HC Deb 29 April 1935 vol 301 cc115-8

Whereas difficulties may arise in relation to the transition in Burma from the provisions of the Government of India Act to the provisions of Part XIV of this Act:

And whereas the nature of those difficulties and of the provision which should be made for meeting them cannot at the date of the passing of this Act be fully foreseen:

Now therefore, for the purpose of facilitating the said transition, His Majesty may by Order in Council:

  1. (a) direct that this Act and any provisions of the Government of India Act still in force shall in Burma, during such limited period as may be specified in the Order, have effect subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be so specified;
  2. (b) make, with respect to a limited period so specified, such temporary provision as he thinks fit for ensuing that, while the said transition is being effected and during the period immediately following it, there are available to the Government of Burma sufficient revenues to enable its business to be carried on; and
  3. (c) make such other temporary provisions for the purpose of removing any such difficulties as aforesaid as may be specified in the Order."—[The Attorney-General.]

Brought up and read the First time.

7.30 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

This Clause is a corresponding Clause as it affects Burma to the one which I moved affecting India. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) will be relieved of any doubts as to the simultaneous operation of the federal and provincial parts of the Bill here, because Burma is a unitary constitution. This Clause may be taken subject to the observations that I made before, except in so far as those observations dealt with a double transition. There is only one transition in regard to Burma.

Sir H. CROFT

May we ask when the Constitution of Burma will come into force? Are they going to go full blast ahead while India is still in the transition stage? This is a question of vital importance. Is Burma to wait until full Federal Government has come into force in India, or is she to go off on the loose by herself? The Committee is entitled to know. I regret that so few Members are taking any interest in questions affecting Burma. I do not think that there have been more than 60 Members present at any of our discussions in regard to Burma, which after all, is a great market on which this country depends. We desire to maintain the fortunes of the people of Burma.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The hon. and gallant Member must not reproach the Government for the way in which the affairs of Burma have been discussed. The Government were fully prepared to consider everything relating to the country.

Sir H. CROFT

I hope I may be allowed to intervene. I have not obstructed the proceedings in any way, and this is far too important a subject to be treated lightly. I want to ask the Attorney-General what, in fact, is the proposal?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I was to tell the hon. and gallant Member. I was merely saying that he must not reproach the Government with any want of attention to or interest in the affairs of Burma. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member's question, the intention is not that Burma should ever go on the loose, to use his rather disrespectful expression, but that Burma should be established as a separate Government with a constitution of her own at the same time as the provincial part of the Bill is brought into operation in India. Whether it will be on precisely the same day of the week I cannot say, but it will come into operation at the same time as provincial autonomy in India.

Sir H. CROFT

I am grateful to the Attorney-General. Now we know where we are. Provincial government to be set up in India may never come off the transitional period, the whole thing may stop, because we have been told that we cannot have provincial government in India without federal government at the Centre. Therefore, Burma may get her constitution and be able to go forward with it. That fact will interest this country. When the Attorney-General says that the Government are not to blame for the small interest taken in Burma I must remind him that on the Second Reading we asked that Burma should be treated in a separate Bill. It would have been much wiser, because we should then have had a deliberate examination of the whole problem—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

I hardly think that this arises on the new Clause.

Sir H. CROFT

I should not have ventured to say anything on that subject but for the remarks of the Attorney-General.

Duchess of ATHOLL

When the Attorney-General refers to our discussions on Burma, I wonder whether it has occurred to him what a tremendous strain it is upon private Members to keep up with all the details of a measure like this.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

We really cannot discuss the previous proceedings of the Committee on a new Clause giving transitional provisions to Burma.

Clause added to the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The next new Clause—(Act to be regarded as facilitating dominion. Status)—standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) is not now in order.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY

I expected you to give that ruling after our previous discussion, and I only wish to say that in our view the refusal of the Government to give facilities to discuss this matter is one of the worst features of these Debates. I know that I must not carry this matter any further, but I hope I may be allowed to make that protest. We think that the Government should have given us some opportunity for testing the opinion of the Committee on the vital question raised in the suggested new Clause. Everybody has been told that it does not matter what Ministers say on this point and that the only thing that matters is that the House should place it on record that Dominion Status is the ultimate aim of the British Parliament in this legislation. I am sorry that we are not able to discuss the matter.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I hope that I may be allowed to say that, although the right hon. Gentleman protests against the action of the Government in not giving the Opposition an opportunity of raising this question, it was fully discussed on the Second Reading, and I am not aware of any way within the rules of the Committee, as to which the Government are not the arbiters, by which the right hon. Gentleman can raise this proposal. He has protested, and I must respectfully say that the Government are not guilty of any attempt to block or burke discussion on this important question.

7.38 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN

There are two things which I desire to say. First, I wish to acknowledge the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has been good enough to realise that this matter has already been decided by a previous ruling. Secondly, I have to say this for the protection of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has made a protest against the conduct of the Government. I think it is my duty to make it clear that that cannot apply to anything which the Government have done in Committee, because so far as the discussions in Committee are concerned it is a matter which, if there is any blame or the contrary to be attached to anybody, it must be attached to me for the ruling which I have given as Chairman.

Mr. LANSBURY

I only want to say that in the opinion of my friends and myself if the Government had desired this matter to be brought to the test in the House they could probably have provided some means of doing so.

The CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman must realise that we are now not sitting as the House, but as Committee of the House.