HC Deb 12 March 1935 vol 299 cc342-5

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

Viscount WOLMER

May I draw your attention to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) and myself—in page 24, line 19, at the end to insert: Provided that the Governor-General shall not recommend the introduction or moving of any Bill or amendment making provision for imposing or increasing any duty of customs on goods imported into the Federation which are consigned from and produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom if the effect of such Bill or amendment if enacted and brought into operation would be to impose on such goods a higher duty of customs than the duty for the time being imposed on similar goods imported into the Federation which are consigned from and produced or manufactured in any other country. May I ask if it is to be called?

The CHAIRMAN

No, the Amendment is quite obviously in the wrong place.

Mr. ATTLEE

Is it the intention to call the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell)?

The CHAIRMAN

No.

Viscount WOLMER

I understood that this Amendment was going to be selected. Do I understand from what you have said that this point could be raised later?

The CHAIRMAN

On the contrary. I informed the noble Lord's colleague it would not be. The Noble Lord has an Amendment which is more suitable on Clause 100 though I am not at all sure that it will be selected. My present idea is that these points can only be properly met by a new Clause. At any rate this is not the time to raise them.

Sir H. CROFT

Shall we have no opportunity of discussing this very vital question?

The CHAIRMAN

Certainly, but most obviously not on this Clause.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

Before we leave this Clause I should like to call attention to one or matters arising therefrom. The Clause deals with the introduction of legislation dealing with taxation in the Federal Legislature, and we find that provision is made for the introduction of a Bill under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) on the recommendation of the Governor-General. It is provided that the Governor-General shall make a recommendation for the introduction of such a Bill making such provision and that the Bill shall not be introduced into the Council of State. That leaves us with this procedure that a Bill or any amendment making provision for imposing or increasing any tax, whether local or general, and so on, shall be introduced on the recommendation of the Governor-General into the Assembly. That is a position which is analogous to the position in our own practice, where the House of Commons is the assembly for the introduction of Money Bills, and we are recommended to provide supplies for His Majesty in a variety of ways. The procedure proposed for India is tantamount to our procedure, except that this Clause does not lay down the procedure in detail for dealing with a Money Bill.

We desired, without making direct reference to our Amendment, to make an Amendment in order to be quite sure that the practice in the Federal Government in India should approximate to the practice in this country. We should like to have some assurance that the Government will give consideration to the point we wish to make, namely, that when a Money Bill has been introduced into the Assembly and has secured passage by the ordinary procedure laid down in the previous Clauses, it shall not be amended by the Council of State, which we regard as the non-representative element of the Federal Legislature. We wish to safeguard the lower House in this direction, and we appeal to the Government to give further consideration to the matter and to give us an assurance that the Assembly, having been invited to receive a Measure on the recommendation of the Governor-General, and having considered and approved such a Measure, that that Bill shall not be altered by the will of the other House. If we get that assurance we shall not divide against the Clause

10.59 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

If I have not misunderstood the practice of this House, we are in substance asking that the Legislative Assembly in India should do as we do. Substantially, all requests for expenditure are requests which in form and in substance come from His Majesty through his Ministers, and in that we are asking that what has been the almost immemorial practice in the United Kingdom, and which has worked exceedingly well, shall be the practice in India when they have a form of government which to some extent approximates to ours.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

The point of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) is that we should not give in the Bill equality of power on questions of supply as between the two Houses. We have Iliad a previous discussion on this point this evening and I do not want to disturb the Committee by repeating the arguments I then used and therefore I hope my hon. Friend will excuse me if I am brief in my reply. In paragraph 215 the Joint Select Committee attach importance to this provision, and to put it shortly we think it is essential in view of the necessity for a strong central Government and sound finance for both Houses to have equal power in relation to matters of supply. I am sorry to have to give such a negative answer but in this matter we must adhere to the views (expressed and give both Houses equal power.