HC Deb 27 February 1935 vol 298 cc1258-68

10.29 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, to leave out "or," and insert: (ii)) the said authority -does not, by virtue of this section.

This Amendment and the following one are really drafting Amendments.

In page 6, line 20, at the end, to insert: and, where the power of the Federal Legislature to make with respect to any matter laws which apply in a Federated State is subject to any condition or limitation specified in the Instrument of Accession of that State, the said authority shall in that State be subject to a like condition or limitation. and I should like, if I may, to deal with them together. The first Amendment divides paragraph (c) (i) into two paragraphs. The second Amendment is intended to make quite clear what was the intention of the Bill, that if a State, in its Instrument of Accession, has made certain limitations in the legislative field, those limitations shall consequently apply in the administrative field. The Committee will know that the administrative and executive authority in. the Bill are defined by reference to the legislative field.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 20, at the end, insert: and, where the power of the Federal Legislature to make with respect to any matter laws which apply in a Federated State is subject to any condition or limitation specified in the Instrument of Accession of that State, the said authority shall in that State be subject to a like condition or limitation."—[The Solicitor-General.]

10.31 p.m.

Captain FULLER

I beg to move in page 6, line 21, to leave out paragraph (ii).

This Amendment has been put down to elucidate the meaning of the term "adjacent to India." It seems better to us that that should be left out, and that the present condition should be maintained whereby the Governor-General has power to recruit where he wishes. Does the term to which I have referred include such territories as the Trans-Indus where the King's writ does not run or places in Burma whose subjects are not subjects of the Karenni States of His Majesty? If the term includes such places and other places where recruits are obtained at present, the paragraph is rather unnecessary.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

The intention of the Sub-section is to exclude the enlistment of foreigners except as regards subjects of Indian States which are included in the term "native of India," and Gurkhas who are included under the term "territories adjacent to India." The hon. and gallant Member will realise that if the Sub-section were omitted it would leave the whole question of enlistment in this respect open to doubt. I hope that after this explanation he will appreciate that if the 'paragraph were left out it would be impossible to continue the enlistment of the Gurkhas who have done such valuable service in the Indian Army, and realising that the paragraph is important to the Bill, he will let it stand.

10.34 p.m.

Sir A. KNOX

I do not think the explanation given by the Under-Secretary covers some people who 'are enlisted in the army in India, for instance the tribe of Hazaras from Afghanistan, which is not a native State. I should like to know how they come under the Clause in regard to enlistment as they are one of the pioneer races. The paragraph of course covers the Gurkhas. The term "adjacent to India" seems rather ambiguous.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.35 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the words—

Mr. CHURCHILL

On a point of Order. Do I understand, Captain Bourne, that you are not calling the Amendment standing in the- name of the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Lieut.-Colonel Applin)—in page 6, line 31, at the end, to add: Provided further that in granting commissions under this section His Majesty or the Governor-General shall be guided by the advice of the Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's forces in India.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

That is an Amendment which I have not selected.

Viscount WOLMER

I want to ask a question relating to the proviso to Clause 8, namely, whether the wording of the proviso covers the concurrent list. It seems to me that it would be impossible for the executive authority of the Federation to secure the enforcement in a Province of laws on matters mentioned in the concurrent list which is included in the Seventh Schedule. We had an Amendment down to ensure that that should be the effect. It would not be in order to discuss that Amendment now, but it was in page 6, line 16, after the word "has," to insert the word "alone," so that the paragraph would read: extend in any Province to matters with respect to which the Provincial Legislature has alone power to make laws. It seems to me that, unless that word is put in, the whole question of the concurrent list is left vague, and I should like to ask the Government why they have not made it plain. Can they defend their drafting in this respect? The point is really rather an important one.

10.37 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

I should like to ask for an explanation on another point, with regard to paragraph (b), which states that the executive authority of the Federation extends to the raising in British India on behalf of His Majesty of naval, military and air forces and to the governance of His Majesty's forces in India. What is the meaning of the word "governance"? It is vital to the Bill that the Army should be kept entirely under the Viceroy, and away from any Federal Legislature. If "governance" means that Indian Ministers would have any right to interfere, say in regard to lines of communication, it would be a very serious thing from the point of view of the defence of India and of the whole question of defence, which I hope I shall be allowed to discuss on Clause 11. The right of the Viceroy to move the Army at any time he likes should not be interfered with.

10.38 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

I can reassure my hon. and gallant Friend. We can deal with that point later, when we come to discuss the whole question of defence. The Department of Defence is reserved, and the Governor-General has the power to take any action in order to prevent anything being done that might directly or indirectly act adversely upon the Army. We can bring out that point more clearly when we come to the actual chapter which deals with defence, but at this stage I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that his fears are groundless.

With regard to the question put by my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) about the scope of the proviso, the intention of the Clause is not to cover the concurrent field to the extent that he mentions. The concurrent field, so far as the Federation will have power to act in it, is covered in Sub section (2) of Clause 125. The concurrent field, which, of course, we can discuss in greater detail later on, is divided into two categories. One category in which both the Federal Legislature and the Provincial Legislatures have the power of legislation but in which the Federal Legislature has no power of giving direction to the Provincial Governments, and the other category in which the Federal Legislature has the power of giving directions to the Provincial Legislatures. The point is covered in Clause 125.

Viscount WOLMER

Am I right in thinking that this Clause deals with the first category and not with the second?

Sir S. HOARE

It covers the whole of the concurrent field except Clause 125.

Viscount WOLMER

There is a most extraordinary phrase at the beginning of the Clause: Subject to the provisions of this Act the executive authority of the Federation shall be exercised. Surely the executive authority is the executive authority of the King Emperor acting through his Viceroy? What do we mean by the executive authority of the Federation? Is that not a most extraordinary phrase to use in a constitutional document? Has it ever been used before?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The beginning of Clause 7 (1) makes it clear. The authority that we are dealing with is the executive authority of the Crown so far as it is exercisable in India. The terminology is not unusual. The Subsection reads: Subject to the provisions of this Act the executive authority of the Federation shall be exercised on behalf. of His Majesty by the Governor-General. When we come to Clause 8, we are dealing with the executive authority of the Federation, which the previous Clause says shall be exercised on behalf of His Majesty by the Governor-General, and you are simply describing the scope of that particular portion of the executive authority which will be exercised by the Governor-General on behalf of His Majesty according to the provisions of the Bill as the executive authority of the Federation.

Viscount WOLMER

I thank my hon. and learned Friend, but I wish he had been able to word it differently.

Mr. EMMOTT

Would not a better and more accurate expression be that used at the beginning of Clause 17, "the Federal Government" instead of "the Federation"?

10.44 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

If I have understood my right hon. Friend aright, proviso (i) of this Clause prevents the Central Government giving any direction or guidance to the Provincial Governments in respect of their administration except in so far as there may be any exceptions expressly stated later in the Bill. If I am right in that assumption, then this proviso is one of tremendoum importance to the welfare of the masses of the people of British India, because so much of the efficiency of the Provincial departments may depend upon getting guidance and direction in policy and assistance in grants from the Central Government. To-day the Governor-General has the powers of direction, guidance and control, and though I understand that the policy of the 1919 Government of India Act was to delegate within certain limits his powers to the Provinces, he still has the powers in his hands of direction, guidance and control, if he chooses to exercise them.

As a matter of fact the Simon Commission, as a result of a very exhaustive inquiry into education which was made by their auxiliary committee, reported that more guidance was needed than the Central Government was giving if education was to be lifted out of a morass of inefficiency The auxiliary committee reported that they wanted the Central Government to resume the power of giving information through a bureau of information which formerly existed, but which came to an end. They wanted guidance and powers to make grants in aid of specific purposes in education. The Linlithgow Commission on Agriculture reported in 1928 in just the same sense in regard to many matters aflecting agriculture. It is not too much to say that the trend of many of the voluminous recommendations made by that Royal Commission is in the direction of the desirability of the Central Government taking a greater share in the guidance and direction of agricultural policy than it had been doing. In particular they wished for agricultural research of all kinds at the centre, and the Government of India proceeded to take action on their recommendations in that respect.

Sir S. HOARE

If my Noble Friend will forgive me, I suggest it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and it would be much better, to discuss relations between the Centre and the Provinces, such as my Noble Friend is dealing with now, upon the specific chapter dealing with the question, namely, Chapter VII, the relations between the Centre 'and the Provinces. All this Clause does is to say that there should be a Federal sphere and a Provincial sphere, and the question of relations does not come up on this Clause.

Duchess of ATHOLL

No doubt the right hon. Gentleman knows this tremendous Bill better than I do, but does not proviso (i) expressly prohibit the Federal Government from exercising authority in regard to provincial legislation?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If I might interrupt for a moment, the Noble Lady will see the words "save as expressly provided in this Act," and I think that they would safeguard any Amendment she might want to move at a later stage.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND TROYTE

My right hon. Friend replied to my hon. and gallant Friend behind in regard to paragraph (b), and I am not clear 'as to the wording of this paragraph. The Clause now reads: The executive authority of the Federation extends … to the governance of His Majesty's Forces in India. We are not told why those words are put in. If they mean anything will my right hon. Friends tell us what they mean?

10.50 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

If in a sentence or two I can remove my hon. and gallant Friend's doubts, I will try to do it in this way. Defence is a federal subject. It comes within the ambit of the Federal Government. That does not mean that it is transferred to Ministerial control. It is a Federal subject, but reserved within the Federal field. That is all that is intended by including it in the Clause which deals with the general powers of the federal system.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

This is a very serious Clause, and the explanation given, and, indeed, the text in the Bill, are typical of the extraordinary contortionary methods now considered the best way of dealing with the innumerable peoples of the East. In the first place, the King Emperor devolves his authority on the Federal Executive, and that authority is devolved in Clause 8 in regard to the most vital matters which can possibly be concerned. The Federal Executive is given power to raise in British India naval, military and air forces, and the government of all these powers is freely conceded in order to give a feeling of real responsible government. Then, by a later Clause, the whole of this is taken back. First it is given, then taken back. It is perfectly true, and it is no good contradicting it. Here is power given to the Federal Executive to do all this and at the same time it does not mean that the Indian people or Ministers have any power, the whole thing being withdrawn and reserved under the purview of the Viceroy himself by a later provision not in the Bill but in a statement made to cover the Bill.

When Dominion status is given, the whole of these powers are to go to the Federal Legislature, and there will be nothing to prevent them from taking over the whole of these powers under the Statute of Westminster. First they are given, then temporarily withdrawn, but only for a transitional period, for in the ultimate stage they are to be handed over under Dominion status and the Federal Executive is then to have power. This temporary arrangement is, to be quite frank, the best way, in the opinion of the Government. They are to raise and command forces in India, including any forces of British extraction, which may be so unfortunate as to be left in that country at that time. What is the value of paragraph (c) in Clause 8 about the enlistment of foreigners? Once the Statute of Westminster is operating in India it will be perfectly possible to tear up the whole of this instrument, to enlist foreign officers, to organise the Indian army, with not one word of security. In view of the expectations held out, I would ask the Committee to consider not only the consequences—we are not in a position to resist this Clause—but to see the frightful elaboration of the process considered necessary to appeal to the Oriental mind. First, they say, "We will give you everything.'' Then it is taken back, and then—"Ah, but never mind, in the distant future, perhaps not so distant, for the coming of which we will not specify any date—we might say 150 years, you may call it five years or when the next Government comes in—you are to have complete Dominion status, and then you will be able to tear this up and possibly engage Swedes, or Germans, or Japanese to officer your Army if you want to." All this farce is gone through in the hope of pleasing the sentimental feelings of Indians. No, Sir, they are much too clever: one of the reasons why you have lost contact is that you have never been able to deal with them on a dead level.

Sir S. HOARE

My right hon. Friend has a wonderful way of creating prejudice in regard to harmless propositions. This is simply the constitutional method of expressing the position which, so far as I know, has been accepted by everybody who has taken part in any of these discussions during the last four years, namely, that while defence is a federal subject, as indeed it must be, defence under this Statute, directly and indirectly, is reserved to the Crown. My right hon. Friend has given the impression that the effect of a provision of this kind will be to lead up inevitably to a situation in which defence will be surrendered and that the Indian Legislature will have complete control over all these questions of defence. What the future may bring neither he nor I can prophesy, but what I can say to the Committee to-night is that under the provisions of this Bill that cannot happen, and it could only be done by subsequent amendment of this Act. Parliament, being sovereign in these matters and having control, will take what action it thinks fit in future, but for the moment it is creating prejudice and misrepresenting the actual position to give the impression which the right hon. Gentleman has given to the Committee that these kind of things will come along, without anyone knowing of it, under the provisions of this Bill.

10.59 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON

There is a point in regard to paragraph (b) which I should like to have cleared up. I do not understand it. This paragraph apparently hands over to the Federation most important matters concerning defence, with regard to the raising in British India, on behalf of His Majesty of naval, military and air forces and the governance of His Majesty's Forces in India. That appears to be a complete contradiction. We have always been assured that defence was to be a reserved service under the control of the Viceroy, but here is a Clause handing it over to the Federal Executive.

Sir S. HOARE

It is all reserved under the Bill.

Colonel GRETTON

Here it is not. It is being handed over to the Federation, and that is a contradiction.

Lord E. PERCY

Read the Bill.

Colonel GRETTON

This is a matter of serious importance.

10.59 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I think my right hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension. He thinks that Clause 8 only deals with matters which are dealt with by the responsible Legislature. Clause 8 deals with the whole of the executive authority, including the necessary authority over the reserved services.

Ordered, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Forward to