CLAUSE 175.—(Executive authority in respect of railways to be exercised by Federal Railway Authority.) (Hansard, 1 April 1935)

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare)
Before I move the Amendment that stands in my name, there are one or two observations that I think hon. Members in all quarters of the House would desire me to make. Since the last meeting of the House there has befallen us one of those swift and unexpected bereavements that unite us all in a tribute to a departed colleague and a word of sympathy to his wife and family. Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland brought to this House a record of University achievement, in debate, in the schools and on the river seldom equalled in our experience. For 25 years he was an honoured and distinguished figure in our midst, standing out pre-eminently for integrity of purpose, industry in the public service and sympathy of outlook. Many of us might envy the circumstances of his death, swift, and we hope painless, in the midst of his friends, following the pursuit that he loved so dearly. While many of us may envy the circumstances in which he died, the very suddenness of his end makes the blow to his wife and family the more overwhelming. In the name of the Government, and I hope in the name of every hon. Member of this House, we offer to his wife, his family and his intimate friends our most sincere sympathy.

§ Mr. LANSBURY
Will you allow me, Sir, to say how all of us on this side of the House would like to join in the expression of sympathy to Lady Steel-Maitland and her family. It was my very great privilege to know Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland many years. He came to my home over 30 years ago in connection with a Poor Law Commission and from that time right on to the end, I think I may say that, whatever keen political divisions of opinion there were between us, we remained very good friends indeed. I respected him very much, and so did all my 34 friends, and to-day we join with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in expressing to his wife and family our very deepest sympathy and our very highest respect. We join in saying that the House has lost a very distinguished Member and the country has lost a very efficient hardworking public servant.

§ The CHAIRMAN
On Clause 175 there is no Amendment on the Order Paper, but the Secretary of State has handed in manuscript Amendment which I do not think will give the Committee any difficulty in considering it now, more especially as I understand copies of the manuscript Amendment have been made available to hon. Members.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I beg to move, in page 103, line 7, at the end, to add: Notwithstanding anything in this section the Federal Government or its officers shall perform such functions for securing safety on railways as in the opinion of the Federal Government should be performed by persons independent of the authority and of any railway administration. I apologise to the Committee for having to propose this as a manuscript Amendment. It raises a simple point which I hope hon. Members will be able to appreciate and deal with at once, and save time on subsequent stages of the Bill. It was pointed out that the Clause in its present form might imply that the Federal Government would not be responsible for the safety of railways; that any safety provisions with regard to the Indian railways would depend entirely on the Federal Railway Board. I think it will be the view of hon. Members that questions of safety ought to be taken out of the control of a board whose principal interest is to run the railways on business lines and make a good return on the capital. The new Sub-section will make the Federal Government responsible for the safety of railways just as the Government are responsible for the safety of railways in this country. Here the Board of Trade are responsible and in the case of India it is the Federal Ministry of Communications. In any case, I suggest to the Committee that the wise course is to make clear what we have always intended, but which perhaps may not have been sufficiently clear, that it is the Federal Government which is primarily responsible for the safety of railways.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
I think this is the right principle to follow; that where a trading body has been set up there should still remain appropriate powers with the Government itself. I see no objection to the new Sub-section, but I should like to know how far it extends. Does it include the laying down of regulations for the safety of the travelling public, the holding of inquiries in the case of accidents, and does it also include safety provisions for the staff?

§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY PAGE CROFT
It is extremely difficult for the Committee to deal with a manuscript Amendment which has only been placed in our hands at this moment. We have not been able to appreciate its importance. Although this particular Amendment appears to be in every way a legitimate Amendment to the Bill I hope the Secretary of State will realise that owing to the pressure with which the Bill is being rushed through the handing in of manuscript Amendments makes our task rather difficult, and that it will not be necessary for us in the future to have to deal with manuscript Amendments so early in our deliberations. I do not say that in any hostile spirit. I hope also that the Secretary of State will find it convenient at some stage on this Clause to indicate whether there has been any adjustment of the difficulties with the Princes, who quite definitely said that they could not accept the Clause as it stood. It would be out of order to raise that point on this Amendment but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us how far he has gone in his communications with the Princes.

§ Sir BASIL PETO
Although the new Sub-section may be necessary I think we should have a little more explanation in regard to it. It speaks of the functions for securing safety on railways. Does that include the safety of passengers? Does it include measures for protection against sabotage in times of civil disturbances, or does it contemplate that the Federal Government will make changes and substitute steel sleepers for wooden sleepers and automatic signalling for the present system, when it is necessary to do so for the safety of passengers. I would like the Secretary of State to indicate what safety means. It might 36 be necessary, as these changes are being introduced by a manuscript Amendment, to reconsider the matter before Report stage and define a little more precisely what is meant by the safety of railways; how far Federal Government are to be responsible and how far the Federal railways authority is to go. If we are going to constitute a new railway authority who are to have complete control over the whole railways of India it is necessary that no conflict should arise owing to the loose wording of the Bill because of an Amendment introduced as a manuscript Amendment at the 11th hour, and which therefore has not been very carefully considered by the Committee. We have had no opportunity of consulting railway authorities as to whether the proposal would introduce any trouble. I should like to know whether the Federal Government is to have the last word as to what the equipment of the railways shall be in order to secure the safety of the travelling public. The question of sabotage during civil disturbances is obviously a function of the Government.

Duchess of ATHOLL
I should like to support the appeal that the Secretary of State should be a little more explicit as to what is meant by safety. This is a rather surprising Amendment. I ventured to express doubts as to whether the railways would really be safe for the transport of troops in the event of their transference to Indian Ministers. The supporters of the proposal have endeavoured to reassure me by saying, "Oh, the railway administration is to be under a board which will be entirely nonpolitical," and great stress has been laid on the assumed non-political character of the board. I do not feel sure that it will be so non-political. But it does seem to me rather striking, when so much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the board is to be non-political and that that is regarded as of first importance by the Government, that now the Government should bring forward an Amendment which seeks to remove this question of safety, which is the greatest question there can be in connection with the railways, out of the hands of the authority set up.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I am not at all surprised that several hon. Members have 37 questioned me about a manuscript Amendment. I say again that this is the first time I have done it, and that I hope not to have another manuscript Amendment to move. There are in this Amendment none of the dangers suggested in the questions put to me. Let me first answer the question of the Noble Lady. Questions of defence do not arise at all here. Questions of defence will arise under Sub-section (4) of Clause 177, under which the Governor-General can give whatever directions he thinks fit for the safe conduct of the troops, and so on.

Duchess of ATHOLL
I quite understand that, of course, and that the Governor-General can give whatever orders he wishes; but it may be that there will be great political pressure on members of the railway staff, in time of civil disturbance—pressure which they might find it very difficult to resist.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I can reassure my Noble Friend that that has nothing to do with this Sub-section. This Subsection deals with safety appliances, brakes, automatic coupling and so on. My answer to the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) is "Yes" to all three of his questions. We intend that the Federal Government, speaking generally, should do what the Board of Trade does in this country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) drew attention to points connected with the difficulties raised by the Princes. He said that the Clause had occasioned the Princes a certain amount of doubt. Their doubts, however, were due, I think, to misunderstanding. They took the view that it was not our intention to make the Federal Government responsible for the safety of appliances. This Amendment deals with one of the points about which the Princes were in doubt, as indeed were experts in British India. It was always our intention to include safety in the field of the Federal Government's activities. I would recall to hon. Members the report of an expert committee which sat about 18 months ago and considered the whole question of the rail-way board. It was a committee of experts in railway administration in India and in this country, and this Amendment embodies one of their recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) asked 38 me a question which I cannot quite remember.

§ Sir B. PETO
I want the Secretary of State to make it clear that on questions of safety, appliances of all sorts, couplings and so forth, the Federal Government and not the railway board is to be the final authority.

§ Sir S. HOARE
The Federal Government will be responsible for safety just as the Board of Trade is responsible in this country. I think that that answers my hon. Friend's question.

§ Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
Does my right hon. Friend not mean that the Federal Government will have not only a primary responsibility, but a secondary responsibility and a supervising authority?

§ Sir S. HOARE
Certainly; it will obviously be the primary duty of the railway administration to see that passengers are carried safely, and so on, but it will be an additional duty of the Federal Government to insist upon proper precautions being taken. I think I have dealt with the several points raised. I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to move a manuscript Amendment.

§ Sir H. CROFT
Whereas the Amendment which has just been carried seems to be a thoroughly sound one, I think it will be agreed that it does not in any way meet the main point at issue between the Princes and the Secretary of State. It is opportune at this moment briefly to call attention once more to the White Paper. On page 11, it says: The State railways are thus placed in subordination of State railways to a railway authority which is almost entirely British Indian in outlook. Is not that the main principle involved? The Clause states: The executive authority of the Federation in respect of the construction, maintenance and operations of railways in India shall be exercised by a Federal railway authority. I submit with great respect that that is precisely the point to which the Princes. 39 took objection, unless the Secretary of State can say that it is to be raised at another point on another Amendment. It is quite clear that according to the White Paper the States contemplated their own railway authority to be co-ordinate with the Federal railway authority, and that in consequence they envisaged a tribunal to which, in cases of dispute, both parties could refer, and which could hold a balance between them. The paragraph in the White Paper to which I referred also contains this: Under the Bill a dominant authority has been set up, and therefore the committee feel that they are unable to accept the railways scheme set up by the Bill. That is very definite. This would appear to be one of those cases where we are discussing a whole series of Clauses to which the Princes up to date take fundamental exception. I was wondering whether the Secretary of State would consider postponing consideration of the remainder of the Clauses dealing with railways until he has been able to get into closer contact with the Princes' representative.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I ought to say one word on that point, as it may not be convenient for me to permit the Secretary of State to answer the question. The hon. and gallant Member will see that in the White Paper from which he is quoting there is a reference to Clause 187. Probably that is the place at which to raise the point to which he refers.

§ Sir H. CROFT
But we are in a difficulty, because it is stated on page 42 of the White Paper: Questions in connection with railways will be separately dealt with. We have had no information about that. Consequently, the Committee is in the air as to what are the proposals for meeting the Princes. The Secretary of State on Thursday raised a question with regard to a Clause recently passed, and then he was able to tell us that he hoped that some adjustment had been made. Since then one has heard rumours which would lead one to believe that that may have been a pious opinion but that it has not been accepted by the Princes because the Princes have never met to consider the question. I wonder whether a great deal of time would not be saved if we could be told now whether there 40 has been any adjustment. Otherwise, it looks as if this Clause and some other Clauses might have to be recommitted. Our efforts in this Committee have been directed to working according to the agreed time-table and I think the Secretary of State will admit that we have done everything to facilitate the progress of the business. We have refrained from discussing a series of Clauses which might have been discussed in order that the Committee might get on to this important part of the Bill. If we are to have a fresh discussion on this matter at a later stage, if we are to have the Secretary of State coming back here later with suggestions which have been made on this matter as between the Princes and his advisers then it may be necessary to ask for additional time outside the terms of the agreement.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I do not think that either of the two possibilities mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend need be seriously taken into account. I do not think that either a postponement of this Chapter of the Bill or the allocation of additional time for our discussions will be necessary. As far as I can judge there is no reason whatever for postponing this Chapter of the Bill. Clause 187 is the Clause against which a certain amount of criticism has been directed both by the Princes and also from British India. When we reach that point in the Bill I am going to suggest that we should omit Clause 187. I am then prepared to tell the Committee the kind of alternative which I propose. That alternative I will put down in the form of a New Clause and I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find, when we reach that stage, that I am meeting not only the criticisms mentioned in the White Paper—the criticisms of the Princes—but also the criticisms which have been made by British India.

§ Sir H. CROFT
May we have the terms of the proposed new Clause?

§ Sir S. HOARE
I think I had better wait until we reach the appropriate part of the Bill.

§ Sir H. CROFT
Would it not be better to indicate its terms to the Committee now. Otherwise we may not have time to consider it properly.

§ Sir S. HOARE
Of course I was not going to ask the Committee to consider it to-day. I can tell the Committee what it is but I do not know that it would be in order to do so now.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
Would it not be more convenient to tell the Committee now? It might bridge a gap.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I think it is really a matter for the Chair.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I think perhaps it is just one of those matters in which the authority of the Chair might be used to stretch the ordinary procedure a little in order to allow the Secretary of State if he so desires to make a statement as to the proposed new Clause in answer to a request from those hon. Members who are specially interested in this Clause we are now on. I would point out, however, that Clause 175 which we are now discussing, establishes the railway authority, and I do not think the proposed new Clause if indicated by the Secretary of State ought to be discussed on this Clause. If there is to be a discussion on the negativing of the later Clause it must come at the proper time.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I was not suggesting that we should discuss it now but only that it would facilitate matters if we had before us at this time the text of the new Clause which is to be substituted for Clause 187. I think the Secretary of State is willing to give it to the Committee but there is no question of discussing it on this Clause. We should keep the discussion until a later stage.

§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
If I may be permitted as a private Member to intervene, I would point out that it is extraordinarily difficult for private Members to follow this discussion properly. I am not quarrelling with the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced a manuscript Amendment. Indeed I think it is amazing that he has got so far without having had to move more manuscript Amendments, but apparently a later Clause in connection with this railway authority is to be cut out of the Bill and a new Clause introduced. That makes it difficult for the Committee as a whole to follow what is happening. We are now setting up a railway board—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I cannot allow the subject matter of Clause 187 or any other later Clause to be discussed now. I have said that perhaps the Rules might be stretched a little in order to allow the Secretary of State to answer the question which has been put to him, simply by indicating what it is intended to do by the proposed new Clause but I cannot go further than that.

§ Sir H. CROFT
Of course, I take it that we would still be able to vote against the omission of the Clause if we thought it necessary to do so.

§ Sir S. HOARE
Is it the wish of the Committee that I should explain the matter now or that I should wait until we reach Clause 187?

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
All that we want to know is the text of the proposed new Clause.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I had no intention of discussing Clause 187. I was merely pointing out the difficulty in which Members of the Committee find themselves, in having to decide whether or not to set up the board which is proposed under the Clause we are now discussing. We have difficulty in knowing whether we ought to vote for this Clause or not. I am willing to work in with any agreement which is the general wish of the Committee. Everyone knows that I should be the last to break any such general agreement but it is exceedingly difficult for the ordinary person to follow this discussion.

§ Sir S. HOARE
Perhaps I had betetr explain in a few sentences the change which we propose to make in relation to Clause 187. Under that Clause a body is set up for settling disputes between rival railway interests in India. As the Clause stands, that tribunal would only deal with disputes in which railways belonging to the Indian Princes are involved. My first proposal would be to extend the scope of the tribunal and enable it to deal with disputes concerning railways, whether they are railways owned by the Princes or railways in British India. The second change which I propose is in connection with the tribunal itself. It has been pointed out both by the representatives of the Indian States and also by experts in British India that the tribunal, as it is set up under Clause 43 187, is too vague and indefinite, and that something much more definite is needed. It is proposed therefore that the personnel should not be temporary people appointed for a particular inquiry, but that there should be a chairman with the standing of a Federal Court judge appointed for a length of time, say five years, which will give him an opportunity of getting continuous knowledge of the problems with which he is dealing. Further instead of the assessors suggested in Clause 187 as it stands—two people selected from each of the parties in a dispute and therefore partisans on one side or the other in the dispute—it is proposed that we should have a panel of six impartial people from whom the Governor-General would select two, and that that panel should be of a permanent rather than a temporary character. The Committee will see therefore that the proposed new Clause will be devoted to making this tribunal in the first place a body which will be competent to settle railway disputes in whatever part of India they may arise, and secondly, a body composed of a personnel more permanent in character and more impartial in outlook than that indicated in Clause 187.