reason, His Majesty's Government propose to invite the leaders of the other two parties to nominate representatives to attend the Conference from both Houses. But I must make it clear that His Majesty's Government cannot throw off their constitutional responsibility and must retain complete freedom in regard to the proposals which they will subsequently lay before Parliament as the outcome of the Conference to advance the purpose announced by the Viceroy after consultation with His Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. BALDWINWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us, as the time is very short before we adjourn for the Recess, whether he has arrived at any conclusion as to the number of representatives?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAt the present moment, I am exchanging views on the subject. I should very much like, if it were possible, that the names should be announced before we rise. The number that my mind is playing round just now is three or four from each of the Opposition parties, and I hope that number will be agreed to as I am sure it is the most convenient number.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWill those who represent the two Opposition parties be there on equal terms with any other delegates? Will there be an equal status in any respect, so that they will be full delegates and will be taken into full consultation and will take part in every discussion, whether in a plenary session or in a committee or otherwise? I should 276 also like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has come to any conclusion as to the representation of the Statutory Commission, seeing that it is not an ordinary commission appointed by the Government, but a commission appointed under the authority of Parliament, the very names having been sanctioned by Parliament.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWith reference to the first question, certainly, the delegates will be full delegates and will be entitled to sit in plenary session and in committees and take part in discussions and be put in possession of all the material necessary to enable them to fulfil their full functions as delegates to the Conference. With reference to the representation of the Statutory Commission, that matter has given my colleagues and myself a good deal of consideration and concern, and at the moment we are inclined to say it would be a great mistake to have them represented as delegates at the Conference.
§ Mr. MAXTONThe right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway should be very well satisfied with the generous representation that his comparatively small party is receiving at this Conference. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, since he has been able to invite such a large proportion of the party opposite, whether he could not see his way to include in the Conference representatives of his own back benchers who hold strong views.
§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI want to revert to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. I think it would be clearly undesirable that any member of the Statutory Commission should be appointed as a member of one of the party delegations. Yet is it not clear that this Conference ought to have the assistance of a representative of the Commission? Cannot the Government, with the consent of all parties—which would be forthcoming—ask the Chairman of that Commission to be present?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI have received no notice that this question was to be raised to-day. As my right hon. Friends know, the matter is at present under consideration. The view to which my colleagues and myself have come up to now is that for very strong reasons it would be very undesirable that this 277 should be done. If I had had notice yesterday that this was to be raised and that I should be required to give a specific answer to it to-day, I should have proceeded further than I have gone with my negotiations, but I must tell the House that the view I hold at the present moment is that it would be a profound mistake to do anything of the kind.
§ Sir A. CHAMBERLAINDoes the right hon. Gentleman, then, propose to exclude from the Indian representation anyone who has signed another report, or has taken part in the Indian Central Committee, or is there to be one rule for Indian representatives, and another for British?
§ The PRIME MINISTERSo far as the Indian Central Committee is concerned, no members will be represented, but we are at present in communication with the Viceroy on the whole subject, and it is awkward for me to say more on the subject than I have done at present. I have been perfectly candid with the House. We have considered it, we are at present considering it, and we are at present engaged in negotiations about it, but at the present moment I think the House would be very well advised to adopt my suggestion.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMay I say, in reference to what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman about not receiving notice, that I only heard about half-past Eleven last night that a statement was to be made. Not a word was said to me on that occasion as to the attitude of the Government with regard to the Indian Commission. I had no opportunity until a short time ago to consult my colleagues on the subject, and, therefore, I put the question straight away.
§ Mr. THURTLEMay I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government, in deciding upon this new policy of admitting the Opposition parties to the round-table Conference, have taken into consideration the probable serious reaction upon Indian nationalist opinion by this decision?
§ The PRIME MINISTERWe have, and I think it is perfectly obvious that, first of all, it is not a new policy. It is perfectly obvious that it is for the good of India as well as for our own good that 278 the discussion which takes place at this Conference should be very full and should be representative, and that the Government should have the benefit of listening to the most thorough thrashing out of all the problems that arise, and which will have to be dealt with by legislation.
Mr. MACLEANArising out of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, are we to take it that the three parties are each to have the same representation, or are we to understand that there is to be proportional representation, that is, representation proportionate to the numerical representation in this House? If the inference we place upon it is correct, it seems rather a peculiar position that the two Opposition parties are to have double the representation that the Government themselves will have. Consequently, I think a statement ought to be made by the Prime Minister.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is not the case. I have very little interest in proportional representation with regard to representation at this Conference. What we want to do is to get a representation which will be efficient in bringing ideas and making examinations of the questions that are before the Conference.
§ Mr. WELLOCK rose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt seems that this question has been dealt with long enough.