§ 2. Mr. ATTLEEasked the Secretary of State for India what will be the position of the Indian delegates who are to cooperate with the Joint Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms; whether they will be allowed to put questions and to cross-examine witnesses; whether they will take part in the formulation of the report of the Committee; and whether they will have power to vote?
§ Sir S. HOAREIndian delegates, not being Members of either House, clearly would not be able to vote as members of a Joint Select Committee or be actual parties to a report by such a committee. As regards the remainder of the question I consider that these are questions of procedure which it will be for the committee itself to settle.
§ Mr. ATTLEEIs not the right hon. Gentleman being asked by those who will be invited to act with the Joint Select Committee as to what will be their powers; how can he, therefore, leave that for the Committee to decide?
§ Sir S. HOARENo communications have been sent, and no questions of that kind have been asked.
§ Mr. ATTLEEShould it not be settled before anyone can be asked to act?
§ Sir S. HOARENo, I do not necessarily think so.
§ Sir S. HOAREThey will be invited by the Committee.
§ Miss RATHBONEWill the witnesses who are not brought over by the Government be given time to make their arrangements to come from India 7 How soon will they know?
§ Sir S. HOAREAll these questions must depend on the Committee itself.
15. Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Secretary of State for India whether, in order to render the Joint Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reforms as impartial as possible and to prevent the appointment of Members with preconceived views, he will recommend to the House that its members be selected by the method of ballot?
§ Sir S. HOAREI see no advantage in departure from the usual practice in this matter.
Captain CROOKSHANKDoes that mean that the right hon. Gentleman does not want the Joint Select Committee to be impartial?
§ Sir S. HOARENo, I am most anxious that it should be impartial, and I hope that all the main bodies of opinion in the House will be represented.
§ Mr. MAXTONHear, hear!
§ Sir S. HOAREI said "main bodies."
§ Mr. MAXTONAnd I said "Hear, hear!"
§ The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. CHURCHILL:
§ 24. To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will inform the House of the nature of the advice which he will tender to the Joint Select Committee upon the question of their relations with the Indian representatives who have already been invited to this country?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThis question has been to some extent answered already by the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he still has something to add.
§ Sir S. HOAREI have on various occasions explained the views of the Government, which are, in effect, those expressed by the late Lord Birkenhead as long ago as 1927. The matter is of course one for discussion and decision in the Joint Select Committee itself. I have only to repeat that no invitations have 6 yet been issued to any Indian representatives.
§ 55. Mr. ATTLEEasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation propose to have a series of factual talks on the Indian constitutional problem; whether he is aware that it is impossible for such talks, owing to the selection and arrangement of facts and the emphasis given to them, to be other than tendencious; and whether he will use his powers to prevent such talks being given?
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood)I understand that the British Broadcasting Corporation are arranging for a series of three talks to be broadcast soon after Easter concerning the proposals contained in the White Paper on India. I am informed that it is the intention of the Governors of the Corporation that these talks shall be purely objective and explanatory and not tendencious. I see no ground for interfering with the discretion of the Governors in this matter.
§ Mr. ATTLEEDoes the right hon. Gentleman think it is possible to give a statement of fact on the Indian situation without making tendencious statements? Is it not perfectly clear that its exact effect will depend upon who gives it?
§ Sir K. WOODI think it is quite possible for an individual to give a fair explanation of this particular document. In any case, I must trust the discretion of the Governors in this matter, who have the responsibility.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLDid the Government suggest or instigate at all this disgustingly unfair procedure?
§ Sir K. WOODI cannot, of course, assent to the description which my right hon. Friend has given, but I can give a complete denial to any suggestion that the Government instigated this procedure.
§ Mr. LANSBURYMay I say that on this matter I agree, for once, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill); and may I ask whether it is not the case that, when the British Broadcasting Corporation allowed a similar talk by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, he not only made a tendencious statement, but a very highly provocative statement?
§ Sir K. WOODAs regards the first observation of the right hon. Gentleman, that he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping are in agreement, I think that that shows that I am probably right.
§ Mr. ATTLEEIs it not possible that everybody is in agreement with both these right hon. Gentlemen?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThen I understand that the Government repudiate any suggestion that they instigated this procedure?
§ Sir K. WOODI have already said so.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIn that case, are they in a position to resist a request that a fair opportunity should be given for answers to these statements?
§ Sir K. WOODThat is not the question that I have been asked. I have been asked whether I would prohibit it, and I have declined to do so.