CLAUSE 264.—(Advisers to Secretary of State.) (Hansard, 9 April 1935)

§ The CHAIRMAN
Before I call on the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), the Committee might like to be reminded exactly where we stand in regard to the provisional time-table agreed upon by the committee of representatives of the various groups in the House. To-day is the nineteenth day and, according to the time-table, without taking into account the extra four days, we ought to finish the Clauses of the Bill to-night. Obviously, we shall not do that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Hon. Members will have to help. What I want to call the attention of the Committee to is that, whatever time is occupied after to-day on the Clauses of the Bill, will come out of the extra four days. The Committee know that as much as possible of these extra four days will be required for the new Clauses and the Schedules.
I should hope, personally, that we might find it possible to save at least two out of the four days for the new Clauses and schedules. We ought to do that, if possible. The Committee will realise that as we have only sat after 11 o'clock on two occasions, and then for less than half an hour. and I know the Committee do not wish to sit late. The remaining Clauses, for the most part do not raise any very big questions of principle, though there are a very considerable number of Amendments down, but I hope, with the good will that has been shown in the past, we may make considerable progress so as to save at least two of the four days for the new Clauses and the schedules. In that case I would suggest that we might, at any rate, get to the end of Part XIII, that is, to Clause 297 to-day.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
In your statement, Sir Dennis, you did not mean that in 1000 the existing time-table no time was allotted to the Schedules and new Clauses? There is already a provision for the Schedules and new Clauses in the existing time-table, and, in addition, there are the four days in so far as they are not encroached upon by prolonged discussion of the Clauses.

§ The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare)
It will be remembered that there has been a unanimous opinion expressed that there are many important issues in the new Clauses, and there will have to be time for their discussion.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I only because the statement as made from the Chair rather left the impression that there was no time allotted in the time-table for the new Clauses and Schedules.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am sorry if was not quite clear in what I said. According to the original time-table, there were seven days allotted for the new Clauses and Schedules, but later on the Committee thought that more than seven days would be wanted for the new Clauses and Schedules, and, in view of the fact that very important questions would arise on the new Clauses, my object has been to try to work the time-table so as to give as much time as possible to the new Clauses and Schedules. As I said, the time the original time-table allotted to them seven days, and if we occupied two of the extra four clays in finishing the Clauses, that would mean that we would have only two of those days for the new Clauses and Schedules—in other words nine days altogether.

§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT
I am wondering whether you can give me any indication as to whether the Committee will have an opportunity of some broad discussion on Burma at the commencement of the chapter, in view of the fact that it has been quite impossible up to now to introduce Burma into the general issue of the Bill.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that a promise was given from the Chair when we passed a Clause providing that Burma should 1001 not be part of India that if the Committee postponed discussing the question of the separation of Burma, an opportunity would be given for doing so when, we came to Part XIV, which deals with Burma, as it seemed to me a more convenient time to do it. I have thought over that, and I am proposing to suggest to the Committee that such discussion should take place on the first of the Clauses of Part XIV. It would be a formality to take that Debate on the Question that that Clause stand part. I take it I may assume that if the Committee negatived that Clause, the Government would take it as an indication that the Committee was against the separation of Burma, or, to put it, another way, that they would take it as an indication that whatever course the Committee adopted with regard to the first of those Clauses, it would follow the same course as regards all the rest of the Clauses in that part of the Bill. Therefore, I think that the Debate can well be taken on the Question of the first Burma Clause standing part.

§ Sir H. CROFT
I am grateful for your guidance, Sir Dennis, but may I respectfully suggest that it might be more convenient that the Debate should take place on a Motion to leave Part XIV out of the Bill?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have considered that, but I think it is not in accordance with practice, and would not be carrying out the order of the House referring the Bill to the Committee.

§ Mr. HAMMERSLEY
Are we correct in thinking that on the Question that the first Clause in Part XIV stand part, we should be able to discuss the general issue arising out of the separation of Burma?

§ The CHAIRMAN
Using the hon Member's exact words—"the general issue arising out of the separation of Burma"—I think the answer is, yes.

§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS
I beg to move, in page 150, line 23, to leave out "either," and to insert "the Commons."
To resume what I was saying at the moment when the clock last evening led you, Sir Dennis, to say, "Order, order."
1002 The Amendment, it will be remembered, is one which proposes to substitute for either House of Parliament, the Commons House of Parliament, on the ground that though we frequently make it impossible for Members of this House to serve on various bodies, we have never in the past, with the solitary exception, I believe, of certain Indian legislation, imposed a disability on members of another place. For example, in connection with the London Passenger Transport Bill, we imposed a disability on Members of the Commons House of Parliament being on the board, but we did not impose that disability on members of another place, because if we had done so we should have excluded from service the very able chairman of that board, Lord Ashfield. I mentioned last night the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, as I thought, and his immediate predecessor. Then, again, I can remember three First Sea Lords—Lord Fisher, Lord Jellicoe and Lord Beatty. I think all of them held the office of First Sea Lord at times when they were members of another place.
Furthermore, it might well arise that a very competent person who is made one of these advisers might be the heir of a peer who might die, and the services of that man would be lost. I really see no reason for extending this disqualification beyond the Commons House of Parliament where there are obvious reasons for it. We withdraw finance from the other place, we ultimately dominate policy and we are essentially here in a controversial capacity. We get here by controversial means, and most of our life here is spent controversially; whereas in another place the element of controversy does not enter in the same degree and to the same extent. I know that the exact words of the Clause do not disable a peer, or possibly do not disable him, from being appointed, but if a peer were appointed, he would not be capable of sitting or voting in the House of Lords. It would be a great constitutional challenge that because a peer was appointed to some particular office, he was then disabled from actually sitting in the House of Lords. That would seem to me to be a. challenge of a kind constitutionally wrong. However, in view of what you, Sir Dennis, said about the necessity of getting on with the Bill, I do not want to weary the 1003 Committee with more arguments. I submit the general case, and I hope that the Secretary of State will give serious consideration to this matter, which is not one of particular pertinence to this Bill. I am raising it on general constitutional grounds. I do not want to see the precedent that was created in the past in connection with Indian legislation to be continued any further.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I will not go into the general question outside the immediate purpose of the Amendment, but will confine myself to its application to the state of affairs in the India Office. There has always been the condition as to the Secretary of State's Council that members of it should not be members of either House. I think that is a salutary provision. I think that without it there might be a division of responsibility. The only member of the council responsible to Parliament is the Secretary of State. As soon as you have upon his council members of one or other House, those members might go to one or other House and make speeches or give their votes contrary to the policy of the Secretary of State. That, from the constitutional point of view, would be an untenable position. I hope, therefore, the Committee will maintain the existing condition. The cases quoted by my hon. Friend, namely, that of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and the First Sea Lord when Lord Beatty held that post, are not apposite. The case of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was clear. He could be removed from his post by executive action.

§ Mr. H. WILLIAMS
Can Lord Ashfield be removed from the chairmanship of the London Passenger Transport Board? I believe he is irremovable for a certain period.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I will not go into the arguments as to the analogy between the chairman of the London. Transport Board and the advisers of the Secretary of State. It seems, to me that the position is very different, I think I could prove that if I had the time, and if it were in order. Be that as it may, I maintain that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff could be removed by 1004 executive action immediately if he took action in another place contrary to the policy of the Secretary of State or of the Cabinet. It is very different in the case of a member of the council who has a statutory position upon it. That being so, and in view of the further fact that we are carrying on a policy which has been in operation for many years, I think the Committee would be wise to reject the Amendment, supposing my hon. Friend does not withdraw it.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
The chairman of the Unemployment Assistance Board is a peer.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I do not think that the discussion of these questions is in order.

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
I remain totally unimpressed by the arguments of the Secretary of State, but, as I do not want to delay the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. LENNOX-BOYD
I beg to move, in page 150, line 30, to leave out Subsection (6).
I will bear in mind, Sir Dennis, your observations at the start of the Committee stage, and move this Amendment very briefly on behalf of my Noble Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl). Sub-section (6) provides: Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, it shall he in the discretion of the Secretary of State whether or not he consults with his advisers on any matter, and, if so, whether he consults with them collectively or with one or more of them individually, and whether or not he acts in accordance with any advice given to him by them. It is quite unnecessary at this stage to repeat once more the very great importance of the Secretary of State's advisers, except to say that apparently everything that the Governor-General does, either in his discretion or in a reserve department, he is acting under instructions from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State said yesterday that he would consult the advisers on service questions. There was some suggestion made that they would be consulted on questions of finance. On service questions by Clause 250 there is a legal obligation on the Secretary of State to consult his advisers, 1005 but there is no obligation at all on him in matters affecting finance. The failure to be compelled to consult them on matters affecting finance depends on this Sub-section (6).
I would remind the Committee of the very great importance of these financial questions by referring them to what happened in the Legislative Assembly in India when the Finance Bill was rejected, despite the Viceroy's request, by some 66 votes to 41, and the members of the Legislative Assembly refused to withdraw amendments which, if carried, would add some £3,750,000 to the loss of revenue. It is imperative that the Secretary of State, on whose instructions the Governor-General will act on this question of financial stability at the Centre, should be under a legal obligation to consult the Secretary of State's advisers.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I think my hon. Friend somewhat misunderstands the existing position and what will be the future position. Under the existing position the Council of the Secretary of State has a statutory locus standiin questions involving charges on the revenues of India. That is quite an explicit duty. This Bill has in almost every respect changed that position. The provisions of the Bill dealing with the future in that respect are very different from the past. That statutory obligation upon the Council of the Secretary of State will, therefore, lapse, because the state of affairs to which it was to be applied has ceased to exist. There is no obligation upon the Secretary of State to consult his Council in finance other than finance in a very limited respect. What he may do in future is for him to decide. Here it will be a specific type of finance, on which the Council has had a locus standi in the past. I suggest that there is really no reason to tie up the Secretary of State any more than he is tied up now. Under Clause 250 he has to obtain the concurrence of his advisers in Service questions. Apart from that statutory obligation he is at liberty to decide on what subjects he consults them. It would be a mistake to tie him up in such a way that he would cease to he a Minister responsible to Parliament and to make for divided responsibility between him and his Council. For these reasons, I hope that we shall not tie up the Secretary of State further than he is tied at present.

§ Sir REIGINALD CRADDOCK
It is a fact that there will be an enormous difference brought about by the new Constitution. The existing safeguards for the proper management of the finances of India depend a great deal on the constitution of the Government of India. itself. The Finance Minister of the Federation will not be the same type as the present Financial Member. The responsibility, therefore, on the Government of India for maintaining the stability of the Federation, that is to say of the Indian Empire, and of the policies with regard to loans which may be raised in this country or in India, will fall upon the Governor-General in the first place and upon the Secretary of State in the second place. Therefore, I presume that the Secretary of State will continue the practice of having a, financial expert among his advisers to take the place of the Secretary of State's Council. In that case I would represent that although the Secretary of State desires to have a free hand, there are reasons for considering whether he should not require the assent of the Council, or at all events discussion by these advisers of the difficult questions of finance and financial stability, currency loans, etc., in respect of which the advice available and the strength of the Council as it now exists will have been very greatly reduced compared with what it is at the present time. I hope that some modification of the Clause as it stands may be made, at all events in respect of financial advisers.

§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not recede from his position in any way. Obviously, with a Council of this kind, any reasonable Secretary of State will consult those Members of it who are well acquainted with any particular subject, such as finance, but if once you. lay it down in any form that he must consult certain people you lay a burden and compulsion on certain people and the Minister of the Crown sitting here or in another place, which I do not think is advisable. We have had good and bad Secretaries of State, but it is no earthly good, as I understand the Constitution of this country, to lay it down that Secretaries of State must consult certain people 1007 whether they want to or not. If they are sensible they will consult them; if they are not sensible they are quite hopeless. I do not think you should tie down a Secretary of State to consult certain individuals whether he thinks it is right to do so or not.

§ Sir BASIL PETO
Is the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) right in his assumption of the meaning of the Clause? Suppose this Amendment were accepted and Sub-section (6) were omitted, is there anything in the Bill to render it obligatory for the Secretary of State to consult these advisers on any or every question, for instance on financial questions? It does seem to me rather a pity that the Secretary of State's hands are, as I imagine, perfectly free to consult or not. Sub-section (6) says Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, it shall be in the discretion of the Secretary of State whether or not he consults with his advisers on any matter, and, if so, whether he consults with them collectively or with one or more of them individually, and whether or not he acts in accordance with any advice given to him by them. Is it not quite obvious that the responsibility lies on the Secretary of State, and that if he did consult his advisers he would then have to decide whether or not he would accept their advice or whether he would assume responsibility himself? Is it really necessary to have these words in the Bill?

§ Sir S. HOARE
It is very necessary to have these words in the Bill. My hon. Friend has forgotten Clause 250, under which the Secretary of State has to have the concurrence of a majority of his advisers in Service questions, the Secretary of State having a casting vote if necessary. It is necessary to distinguish cases in which he is under a statutory obligation of that kind from the cases in which he can consult his advisers or his council, as the case is now, by his own volition. The object of this Clause is to draw a distinction between those two categories, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is very necessary to have that distinction. I can equally assure my bon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that I am very anxious to keep the responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament unblurred 1008 over as wide a field as possible. I think that that is the right Constitutional position. The fact that we give the advisers a statutory locus standi in Service questions is a. very exceptional procedure. It is due to the special circumstances of the Services in India, their history and so on, and the fact that they do regard the Council as one of their safeguards. If there was not this historical backing I would stand myself for the undiluted responsibility of the Minister to Parliament without any sharing of responsibility with the Advisory Council.

§ Mr. ATTLEE
I find myself in the rare position of being able to support what the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has said. I think he is absolutely right, and that the Secretary of State is right in saying that responsibility to this House should not be blurred. I think that the Amendment has been moved through misconception of the previous position. It was to protect India and India's finance from this country. The Secretary of State was not to engage in certain expenditure unless he had the consent of people who were there to protect India's finance.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I am delighted to think that at last I have been able to excite the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) into making a really sensible speech.

§ Mr. LENNOX-BOYD
After the speech of the Secretary of State I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir S. HOARE
I beg to move, in page 150, line 41, at the end, to insert: or if such notice and opportunity for objection as may be prescribed has been given to those advisers and none of them has required that a meeting shall be held for discussion of the matter. In this Sub-section 'prescribed' means prescribed by rules of business made by the Secretary of State after obtaining at a meeting of his advisers the concurrence of at least one-half of those present at the meeting. The object of this Amendment is to continue, with the advisers, a system that has worked very well ever since the Council of India was started, namely, that in questions of minor importance papers 1009 are circulated to the members of the Council and they have an opportunity of expressing their views upon them, so avoiding the necessity of a. formal meeting of the Council. It is a rule of business that has proved to be necessary in the past and I am sure will be necessary in the future.

§ Mr. DONNER
On a point of Order. Would it be possible to have a window opened as it is exceedingly close and stuffy in the Chamber?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)
If the Committee desire a, window to be opened, orders can be given to that effect, but I fancy it will be found to be much colder than the hon. Member imagines.