HC Deb 09 April 1935 vol 300 cc1035-40

5.55 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 161, line 2, after "tribunal, "to insert" in British India."

There are four or five Amendments in the name of the Secretary of State, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with them altogether. They cover slightly different points, but if I follow that plan it will save my rising a number of times. They are all very small points. The Clause sets up procedure by which the Governor can estab- lish a tribunal to deal with revenue matters in some of the Provinces in India. There are at the moment tribunals quite independent of the executive which deal with revenue matters, but in some Provinces that is not the case. When the Government becomes responsible to a Legislature it will be obviously undesirable that the Government should decide revenue cases in which itself is involved, and the intention of the Clause by the Legislature is that a tribunal should be set up. The Clause provides, however, that the Governor may in the interim constitute such a tribunal himself.

The first Amendment makes it clear that the Clause only applies to British India. The second Amendment substitutes the words "local government" for "Governor in Council." In one Province in India the tribunal contains a Minister and the words "local government" cover this special case as well as the ordinary case. The next Amendment makes two changes. It enables a single individual to constitute a tribunal. Further it substitutes individual judgment for discretion in connection with the selection of members of the tribunal. This is a matter on which we think that it is desirable the Governor should act with his Ministers and should consult them, and that they should, if possible, agree as to who are to be the members of the tribunal. The last Amendment affects the payment of salaries. The Clause does not provide for the payment of salaries to members of these tribunals and the Amendment provides for salaries and allowances as the Governor may determine.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 161, line 6, leave out "Governor in Council," and insert "Local Government."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 161, line 8, to leave out "persons as he in his discretion thinks," and to insert: person or persons as he, exercising his individual judgment, may think.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I do not know, Sir Dennis, whether it is your intention to call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp)—in page 161, line 9, to leave out from "jurisdiction" to the end of the Clause —but, if so, perhaps I can say better what I have to say on that Amendment than on the present one. I am a little doubtful about yielding free discretion to individual judgment, although I agree that that is not so bad as that the appointments should be made by the Governor solely on the advice of his ministers.

The CHAIRMAN

I am not prepared to call that Amendment, at any rate without hearing reasons to justify it, so perhaps the hon. Member had better raise the point now.

Mr. WILLIAMS

The point raised in the Amendment is rather a serious one, and it will still remain serious even after the Amendment we are now considering, assuming that that is made. Here is a case in which we are laying down that something is to be done by the Governor acting in his discretion, as the Bill stands at the moment, or acting in the exercise of his individual judgment, as no doubt it will be in a few moments; and yet we have a provision by which power to act on his individual judgment can be taken away from the Governor by an Act of the Provincial Legislature. So far as I am aware, this is the first occasion on which we transfer to an Indian legislative assembly the right to decide whether in future some Act of the Governor shall be enacted by him in the exercise of his individual judgment, or whether it shall not be possible for him to enact it at all. Technically, I suppose, all Acts are enacted by him, but an Act may be one which he may have to enact solely on the advice of his ministers. It seems to me, that having regard to our general responsibility for the Indian Constitution Act, we ought not to be carried away into making a fundamental change in constitutional relationships by an Act of a Provincial Legislature. Although this matter may not be a very big one, it raises a point of considerable constitutional importance, and I understand that that was in the minds of my hon. Friends who have tabled this Amendment. I hope, therefore, that, if you are not going to call their Amendment, we may have some explanation by the Solicitor-General as to why it is proposed to authorise in principle a very big con stitutional change over which there can be no check, so far as one can see, either by the Secretary of State, the Governor-General, or the Governor, acting in their discretion.

The CHAIRMAN

What the hon. Member has said seems to justify the way in which the power not to select Amendments has been exercised. The Amendment in question seems to have been put down with the express intention of raising a point which perhaps was. relevant, but which would not be effected by the Amendment.

6.5 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I am not quite sure if I followed altogether the argument of my hon. Friend, but I will try to explain to him the intention of the Clause. The Clause contemplates that the legislature ought to set up, and must set up, tribunals to deal with revenue matters. At present such matters are in effect dealt with by the Executive, but that, as I said just now, is not a proper permanent procedure, especially when the Executive in future, instead of being, as it is at present, partly an official body, will be wholly dependent on the legislature. I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is desirable that a tribunal should be set up to deal with these matters. The exact nature of the tribunal and its appointment are proper matters for the Provincial legislature. The Clause merely deals with the interim position until the tribunal has been set up by the legislature, and, in order to provide what we may call an emergency tribunal, the Governor is given power in the exercise of his individual judgment to go ahead and set up a tribunal which will function until another tribunal has been enacted by the Provincial legislature. It may be assumed that the appointments to that tribunal are going to constitute a perfectly proper provision to deal with the matters which come before it. If it is not a proper tribunal, there is a power of veto which can be used, and that would be a matter for the Governor-General. We think, however, that it would be wrong to anticipate in the Bill that a tribunal provided by the legislature will not be provided on a proper basis. This simply makes. provision for the interval before legislation can be considered.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I do not think the Solicitor-General has seen my point. If it is contemplated that eventually this tribunal will be appointed by the Governor-General acting on the advice of his ministers, I see no reason why that should not be the position initially. If initially it is thought so important to safeguard the appointments that the Governor can over-ride the decision of his ministers, I do not understand why later on it is proposed to let the appointments be made without any safeguard at all.

6.8 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

When the Bill is finally discussed and passed and enacted, clearly it must lay down how the appointments are to be made. The reason why we give the Governor the last word here is because he has to go ahead and get this tribunal set up, and he will be able to go ahead even in the event of disagreement between himself and his ministers over details. We thought it wise that he should have this power, not so much as a fundamental constitutional matter, but in order that the Governor may be able to go ahead in his own time.

6.9 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

I am sorry to say that, I was not in the Committee just now when the discussion on these tribunals commenced, but I should be very glad if either the Solicitor-General or the Secretary of State could explain the necessity for constituting new tribunals—

The CHAIRMAN

Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise the position. We are discussing a number of Government Amendments together, and at the moment we are on the Amendment in page 61, line 8, to leave out "persons as he in his discretion thinks, "and insert "person or persons as he, exercising his individual judgment, may think. "The actual question being discussed now by the Committee is whether the words should be "in his discretion" or "exercising his individual judgment."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 161, line 11, at the end, to add; "(3) There shall be paid to the members of any tribunal constituted under the last preceding Sub-section, such salaries and allowances as the Governor exercising his individual judgment may determine, and those salaries and allowances shall be charged on the revenues of the Province.—[The Solicitor-General.] Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.11 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

As I was explaining just now, I could not understand the necessity for making this special provision in the Bill. The revenue administration of the various provinces is conducted under the ordinary reigning law of those provinces—

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid I must rule that to answer that question would be out of order, because it was discussed and answered before the hon. Member came into the Chamber.

6.12 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

Are we not entitled to ask the Solicitor-General why it is necessary to transfer these powers, and why they cannot be retained in the hands of the Governor, in view of the very large sums of money that will be involved?

The CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not here at the time, but that is exactly the point which the Solicitor-General dealt with in explaining the Amendments.

Sir H. CROFT

Are we not allowed to ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN

Not for the purpose of obtaining the same answer which has already been given.

Question put, and agreed to.