HC Deb 29 April 1935 vol 301 cc83-91

(1) The Ruler or a subject of a Federated State shall be eligible to hold any civil office under the Crown in India in connection with the affairs of the Federation, and the Governor-General may declare that the Ruler or any subject of a specified Indian State which is not a Federated State, or any native of a specified tribal area, or any named native of any territory adjacent to India, shall be eligible to hold any such office, being an office specified in the declaration.

(2) The Governor of a Province may declare that the Ruler or any subject of a specified Indian State, or any native of a specified tribal area, or any named native of any territory adjacent to India, shall be eligible to hold any civil office in connection with the affairs of the Province, being an office specified in the declaration.

(3) Subject as aforesaid and to any other express provisions of this Act no person who is not a British subject shall be eligible to hold any office under the Crown in India:

Provided that the Governor-General or, in relation to a Province, the Governor may authorise the temporary employment for any purpose of a person who is not a British subject.

(4) In the discharge of his functions under this Section the Governor-General or the Governor of a Province shall exercise his individual judgment.—[Mr. Ormsby-Gore.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.2 p.m.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore)

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This proposed new Clause has been drawn up to give effect to the intention expressed in several Amendments which were moved during the Committee stage, and notably one moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Major Courtauld), to ensure that, as far as reasonable, only British subjects shall be employed in the Services of the Crown in India. I think that was the general intention, and that is expressed quite specifically in Sub-section (3) of the new Clause. It is quite obvious, however, that that provision cannot be made absolute. In the first place, the position of the Federal States has to be considered. Clearly one cannot expect States to come into a Federation if their subjects are to be deprived for ever from serving under that Federation. In addition to that, there are two other categories mentioned in the Clause—natives of a specified tribal area, and any named native of any territory adjacent to India. That really refers to Nepalese subjects. It is necessary to make these specific exceptions to enable us to continue to employ Gurkhas. We have employed Gurkhas, and shall continue to do so. There have been occasions in the past when, quite apart from the inhabitants of India, persons of non-Indian descent who were not British subjects have been employed by the Government of India, and it may be that they will be so employed again, but under this Clause they will be employed under a contract. They will only be employed upon the express individual judgment of the Governor-General or, in the case of the Provinces, of the Governor, and they will be employed only temporarily. In the past they have been employed under specific contracts.

The type of person one has in mind are specialists in some particular subject who are necessary to undertake a particular job, especially people like archaeologists, who are more or less an international body. I do not know whether, at the moment, any foreign archaeologist is being employed on excavations in India, but I do know that in British Malaya, which is under the Colonial Empire, a Dutchman who has had particular experience of excavation work in Java is being employed. In the case of specific and tropical diseases it may be desirable now and again to employ temporarily, under a contract, a particular foreign scientist. I think that is why the crude insertion of a prohibition against the employment of anybody who is not a British subject, as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester, would not be practicable in the conditions in India, and I feel that this Clause goes as far as is reasonable towards meeting the situation.

6.6 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER

I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for his explanation of this Clause which, so far as I understand it, carries out quite fully the undertaking which the Secretary of State gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Major Courtauld). There are, however, one or two points on which I should like to put questions. Sub-section (2) says that a Governor of a Province may declare that the ruler or any subject of a specified Indian State or any native of a specified tribal area, or any named native of any territory adjacent to India, shall be eligible to hold any civil office in connection with the affairs of the Province. Can my right hon. Friend say why that Sub-section is necessary if Sub-section (1) has been added? I do not quite appreciate the difference between Subsection (1) and Sub-section (2).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

Sub-section (1) deals with the Federation at the Centre and appointments by the Governor-General, and Sub-section (2) with affairs in the Provinces.

Viscount WOLMER

I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. That is a very obvious point, which had escaped my notice. My other question is, What is the meaning of the term "temporary employment"? Who is to judge whether the employment is temporary, and what is the machinery by which such an appointment may be determined? This point is of considerable importance, because we must realise that in some quarters, at any rate, there may be a tendency, I am sorry to have to say it, to revert to anti-British sentiment and deliberately to encourage the unnecessary employment of foreigners. I agree that there may be certain cases, and we must provide for them, in which foreigners should be temporarily employed, but when we have seen what has happened in the Irish Free State where, whenever an Irishman was not available a German or a Frenchman has invariably been employed in preference to an Englishman, and when we have seen, also, what has happened in Egypt, we ought to be very careful that there is no undue employment of foreigners. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester was perfectly right in raising this point. The object of this Clause is admirable, but the term "temporary employment" is rather a loose one, and I do not see that it provides for the Governor-General to decide how long such employment may continue. Is it the view of the Attorney-General that the words "temporary employment" entitle the Governor-General to say how long such a person shall be employed, and, if he considers that he has been kept in employment unduly long, to terminate his employment?

6.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN

They say that one can drive a, coach-and-four through any Act of Parliament, and it seems to me that one could drive an express train through this Clause. I cannot understand how it is possible to include Sub-section (2), which provides that a Governor of a Province may declare that the Ruler or any subject of a specified native State may hold office under the Federation. Already in a large number of native States there are Germans, Frenchmen, Dutchmen and other foreigners who have had a sufficiently long period of residence there to claim to be subjects of that State. When we have federated India I can see nothing which would prevent any of those people getting naturalisation papers from the Ruler. If that be so, we throw open the Civil Service and, indeed, other appointments in India, to any foreigner who may choose to settle down there. I regard this as a wide and sweeping Clause in which there is no protection at all for British subjects. There is nothing to prevent any foreigner who chooses to reside there, and to become a naturalised subject of a State, from claiming a right to hold any appointment under the Federal Government. If I am wrong, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain where I am wrong, and where there is protection against foreigners claiming State nationality and getting appointed to these posts.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin) that this is a strangely-drafted Clause, because the subjects of an Indian Prince who has refused to join the Federation and who will therefore be foreigners up to a point—at least not British subjects—can hold any office whatever in the Federation. The office of Prime Minister or leader of the Government in either the Federation or a Province can be held by an outsider. That occasionally happens elsewhere, because the present Chancellor of Germany is legally an Austrian: but that is a somewhat unusual state of affairs, and one that I do not like. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) asked about the position of persons employed temporarily. We have in this country thousands of persons who are known as temporary civil servants. I am not clear to what extent those who are known as the "P" Class and the "S" Class are still legally temporary, but ever since 1918, and even earlier, going back to 1915, when some, of the first war-disabled men received appointments, we have had large numbers of people in the Civil Service in this country on temporary engagements. They are not established and they are known as temporary employés. I take it that the word "temporary" in the proviso to Sub-section (3) is temporary in that sense; at least that would be the legal interpretation. If that be the interpretation I do not like that proviso, but if by "temporary" is meant for a period of not more than 12 months, or perhaps two years, I do not object to the word "temporary." From time to time a Government may have to obtain the assistance of outsiders for some specialist task, and I have not the slightest doubt that occasionally there are people in the service of the Crown in some parts of the world who are not British subjects; but there is a tremendous difference between temporary in that sense, and temporary in the sense of having permanent employment but without the advantages which establishment confers.

Further, I would point out that the Clause does not apply only to an Indian State but to a named native in territory adjacent to India. Elsewhere in the Bill I have found those words "territory adjacent to India," and I am not certain whether they have been defined. Siam is adjacent to India as things stand today, and as they will be after the Bill is passed—Siam is adjacent to Burma, at any rate; it has a common frontier. Then there is Tibet. I am not certain whether Tibet is a republic under the control of Soviet Russia, or part of China, or is an independent sovereign State; at any rate, it is a rather exclusive place from some points of view. The inhabitants of Tibet live in a country adjacent to India. I am not quite certain whether Nepal entirely separates Tibet from India; I think they have a common frontier for part of the distance. Therefore, any native of Tibet—even the Grand Lama, apparently—can be appointed Prime Minister of India in certain circumstances, if these words be put in. I think that Soviet Russia has no common frontier with India, because Afghanistan and Baluchistan separates them. We are safe against a Soviet citizen being able to get one of these jobs. This proposed new Clause goes rather far in its sanction for the employment of people, who would be foreigners, in any position under either the Federal Government or the Government of any Province, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill will look at the drafting of it again and consider whether it could be tidied up before the Report stage. If the Department are rather busy, I could probably find people who could set their minds to the work of drafting Amendments to the Clause which, in its present form, does not seem quite satisfactory.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I thought I had cleared up that point. The phrase "adjacent to India" is used in other parts of the Bill, and also in previous Statutes, and it invariably means Nepal. If my hon. Friend looks at Clause 8 he will find the same words used in connection with military establishments in India. If this phrase is not included, you cannot employ any Gurkhas in India. I do not know whether my hon. Friend would wish to debar Gurkhas from India.

Mr. WILLIAMS

If the right hon. Gentleman's purpose is to bring in a particular lot of people, why not say so? Why is it necessary to put in words which would bring in actually one-third of the human beings on this earth?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no more likelihood of the Grand Lama of Tibet being appointed prime minister of India than there is of the hon. Member being appointed. I would recall to my hon. Friend's attention the effect of the proposed new Clause which is that no appointment other than of a British subject can be made except by the Governor-General, in the case of the Federation, exercising his individual judgment, or in a Province by the Governor, exercising his individual judgment. Is that clear?

Mr. WILLIAMS

I am perfectly familiar with it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

My hon. Friend complains of the drafting. I am trying to make it clear that only in exceptional circumstances, and in the individual judgment of either the Governor-General or the Governor, can this provision take effect. The hon. Member will see from the wording of Sub-sections (1) and (2) that in each case "office" is the office specified in the declaration—an individual job and an individually named native or an individually named foreigner. The word "temporary" means, as we know, employment on contract. Employment on contract varies. It has always varied according to the job and the man. I said, in moving the Clause, that, so far as I could understand, the maximum period of these contracts is usually five years. It is most undesirable to put in any particular period because, in some cases, contracts are only for one year; sometimes they are for six months. The Government may require a specialist in a particular disease, and want to get the best world expert to come and advise them. In such a case you have to enter into a contract with him to pay him so much, and you have to employ him in the service of the State to be able to pay him out of the public revenue. Therefore, it is quite impossible to define in terms of years the nature of such temporary employment. The nature of employment on that basis is quite well understood. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) asked who was to determine that. In the case of someone working under the Government of India, the Governor-General will lay down exactly the terms and the duration of the employment. In the case of the Provinces that will be done by the Governors. In both cases they will be acting in their individual judgment.

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN

The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with my question. Sub-section (2) of the proposed new Clause states: The Governor of a Province may declare that the Ruler or any subject of a specified Indian State; That is, any subject—not a named subject. Therefore, that throws the appointments open to every subject of the State, and not only to those subjects who are at present Europeans.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I have been listening to this short discussion, and there is a point which I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Foreign governments sometimes secure the services temporarily of representatives of the International Labour Organisation for the purpose of advising those governments. I know of a particular case. It is usually Eastern governments who want advice on problems connected with workmen's compensation. I would like to know whether the proposed new Clause adequately covers the lending of a servant of that type.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE

Yes. That is exactly the sort of case that is covered by the proposed new Clause. The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying that there are servants of the International Labour Office who have special knowledge of what is done in administration and legislation in connection with labour questions, and either the Governor-General of India or the Governor of a Province might require the services of men of that sort temporarily to carry out particular work. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin) I have made inquiries, and I understand that the number of Europeans who have become subjects of Indian rulers is excessively small, and that it is very rare for that to happen. The number of people from Europe who settle in an Indian native State and become subjects of the native Ruler, and who would be the sort of people likely to be wanted in the government of India is infinitesimal.

Clause added to the Bill.