§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler)I beg to move, in page 254, line 8, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:
(3) If it appears to His Majesty in Council that it will not be practicable or convenient that all the provisions of this Act which are under the foregoing provisions of this section to come into force on a date therein mentioned should come into operation simultaneously on that date, His Majesty in Council may, notwithstanding anything in this section, fix an earlier or a later date for the coming into operation, either generally or for particular purposes, of any particular provisions of this Act.1352 This is largely a drafting Amendment and raises no question which needs any detailed explanation.
§ 3.49 p.m.
§ Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSThe Amendment provides that His Majesty in Council may, notwithstanding anything in this Clause, fix an earlier or a later date for the coming into operation of the Act. Under an earlier Clause it is laid down that before His Majesty in in Council does anything under the Act a draft of the Order has to be submitted to Parliament. Normally, when the date of the coming into operation of an Act is fixed by His Majesty in Council the purely administrative decision is left to the Department concerned. In this case, having regard to the earlier Clause describing the procedure in regard to Orders-in-Council, I want to be certain whether that Clause governs the Clause which we are now considering, with regard to the decision as to bringing the Bill into operation, and whether it will be the case that the draft of the Order will have to be laid before Parliament so that in fact Parliament will decide on what date the different parts of the Bill will come into operation.
§ Mr. BUTLERThe hon. Member is referring to Clause 286, and it is correct to say that the Order will be laid before Parliament and that Parliament wilt have the decisions on the matter.
§ 3.51 p.m.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESMay I ask whether this Amendment applies in common to India and Burma?
§ Mr. BUTLERThat is so.
§ Mr. JONESThe hon. Gentleman will know that the question of the date of the coming into operation of this Bill is very present in the minds of the Indian people. They are very anxious about it and always have been, and I can only express the hope that the Government in taking this power—and I understand why they are seeking to secure this power—will not in any way postpone unnecessarily the date of the coming into operation of the Bill, certainly as far as the Provinces are concerned. I put in that proviso, because I am losing my faith in the other part of the Bill with regard to Federation. Whatever my own views may be about this, I am sure that the 1353 Indian people will be extremely disappointed if there is a long hiatus between the final discussions on the Bill and the coming into operation of its provisions.
§ 3.52 p.m.
§ Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTI. hope that the Government will also bear in mind the grave anxiety in many quarters of the Committee that the Bill should not come into operation until they are absolutely convinced that the financial situation in the Provinces is different from what it is at the present time. Any attempt to hasten the coming into operation of the Bill until this position is cleared up will be contrary to all the pledges we have received, and I hope that the Government will not be lured by the siren voice of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones).
§ 3.53 p.m.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSThe Under-Secretary has not quite satisfied my point. In the new Sub-section the words are "His Majesty in Council". In Clause 287 the phrasing is rather different: "His Majesty may by Order-in-Council." I am not certain that it means the same thing when you say, "His Majesty by Order-in-Council" may do something, and "His Majesty in Council" may fix the date. There may be some difference in constitutional practice. There is another point in Clause 286, which the Under-Secretary reminded me was the pertinent Clause. There is an urgent provision in Sub-section (1) under which, when something is done on grounds of 'urgency when Parliament is not sitting, it can be done subject to the Order being confirmed when Parliament meets, but if it is not confirmed it will lapse. When you have brought a section of an Act into co-operation, however, a lot of things will happen, and you cannot reverse things effectively by subsequently cancelling the order through the action of Parliament, if the order had been made when Parliament was not sitting. In these circumstances, it seems to me that the provisions of this Sub-section want a little more careful examination.
Duchess of ATHOLLMay we have an assurance that nothing in this proposed Sub-section will conflict with the inquiry into the finances of the Federation that we understand is to take place, and that nothing will over-ride the provisions as to the number of Princes who have to 1354 signify their adherence before Federation comes into force?
§ 3.55 p.m.
§ Mr. BUTLERAny assurances given on these points will be adhered to, and there is no intention by this Clause, which is a pure machinery Clause, to go behind any assurance that has been given. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) asked me to assure him that there. was no intention of delaying the operation of this Bill. I can assure him that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government not to delay the inauguration of Provincial Autonomy in any way, and to. hasten on, with a great deal more optimism than he has, with the part of the Bill referring to Federation. With regard to the point of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), the words in this Clause definitely bind the Government to bring before the House any Order-in-Council to be considered by the House, and there is no intention of implying anything different by the wording of the Clause. If there be any other implication, I will look into it, but I am advised that it covers the point the hon. Member has in mind.
§ Mr. H. WILLIAMSWhat about the urgency provision?
§ Mr. BUTLERIt is our intention to put the Order-in-Council before the House when the House is sitting in order that the House may consider it. Without the approval of the House, that part of the Bill cannot come into operation.
§ 3.57 p.m.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODThe Amendment is a great improvement in the Bill because it makes it clear that it is possible to institute Provincial Autonomy without waiting for the Central Government. May I, however, put in one further plea to the hon. Gentleman that it should be possible to consider bringing in Provincial Autonomy into certain Provinces, particularly those Provinces that want it, and to delay it for those Provinces that do not want it.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid that that does not arise on this Clause. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is too late.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODIt perhaps arises more accurately on the question of the Clause standing part, but we are 1355 talking about starting Provincial Autonomy before Federation is started.
§ The CHAIRMANBut autonomy cannot be started on separate dates for certain Provinces.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODI agree that that question is not in order on this Amendment.
§ Mr. ISAAC FOOTCan we have an express assurance from the Under-Secretary that the two parts of the Bill stand together and that there is nothing whatever in the Clause that lends colour to the suggestion that has been made, that we may have Provincial Autonomy before Federation is secured?
§ 3.58 p.m.
§ Sir H. CROFTI hope that the Under-Secretary will give a specific answer on this subject, because in the Debates yesterday and again to-day some point has arisen for new consideration. We have been told from the start that the attitude that my hon. Friends and I have adopted, namely, that we should go forward with the great experiment in the Provinces before going forward to Federation, was absolutely impossible, and now we have been told by the Under-Secretary, speaking with all his authority, that he is going to push right ahead with provincial home rule at the earliest possible date.
§ The CHAIRMANI nearly stopped another hon. Member—I do not remember who he was—when he was dealing with this point, but this provision with regard to separate parts of the Bill coming into operation on separate dates is a matter we have disposed of already.
§ Sir H. CROFTI appreciate that, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain what he meant when he said that Provincial self-government would be established before Federation?
§ The CHAIRMANIt has been settled by the Committee that the commencement of the Provincial portion of the Bill does not depend upon the commencement of the Federation portion of the Bill.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Mr. BUTLERI do not think it is necessary for me to do more than reaffirm the belief of the Government in an All-India Federation, and that it has 1356 been anticipated that provincial autonomy will come into operation before the establishment of Federation. The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well the conditions precedent to the coming into operation of an All-India Federation. As we have discussed these matters before, I will confine myself to repeating the belief of the Government in Federation, and the intention to proceed with it as fast as possible.
§ The CHAIRMANI think it will be less irrelevant and less out of order.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
§ 4.1 p.m
Colonel WEDGEWOODWould it be in order now to raise the question as to whether it will be possible or practicable under this Clause for the Government to consult the Legislatures in the Provinces as to whether they want provincial autonomy introduced in their particular Provinces—Whether, in fact, it will be permissible to start at different dates and to discriminate between the Provinces in securing provincial autonomy? It would make an enormous difference to the people of India if they thought they were to be consulted at all on this question. Is it possible for the Assemblies as they now are to have some voice in deciding the date at which this should come in?
§ The CHAIRMANI thin I had better answer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's question before he gets any deeper in the mire. I was going to say that I never put any obstacles, if I can help it, in the way of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or any other Member of the Committee completing his education in regard to this Bill, but I think it would be stretching a point to allow an answer to be given to a question which has been previously discussed and decided.
Colonel WEDGEWOODI will content myself, then, by asking the hon. Member if he can give any indication as to the possibility of having a separate date for such Provinces as Bengal, Bombay and Madras?
§ Mr. BUTLERI think I can reply quite shortly by saying that it has never been 1357 our intention to treat one Province differently from another, or to introduce Provincial autonomy into one Province al; a different date from that in another.
§ Colonel WEDGWOODNot even if a Province expresses a wish to have a different date?
§ Mr. MACQUISTENDoes one Province differ much from another?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and learned Member is now trying to do what I said must not be done.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 450 ordered to stand part of the Bill.