HC Deb 27 March 1935 vol 299 cc1936-42

4.11 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER

I beg to move, in page 62, line 18, to leave out "six," and to insert "twelve."

Sub-section (3) of this Clause, if my Amendment were carried, would read: A Proclamation of Emergency …. shall cease to operate at the expiration of twelve months, unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. The point of this Amendment is, of course, to extend the period under which a proclamation of emergency may be valid. It does not mean that the emergency would have to last and the proclamation would have to last for 12 months, but it suggests that 12 months would be a more suitable limit than six months. In a country of the vast size of India a state of emergency may be in a very undefined form. You may have a smouldering insurrection, or an organisation of civil disobedience, or acute communal tension springing up first in this Province and then in that. It may not all flare up at the moment, and the suggestion we have made in this Amendment is that the proclamation of emergency should cover a longer period than six months. I think that the point we have to remember in this connection is that, although of course this House must ultimately intervene, there may very well be occasions in which debates in this House would do a great deal of harm.

There are in this House protagonists of the contending parties in India. I know, for instance, that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has a deep attachment to the Hindus. Other hon. Members are equally attached to the Moslem point of view, and it might well be the case—I am not saying it always would be—that debate in this House might very much increase the tension in India. Therefore, I think it is unwise to say there must necessarily be a debate in this House at the end of six months. Of course, we know that in foreign affairs, and, in fact, on a number of occasions, a Government may make an appeal that certain matters shall not be debated in this House because the situation is inopportune. I presume that if the Government made an appeal in circumstances such as I am visualising, it would be acceded to, but it need not necessarily be acceded to. You may have party feeling running high in this country, as they used to do before the war, when the Opposition would be willing to risk the probable consequences of a debate on India if they thought it would discredit the Government. It seems to me to be unwise to fix so short a time limit as six months. I hope it may not be necessary to have a longer period than 12 months, but it seems to me it is a safer time limit than six months.

4.16 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Amendment would result in the period during which the Centre was invading the Provincial legislative field continuing possibly for 12 months without approval by Parliament. The Clause only deals with a state of emergency in which the security of India is threatened, either as a result of war or of internal disturbance. In order to deal with a very serious position like that, it is proposed that the Centre shall have the right to take over for the necessary time the legislative field allotted to the Provinces. My Noble Friend's only objection to six months is that it may be inadvisable to have a debate in this House on that state of affairs owing to the possibility of high party feelings. If a state of emergency of so serious a character as that envisaged by the Clause exists in India, I should have thought that it would be very unlikely, indeed very undesirable, that no debate should take place in this House for as long as six months. If it were a question of a week or a few days it might be necessary to avoid a debate during a particular period of that brevity, but, when you are thinking in terms of months during which there is an invasion of the Provincial legislative field by the Centre in these grave circumstances, it is almost inconceivable, indeed, I think it is quite inconceivable, not to have a debate in Parliament as to the action which has been taken.

My Noble Friend proposes 12 months. It is notoriously difficult to draw a line when you are considering a question of time. Seven months may be as good as six months, and eight months as good as seven months, but it seems to the Government that a period of 12 months is definitely too long and that six months is a reasonable period, at the end of which, if not before, Parliament should have an opportunity of considering whether the proclamation made by the Governor-General was a proper one in all the circumstances. I hope my Noble Friend will realise, on this view of the matter, that a period of 12 months is too long for the proclamation to continue without any consideration by Parliament.

4.19 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

With all due respect, it seems to me that the learned Attorney-General has ignored some rather important considerations. In the first place, he has rather forgotten that disturbed conditions in India have existed over a considerable period of months. The civil disobedience disturbance began in the beginning of 1930 and gathered momentum as it went on, because it was allowed to grow, and a serious condition of affairs existed at the end of the year. In 1931 there was also some trouble, indeed, there was a recrudescence of the civil disobedience movement in 1932, and there was the massacre at Cawnpore in 1931. We have to realise the possibility, I think the probability, that there may be long periods of disorder, very much longer than is in the mind of the Attorney-General. The Amendment does not require the proclamation to continue indefinitely. There is no reason why it should continue a day longer than the Governor-General and the Secretary of State consider necessary. Nor does the Amendment prevent Parliament considering the position in India and discussing it if it desires to do so. Parliament is left entirely free in the matter.

All that the Amendment means is that the proclamation, which would only be issued in circumstances of great emergency and danger—it may be difficult in this country to know exactly the right moment for ending the proclamation—shall not automatically lapse except at the most suitable moment. In certain circumstances a debate in Parliament might do untold harm. How often have we been asked to postpone a discussion on this or that matter for fear of raising excited feelings. If there be a state of grave internal disorder in India it may be most undesirable to have a debate in this House with hon. Members in different parts associating themselves with different parties to the disorder. There is also another contingency. (Parliament may not be in session. Would hon. Members like to be recalled from their hard earned holiday in the summer, which they spend in all quarters of the globe, to discuss the question whether a proclamation was or was not to continue in India. It seems to me, in view of the actual experience we have had of the length of time disorder may continue in India, that the Government would do well to give themselves the further latitude which the Amendment suggests. If the Government will not accept the Amendment, are they prepared to extend the time from six months to nine months? I am sure it would be for the good of India.

4.23 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

When the Noble Lady makes that proposal I can only suggest that it throws a little light upon the force of her argument. She suggested 12 months as being better than six months, because a state of disorder may last longer than six months. I think that is quite possible, indeed, it may be very likely, if a serious state of affairs ever began; but the question to which the Noble Lady has not addressed herself is whether it is desirable, in a state of emergency like that and where action has ben taken under the powers of the Bill, that such a state of affairs should continue for a substantial period without Parliament having an opportunity, or being compelled, to express an opinion. It is true that the Governor-General can end the situation by recalling the proclamation. That would be because the state of emergency had ceased to exist, in which case no reason would arise for Parliament to discuss the matter at all. But suppose the state of affairs continues and the Governor-General is not justified in recalling the proclamation, then the question arises at what time is it desirable that Parliament shall be obliged to discuss the matter, if the proclamation is to continue to have effect. The Noble Lady says 12 months. It is possible that the state of emergency will be such as to make it undesirable during the 12 months as it is during the six months. By that reasoning you may get to 18 months and 24 months. The Noble Lady is of that opinion, because she has suggested nine months. I am not going to be so foolish as to suggest that there is any magic or virtue in six months over nine months, but I think six months is a reasonable period. The Noble Lady asked what will happen if Parliament is not sitting. What will happen if Parliament is not sitting during the 12 months, or during the nine months?

Duchess of ATHOLL

Parliament allows itself a summer holiday.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I do not appreciate how that bears on the question. Suppose Parliament has not had this Debate at the end of 10 months, and is going away for the summer holidays. What will happen to the Noble Lady then? That is one of those questions on which it is easy to debate whether it shall be six months, nine months, 12 months or 18 months, and on the whole, I think the Government's proposal is sound and that six months is long enough to go on without Parliament considering it.

4.27 p.m.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE

May I say that I like six months for the reason that matters of great emergency in India ought to be discussed within that period. I cannot follow the argument of the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) that the House should not have an opportunity of discussing it. I am sure that it is within his recollection that during the period we have been together in this House we have never had a six months holiday—

Duchess of ATHOLL

That is not what I meant. You may have three months disorder, and it may be felt that it is not desirable to have a Debate. Then come the three months holiday of Parliament, and your six months go.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE

The main point is that if there is a state of disorder, which is a menace to the security of India, it is essential that Parliament should discuss the matter within six months. I look at this question from a point of view different from that of my hon. Friends opposite, and it rather surprises me that they take the view they do. I should have thought that they would take the other view, that if there be such a serious emergency it is most desirable Parliament should discuss it. We should also remember that Parliament may not always be constituted exactly as it is to-day. Looking at it from that point of view, I think the Noble Lady, if she thinks again, will agree that it is undesirable to extend the period.

4.29 p.m.

Sir CHARLES OMAN

If the Committee is discussing the possible length of an emergency in India, may I point out that the great India Mutiny commenced in the summer of 1857 and lasted to 1858. The last remnants of the mutineers were captured in 1859, and their leader was executed in September, 1859, two years after the emergency began.

4.30 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

Surely my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, appreciates what the Noble Lady said. There is nothing whatever to stop a Debate taking place. Presumably if you had a state of emergency a Debate would take place almost inevitably. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), who seemed to think it was highly desirable that in any event there should be a Debate on what was happening, not a statement from the Secretary of State merely but a Debate which from the nature of the case must mean that there will be one party in this House trying to exert pressure on the Governor-General in order to bring the state of emergency to an end. My hon. Friend has been in this House long enough to know that almost inevitably, when you have an emergency in any Dominion, there will be one party in this House standing up and saying that the Government are very unwise not to bring that state of affairs to an end. It is human nature, and it has always happened in the past. As you are giving self-government to India it is hardly advisable to interfere in this House to any greater extent than we can avoid. I should have thought it was obvious that a longer period than six months was desirable, in view of the length of time that you have had to see emergency regulations in operation in India before. I should have thought it was unwise to force the House to come to a decision at the end of six months.

4.32 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND

The expression, "Houses of Parliament" appears in the Bill in many places. Is it sufficient to say "Houses of Parliament" when there are so many Parliaments in the Empire? Would it not be better to say "the Imperial Houses of Parliament"? Does the learned Attorney-General consider those words sufficient from a legal point of view?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Not only sufficient, but the only proper words.

4.33 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR

Before there is a confirmation of the emergency the condition of affairs in India must be extremely serious. When there is confirmation and the Governor-General takes over control to combat the state of affairs which has arisen, it seems to me that sufficient time should be given to those on the spot to carry out what is necessary to pacify the country. It does not seem to me to be a good thing for this House prematurely to discuss affairs in India until there has been an opportunity for those on the spot in India to institute such proceedings as are necessary to restore security. I think it inadvisable that of necessity this House should discuss a state of emergency before opportunity has been given for the methods that have been taken by those on the spot in India to bear fruit.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 103 to 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.