§ 4.36 p.m.
§ Mr. HICKSI beg to move, in page 64, line 10, after "law," to insert:
(other than a law consequent upon the ratification of a convention made under the auspices of the International Labour Office of the League of Nations).The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the general Federal application of the Conventions of the League of Nations shall apply to India as a whole, that is, to the native States as well as to British India. Up to 1933 the Labour Conventions passed at 1943 Geneva numbered 40, and of these the British Government in India adopted and ratified 13. The Conventions in the main relate to such matters of very great importance as the regulation of the hours of work, the payment of workmen's compensation, the right of association, unemployment exchanges and the prohibition of night work for women and young persons. The position at present is that there is no compulsion on the States in India to ratify any of these Conventions. It is true that some States have copied the legislation of the Indian Legislature, but generally speaking the labour laws of the States are considerably behind those of British India. A Royal Commission that sat in 1931 made this observation on the matter:There seem to be distinct dangers that persons will seek to exploit, beyond the bounds of British India, the labour of young children. Further, in the Punjab there is said to be a tendency to move cotton ginning factories to Indian States to avoid restrictions on hours of work and child labour.It would be a wise thing to adopt the Amendment in order that the States that come within the Federation should adopt compulsorily such Conventions as have been approved by the League of Nations. India to-day is undergoing very rapid economic change and industrialisation. It affects the railways, steam and electricity, mills, engineering factories and so on, with profound consequences on the economic and social life of the people in India. It is all tantamount to an industrial revolution. I appeal to all sections of the Committee and to the Government in particular to give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment. Conventions that are passed at the International Labour Office are very carefully tested from every possible angle and there is not much that escapes examination before the Conventions are approved. It is also true that every inquiry and every Commission in India has reported on the conditions of the working population. They are lamentably low, and anything that can be done to improve them would meet a great need.The Indian States have a population of about 80,000,000. It would be wrong to allow discrimination among those 1944 80,000,000 compared with the other 270,000,000 in British India. As a result of the Indian States not accepting the Conventions which have been passed mischief has already begun. I am informed that in Hyderabad, Baroda, Indore, Mysore, and other States, workers are now employed under conditions that do not conform with legislation passed in British India. There is hardly an Indian State of any importance where large industries are not established—industries which produce textiles, sugar and steel. They are engaging in production comparable with that in British India. But in all these States the conditions of labour have not been as favourable as those found elsewhere. It is notorious that labour in British India is prejudiced by imports of competing goods from Indian States where tariffs and customs duties are law. The geographical position of the States is another argument that might be considered and intelligently used to justify the need for bringing them into line. The common sense and reason of the Amendment should commend itself to the Secretary of State and to the Committee. I think it would be distinctly harmful to exempt the States from these regulations. The acceptance of the Amendment would give a feeling of fairness and security, and we ask that it should be embodied in the Bill.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Major HILLSAt first sight there would appear to be a strong case for this Amendment. The Committee will recollect that this point was discussed on an earlier Clause and on a first consideration of the proposal, it would seem to be a useful thing that India should speak as a single unit in the matter of the ratification of Labour Conventions. It would certainly make for convenience if all the States could be brought into line on these matters. Then the hon. Member is on common ground with all of us in saying that labour conditions in India ought to be improved and also in saying that the production of goods which are made under inferior conditions and can therefore be sold cheaply in our markets, must do harm to our workers here. So far I go with the hon. Member. Where we differ is as to the character of the Federation which is being set up under the Bill. Let the Committee remember that the Amendment refers not only to the Provinces but to the native States 1945 and that it would enable the Federal Government to decree labour conditions in the Federated States without the consent of the Rulers of those States. I think the mere statement of those facts will show the Committee the dangers which would be involved in this proposal. It would be contrary to the terms on which the States are joining the Federation.
That is not the only point however. The Committee must also bear in mind that whether you give powers of labour legislation under a Federal system to the Federal Government or to the States under that Government, must depend on the nature of the Federation. If you have a very closely unified Federation then you can quite well give those powers to the Central Government, but when, as in this case, you are giving very wide powers to the Provinces and still wider powers to the native States, then I think you must give those Provinces and those native States control over their own labour legislation. I do not think that the alternative would work. I think if I may say so that the hon. Member, with whose motives in regard to the Amendment I sympathise, is in some confusion as to the sort of Federation which we are setting up here. It will not make India into a close union. It will be a Federation something on the lines of the United States but unique in itself. A Federation such as this Bill sets up has never been seen in the world before—
§ Viscount WOLMERAnd will never be seen again.
§ Major HILLSAnd it is going to be an example to the world. We are so fortunate as to be able to do what no other nation has ever attempted before. In the United States, which is the most comparable case, all these powers of labour legislation are left to the States. No doubt that causes inconvenience in the international field but that is unavoidable. What is the answer to the very obvious criticisms which the hon. Member has made on labour conditions in the Provinces in India and still more in the States? Is it that they call for a system of improvement and education and better legislation in those areas which are large enough to have labour problems of their own and are large enough to be given 1946 powers for the direction and control of their own labour legislation. Although I see the advantages of the Amendment, although I feel that under such a proposal the ratification of Conventions might be easier I believe that the application of those Conventions would not be easier. We have often found that States accept Conventions passed by the International Labour Office and then make no attempt whatever to enforce those Conventions. That I think would be a bad thing for India and also a bad thing for the International Labour Office.
§ 4.50 p.m.
§ Viscount WOLMERAfter the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), I think the Socialist party have every reason to say that when a speaker begins by telling you that he agrees with you in spirit, you can be sure that in the end he will come down on the wrong side of the fence.
§ Major HILLSI said I appreciated the spirit of the Amendment.
§ Viscount WOLMERI do not think that my right hon. and gallant Friend has met the case which has been put from the benches opposite. If I may say so, with great respect to him, it is absurd to argue that this proposed Constitution is at all comparable to the Constitution of the United States. The analogy of the United States which he cited really will not do. Even conceding his point that there is some analogy, it is universally admitted that the United States Constitution is one of the worst in the world and has been the cause of no end of trouble to the people of that country. It is therefore no argument to cite the worst part of a notoriously bad Constitution as an instance of something which we should copy in passing this Bill. But the point put by hon. Members opposite is that India is passing through an industrial revolution, and I would remind the Committee that that industrial revolution has been speeded on—I will not say entirely but to a great extent—by the policy of the Indian Nationalist movement, the policy of erecting high protective tariffs, creating an industrial system in India and manufacturing for themselves as much as possible instead of importing from this country and elsewhere. Therefore, it 1947 may be said that the industrial revolution in India is to a large extent the direct result of the political movement and the national consciousness which we see there.
We are now giving India this Constitution. We are implementing find making firmer the powers already possessed by the Indian political movement to start industries in India. One of the bases of the Constitution which we are establishing is that there shall be a Zollverein throughout India. If you are to have a Government at the centre which is going to maintain this policy of high protection, and if there is to be free trade within India itself, clearly it will be to the interests of any unscrupulous capitalist to erect his factories, as far as other conditions allow, in those portions of India where the labour laws are worst. Therefore, as one of the results of the Constitution which we are building, we may be directly encouraging the setting up of Indian industries under conditions which everybody in this House and no one more than my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon would deplore. While I do not deny the reality of the difficulties which he has put forward, I do not think he has dealt with the gravamen of the case put from the benches opposite. This is only another instance of the difficulties into which we shall get by trying to treat India as a political unit when it is not really a political unit at all. By establishing a Federation with complete power over Customs, but without any real power over labour legislation in certain parts of the country, we may be bringing about very grave difficulties in the future.
§ 4.55 p.m.
§ Mr. BANFIELDI support this Amendment very largely as the result of my experience at the International Labour Office Conferences in Geneva, where for two years I listened to debates in which the representatives of India took part. A very prominent Indian permanent official, Sir Louis Kershaw, represented the Indian Government during the two years in which I acted as adviser on behalf of His Majesty's Government here. I am sure from those debates that Sir Louis Kershaw, as an 1948 impartial observer of the changing industrial system, held the opinion that India should as far as possible be encouraged to give effect in every way to the Conventions passed by the International Labour Office Conferences. We hear much from time to time about the difficulties of Lancashire in regard to textiles, and the difficulties arising generally from increased competition by all kinds of Asiatic labour. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite often declare that this kind of thing is dragging down the standards of British workpeople. We hear that said so often that I am astonished to find the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) rising to bless this Amendment but finishing his speech by cursing it.
In the five or six years which have elapsed since I was at Geneva a tremendous change has taken place in the industrial outlook. Formerly the effects of low wages, long hours, and absence of labour legislation in countries abroad, was, in the main, offset by the skill of the workpeople in Western Europe. Today the position has altered. To-day a coolie at a machine can equal the production of some of those who, a few years ago, were the finest skilled workmen in the world. It is this new development which has intensified competition between East and West, and that is why I believe that if the Government find it possible to meet us at all in this Amendment, they will be extremely well-advised in doing so. I am satisfied that no satisfactory solution can be arrived at unless the Federal Legislature has power to impose labour conditions throughout the whole of India—both in the States and in British India.
It has been argued that in the United States and also in Canada and Australia the different Provinces or States as the case may be are left to carry out their own labour legislation. That is true but what has been the effect? In the United States it has been declared over and over again that differences in legislation on labour matters as between individual States have proved a tremendous bar to human progress and the improvement of social conditions in that country. One of the Chief Commissioners' Provinces is part of British India but it is surrounded for hundreds of miles on all sides by 1949 Indian States. The geographical position of the States themselves is an argument for the uniformity of labour legislation. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a statement made by the Employers' Federation of India to the Chamber of Commerce, pointing out distinctly that unless labour legislation applied to all parts of India the inevitable effect must be that where there was no labour legislation at all, there capital would set up its mills and its machines and under-cut industrialists in other parts of India. It is obvious; that this will take place In my opinion, we cannot have any labour legislation for India unless it does cover the whole of India.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon paid a great tribute to this Bill and said it was going to set an example to the world. It cannot set an example to the world unless the condition of the common people of India is immeasurably improved. You can only improve the position of India's teeming millions if you are prepared to recognise that labour conditions and social services must run throughout the Indian Empire for the benefit of the masses. Surely the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon would not for a moment suggest that this Bill was only to be beneficial to the wealthy capitalists, to the Princes, and to the ruling classes in India? You cannot bring happiness and prosperity to a nation by giving those things to only a small portion of that nation. I put it seriously to the Government that some ways or means should be found to give effect to this Amendment. Otherwise, what is the use of India's representatives going to the International Labour Office Conferences at all? If they go to Geneva and sign a Convention on behalf of India, surely effect should be given to that over India as a whole by putting it in a Bill to enforce the Convention signed by India's representatives.
Everybody knows the very bad conditions of labour in India. Everybody knows of the exploitation of child labour, and women's labour. Everybody knows, or should know, something about the exploitation of those who work in the mines, in the textile mills and in the factories. If this House, by accepting this Amendment, could send some message to the teeming millions of India, 1950 telling them that the House of Commons had put something into the India Bill which offered some hope to those for whom the outlook at the moment seems hopeless, then I think that good work would be done Further, I do not believe that the intelligent rulers in the Indian States would offer very much objection to it. I believe that those rulers who wish to do the best they can for their people would be the first to welcome this step. It is the same there as here. There are a few reactionaries who will object, but I submit that people who will not abide by any humane conditions must be brought into line by the compulsion of the law. I believe it is by this method, and by this method alone, that we can hope to bring any real hope to the masses of the people in India.
§ 5.5 p.m.
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler)I think we are all agreed that this is a very important question, and I shall do my best to answer the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) and others who have taken part in this Debate. In the first place, I think we should all agree in praising the part that India has played at Geneva, particularly in connection with labour questions. The hon. Member for East Woolwich referred to the fact that out of 33 Conventions the Government of India had ratified 13. [Interruption.] I think 40 Conventions was the actual number up to 1933. The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) referred to the part that one individual, Sir Louis Kershaw, had played. There is another great Indian, Sir Atul Chatterjee, who has also done great work in connection with labour questions at Geneva, not only in the interests of India but in the interests of labour all over the world. We should recognise this fact when we approach the Amendment before the Committee. I think that if we look at past history we shall probably have the first answer to the question of the hon. Member for Wednesbury when he asked what was the use of India going to Geneva. We feel that if India has made such good use of her opportunities already she will certainly make good use of them in future. In that spirit, I wish to examine this Clause and the Amendment which has been moved.
1951 The hon. Member for Wednesbury said he was certain that if the Rulers were intelligent they would be willing to have this Amendment accepted. May I remind him that there, is every opportunity for intelligent and enlightened Rulers to accept labour Conventions decided upon at Geneva by giving their consent to the Convention when the Federal Government proceeds to legislate upon these labour Conventions which have been entered into. We believe that in a federation it is by the principle of consent of the units that you are likely to have proper administration of the laws passed by the Central Government. If you go against consent, you are not only going against human nature and against the best way to achieve proper results, but you are going against what is a well-known fact in all federations that have been set up. May I remind hon. Members that if they refer to the Labour portion of the Peace Treaty, by which many of these Conventions are governed, they will see, in Section 9 of Article 405 that the case of a federal state is specially referred to. This Section says:
In the case of a federal state, the power to enter into Conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations, it shall be in the discretion of that Government to treat a draft convention to which such limitations apply as a recommendation only, and the provisions of this Article with respect to recommendations shall apply in such case.It will be seen from the very institution to which we look for encouragement in labour Conventions that the special nature and character of a federal Government and of a federation were recognised rom the very start. When we look at the question from the point of view of India, we find that Clause 106 refers especially to items in the Federal Legislative List and gives the Federation power to legislate for the implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries under Item 3 of the Federal Legislative List. This Clause then proceeds to explain that if the Federation is to legislate for the implementing of a Convention of the type mentioned it must get the consent of the units concerned. This, as I have already said, is in accordance, not only with common sense, but with the precedents and practice of all other federations; and 1952 was envisaged by the framers of the Peace Treaty when they dealt with this question of labour Conventions. Therefore, hon. Members will see that there is nothing untoward or extraordinary in what we are proposing, and they will see that in basing ourselves upon consent we are taking the most common sense course. May I say, in conclusion, that we think we are perhaps doing as well, in many cases, as any other Federation, because this Clause does give the Federation power to make one law on the subject. In items in either the Concurrent or Provincial Lists in relation to which it is necessary to make a law implementing international Conventions, provided that the consent of the units is contained, we do give power for the unification of the law to be passed by the Federal Legislature. We feel that is a sensible provision which will lead to the achievement of many of the objectives which the hon. Member so ardently desires. Our proposal is based on the history of the subject and on common sense, and I hope hon. Members opposite will not press their Amendment.
§ 5.12 p.m.
§ Mr. RHYS DAVIESThis is the second time we have tried to insert this provision in this Bill, and it is the second occasion on which the Government have disappointed us. I had the privilege of moving a similar Amendment to another part of the Bill. We feel that this Bill of 451 Clauses safeguards the interests of almost all the officials in India—the Governors, the Army officials, railway officials, the Princes, the civil servants—but I have looked through the Bill very carefully, and I cannot find a single word in all the 451 Clauses that safeguards the interests of the people of India as workers. We have a right, therefore, to protest at the Government's refusal to accept this Amendment. I was rather astonished when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) argued against this Amendment and I was a little surprised to hear the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) supporting us. This Bill has made some very strange bedfellows—but this Amendment has made stranger bed-fellows still. I am almost sure that if we proposed that a Convention passed at Geneva should apply to our own working people in this country we should have the position reversed. 1953 The right hon. Gentleman who opposes this Amendment would support us and the Noble Lord—who is a true, blue-blooded Tory on all occasions—would undoubtedly oppose the application of any Labour Convention to our own working people. I am not very sure, therefore, what the motives are that induced hon. and right hon. Gentleman to support and oppose this Amendment.
There is one central point which ought to be made on this Amendment, and it is one which the hon. Gentleman hardly touched upon. Unless I am mistaken, the Princes will be in the Legislature of the Federation, and they will probably have a voice in determining whether a Convention adopted at Geneva shall be made applicable in the Provinces. They will probably be able to vote and speak in favour of passing a Convention covering the whole of the Provinces—
§ Mr. BUTLERThe consent of the Provinces would be necessary before a Convention would apply in the Provinces.
§ Mr. DAVIESThat does not destroy the argument that the Princes may speak and vote in favour of the application of a Geneva Convention to the Provinces; and then, I suppose, each Province would decide whether it should be applied to that Province. I think I am right in saying that these gentlemen from the States would be able to urge the adoption of Conventions in the Provinces while still declining to allow Conventions to be applied to their own States.
Let me say, in conclusion, that we are not happy at all that the Government-have not done one thing at any rate in connection with these Amendments. When the Government are faced with an important Amendment about the Princes and apprehend very strong opposition in this Committee, we have usually found that they have been willing to consult the Princes. I do not think that we on this side have moved, or probably will move, from the Labour point of view a more important Amendment than we are now discussing, and it occurs to me that the Government, faced with this very important Amendment, which we have moved on two occasions, might find out what the Princes are thinking about it. Unless I am greatly mistaken, we shall do what we did on a previous occasion and press the Amendment to a Division.
§ 5.16 p.m.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI do not think the Under-Secretary of State really met the point at issue by his speech. When we are discussing this Indian Constitution it is useless to think you can go by precedent. He dealt with the precedent of other federations, but let us remember what kind of federation this is, namely, a federation of a whole mass of little States interwoven into the fabric of British India. Take such a matter as the cotton industry, which everyone realises needs very careful regulation. You have a cotton industry in Bombay presidency at present, and you have legislation there for protecting the workers in the industry, but you have interwoven into that presidency any number of little States. It is quite easy to transfer a business or a mill from British India to one of the States. That has happened. I had instances given to me by officials and by non-officials in India of where that had been done.
There you would be in a position in which some quite small State would be able to escape legislation approved of by British India, and perhaps by enlightened rulers of States like Mysore, and for some financial advantage, which might be a very big temptation to some little State, they could take an industry into such a State, where it would be utterly unregulated and where it would cut at the best Indian industry, at British industry, and at world industry. The result will be that there will be a temptation, as the progress of industrialisation goes on—and India, it should be remembered, is the eighth industrial country in the world—to have little pools of sweated industries and bad conditions. Why should it not be made a condition? We have it on record that India has done well in the matter of these industrial, labour conventions, and I do not believe that there would be opposition among the bigger and better States, but I think it is very desirable that you should take control of the smaller and less responsible States in this matter, and I therefore ask the Secretary of State seriously to consider whether he cannot accept this Amendment.
§ 5.19 p.m.
§ Sir S. HOAREThere seems to be an impression that under our proposals we are giving differential treatment in this case to the States, but, as a matter of 1955 fact, we are treating them in this case exactly as we are treating the British Indian Provinces. These services covered by international agreements would be services within the field of the unit; that is to say, in the British Indian Provinces they would be provincial services, and in the case of the Indian States they would be services within the internal activities of the States. That at once shows that in both cases the administration of these services is in the hands of the unit, and I suggest to the Committee that, that being so, much the wisest course, if you wish, as we all wish, to get the general standard of labour conditions better, is to proceed by consent, to carry with you the local administration, rather than to attempt to impose from on high services that the local units are not prepared to accept. That has been the experience in a good many other parts of the world. It is the experience, I understand, of Canada, where, when there is an international agreement, the federal government has to satisfy itself, probably before it ratifies the agreement, that the units are prepared to carry it out, or anyhow, after the agreement has been ratified, that the units are prepared to administer it.
I think that is the wisest course rather than to attempt to proceed by way of coercion. If you proceed by way of coercion, one of two things will happen. Either certain of the States will be, for reasons good or bad, nervous of joining the Federation, and it may then be that the Federation will not come into being at all. That, I would suggest, would be a great disadvantage from the point of view that is in our mind in dealing with this Amendment. I believe that the effect of Federation coming into being, bringing, as it will, the Indian States and the British Indian Provinces into collaboration with each other, is much more likely to raise the general standard of labour conditions in India than a system such as exists to-day, where the Indian States are completely isolated, from the point of view of government, from the British Indian Provinces. I would suggest, therefore, first, that supposing the line of coercion prevented Federation from coming into being, we should be doing a disservice to the kind of objective that we all have in mind, 1956 and, secondly, I think the immediate effect would be unnecessarily to set up against the Federal Government a local opposition.
It is very significant that the strongest opposition to accepting the kind of proposal that is urged from the benches opposite came, not from the Indian Princes, but from the provincial autonomists in the Provinces. I do not believe the Provincial Governments are not just as keen about social questions as is the Central Government—indeed, I have always taken the view that movements for social reform are more likely to come from the Provinces than from the Centre—but it shows the great anxiety in the Provinces lest they should be dictated to by a Federal Government at the Centre. I believe, for these reasons, the wise course is to proceed, not by coercion, but by consent, and to leave it to public opinion, both in the Provinces and in the Indian States, to mobilise itself behind the movements for better conditions. I think by that means we shall get the standard raised much more swiftly and effectively than by any such procedure as that proposed in the Amendment.
§ 5.25 p.m.
§ Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMSI should be more prepared to accept what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has said if there were any public opinion in the States, and by public opinion I mean an opportunity for people who may be working in a sweated industry to voice their grievances. If it were possible for public opinion to express itself within the confines of this Constitution, I should be satisfied, but it must be obvious to every Member of the Committee that there is no such provision at all. Most of the arguments that have been advanced against the Amendment one has heard from all quarters for very many years against most phases of labour legislation that have been placed even before this House. For very many years until quite recently most big business in this country has been talking about "Hands off politics," and trying to exclude business from politics, in the belief that politics, by interfering with business, would tend to the disadvantage rather than to the improvement of business. This kind of thing was observed for many years, until big business began to realise that it re- 1957 quired such things as tariffs, quotas, and subsidies in order to prop it up.
Every time we have had a piece of legislation advanced in this House, we have always had a minority opposing it, and the same thing will inevitably arise within the States in India itself, I cannot speak authentically on Indian problems, but, like other Members, I read, and I am prepared to accept the statement that quite a number of the Princes would do their best to provide reasonable conditions for the States, by which I mean conditions comparable to those that may be found in the Provinces. There are, however, from the evidence that we have had, some that are not prepared to apply the same kind of conditions to their States as now obtain in the Provinces. How are we going to put these things right? The Government is really faced with this charge, that it is prepared to listen to the voice of the Princes, but that it is not prepared to listen to the voice of the people. We have an enormous number of Clauses—about 450—in this Bill, and there seems to be no provision among them all for improving the conditions of the many millions of people in India. How are we to put that right? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to indicate to us that it will be possible in some other way to do it?
The last time we spoke about this matter we endeavoured to insert in the Instrument of Instructions some provision to enable the Princes to put this right, but it was rejected by an enormous majority. We are now again trying, by way of an Amendment to Clause 106, and the same kind of objection is advanced to the arguments that are used in favour of the Amendment from this side. But how are we to improve the conditions of the Indian people? One knows that you have business competition as between the Provinces and the States, and most hon. Members are desirous of seeing that no tariff barriers of any kind shall be put up that will be conditional upon sweated labour obtaining in the States
§ in order to prejudice the conditions of working people in the Provinces. How are we to put these things right, unless an Amendment of this kind is inserted in the Bill? Frankly, we on this side are not satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have endeavoured to meet the real issue before us, which is not a constitutional issue at all, but an issue that the Government must really face. We know that the Geneva Conventions are not ratified by all European States. They have their own evidence that in so doing they would increase their costs of production, and they have other difficulties of that kind. India, however, is a continent where there is something like comparable uniformity so far as government is concerned, and there ought to be no cause for any dissimilarity in wage conditions, working hours, payment of wages and things of that kind as between the States and the Provinces when any convention is recommended for acceptance.
§ We trust that the right hon. Gentleman will think over this matter again. The Government may be able to think of some other way by which it would be possible to improve the conditions of the Indian people. Millions of them are working in conditions that are a disgrace to this country. Women and small children are working long hours underground, and the conditions are really abominable. There really ought to be some attempt on the part of the Government to rectify the grave state of distress that obtains, particularly in a large number of the small States that will never of their own volition exert themselves sufficiently to put these conditions right. It is only by some external influence coming through the Federated Chamber itself that it will be possible for these people to have the conditions that most hon. Members would desire them to have.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 273.
1961| Division No. 122.] | AYES. | [5.33 p.m. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Jenkins. Sir William |
| Banfield, John William | Dobbie, William | John, William |
| Batey, Joseph | Gardner, Benjamin Waite | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Buchanan, George | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur | Lawson, John James |
| Cleary, J. J. | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Leonard, William |
| Cripps, Sir Stafford | Grundy, Thomas W. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Daggar, George | Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Davies, David L. (Pontypridd) | Hicks, Ernest George | McEntee, Valentine L. |
| McGovern, John | Thorne, William Jamas | Williams, Edward John (Ogmore) |
| Paling, Wilfred | Tinker, John Joseph | Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley) |
| Parkinson, John Allen | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah | |
| Rathbone, Eleanor | West, F. R. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Smith, Tom (Normanton) | Williams, David (Swansea, East) | Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Elliston, Captain George Sampson | MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr) |
| Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) | Elmley, Viscount | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) |
| Albery, Irving James | Emmott, Charles E. G. C | McEwen, Captain J. H. F. |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.) | Emrys-Evans, P. V. | McKie, John Hamilton |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd) | Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) | Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton |
| Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) | Essenhigh, Reginald Clare | McLean, Major Sir Alan |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian |
| Anstruther-Gray, W. J. | Evans, David Owen (Cardigan) | Magnay, Thomas |
| Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. | Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen) | Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest |
| Apsley, Lord | Fermoy, Lord | Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M. |
| Aske, Sir Robert William | Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. |
| Assheton, Ralph | Foot, Dingle (Dundee) | Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Balley, Eric Alfred George | Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin) | Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.) |
| Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. | Fraser, Captain Sir Ian | Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Fremantie, Sir Francis | Meller, Sir Richard James |
| Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet) | Fulter, Captain A. G. | Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.) |
| Balniel, Lord | Galbraith, James Francis Wallace | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Gibson, Charles Granville | Milne, Charles |
| Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar | Gillett, Sir George Masterman | Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell | Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury) | Glossop, C. W. H. | Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres |
| Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.) | Glueksteln, Louis Halle | Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr) |
| Beit, Sir Alfred L. | Gofl, Sir Park | Moreing, Adrian C. |
| Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel | Goldie, Noel B. | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) |
| Boulton, W. W. | Goodman, Colonel Albert w. | Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties) |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Gower, Sir Robert | Morrison, William Shepherd |
| Bewer, Commander Robert Tatton | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) | Munro, Patrick |
| Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. | Grigg, Sir Edward | Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H. |
| Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald | Grimston, R. V. | Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth) |
| Briscoe, Capt. Richard George | Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd) | Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peterst'ld) |
| Broadbent, Colonel John | Hanbury, Cecil | Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid |
| Brocklebank, C. E. R. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham) | Hartington, Marquess of | Orr Ewing, I. L. |
| Brown, Ernest (Leith) | Hartland, George A. | Owen, Major Goronwy |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y) | Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes) | Patrick. Colin M. |
| Browne, Captain A. C. | Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) | Peat, Charles U. |
| Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. | Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) | Petnerick, M |
| Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie | Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. | Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) |
| Burton. Colonel Henry Walter | Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. |
| Butler, Richard Austen | Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford) | Pike, Cecil F. |
| Cadogan, Hon. Edward | Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) | Pownall, Sir Asshcton |
| Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Radford, E. A. |
| Caporn, Arthur Cecil | Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G. | Raikes, Henry V. A. M. |
| Carver, Major William H. | Holdsworth, Herbert | Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) | Ramsden, Sir Eugene |
| Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) | Horsbrugh, Florence | Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) |
| Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham) | Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. | Held, James S. C. (Stirling) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) | Hume, Sir George Hopwood | Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. |
| Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.) | Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries) | Rickards, George William |
| Christie, James Archibald | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Clayton, Sir Christopher | Iveagh, Countess of | Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) |
| Colfox, Major William Philip | Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) | Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward |
| Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey | James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H. | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Colville, Lieut-Colonel J. | Jamleson, Douglas | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Cook, Thomas A. | Joel, Dudley J. Barnato | Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde) |
| Cooke, Douglas | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Salmon, Sir Isidore |
| Cooper, A. Duff | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Salt, Edward W. |
| Copeland, Ida | Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) | Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney). |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. | Ker, J. Campbell | Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard |
| Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry | Kirkpatrick, William M. | Sandys, Edwin Duncan |
| Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. | Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Crooke, J. Smedley | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George | Savery, Samuel Servington |
| Crossley, A. C. | Law, Sir Alfred | Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C. | Lees-Jones, John | Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) |
| Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery) | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Shepperson, Sir Ernest W. |
| Davison, Sir William Henry | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. | Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Lewis, Oswald | Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam) |
| Donner, P. w. | Llddall, Walter S. | Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dlne, C.) |
| Doran, Edward | Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock) | Smithers, Sir Waldron |
| Duckworth, George A. V. | Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe. | Somervell, Sir Donald |
| Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel | Loder, Captain J. de Vere | Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) |
| Duggan, Hubert John | Loftus, Pierce C. | Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E. |
| Duncan, James A. L, (Kensington, N.) | Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander | Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. |
| Dunglass, Lord | Lumley, Captain Lawrence R. | Spencer, Captain Richard A |
| Eady, George H | Lyons, Abraham Montagu | Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H. |
| Eales, John Frederick | Mabane, William | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) |
| Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey | MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick) | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland) |
| Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur | Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Stevenson, James | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of | Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour |
| Stones, James | Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.) | Wells, Sydney Richard |
| Stourton, Hon. John J. | Touche, Gordon Cosmo | White, Henry Graham |
| Strauss, Edward A. | Tree, Ronald | Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.) |
| Strickland, Captain W. F. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement | Wilson. Clyde T. (West Toxteth) |
| Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F. | Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart | Turton, Robert Hugh | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Summersby, Charles H. | Wallace, Sir John (Dunfermline) | Womersley, Sir Walter |
| Sutcliffe, Harold | Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) | Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff) |
| Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n, S.) | Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock) | Worthington, Dr. John V. |
| Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) | Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S. | Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.) |
| Thomas, James p. I. (Hereford) | Warnender, Sir Victor A. G. | |
| Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Thompson, Sir Luke | Watt, Major George Steven H. | Sir George Penny and Major George Davies. |
Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ 5.42 p.m.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell)I beg to move, in page 64, line 18, at the end, to add:
(3) Nothing in this Section applies in relation to any law which the Federal Legislature has power to make for a Province or, as the case may be, a Federated State, by virtue of any other entry in the Federal or the Concurrent Legislative List as well as by virtue of the said entry,
§ This Clause provides that if the Federal Legislature is legislating by reason only of the entry in the federal legislative list relating to the implementing of treaties they have to get the previous consent of the Governor of a Province or the ruler of a State. If, however, in implementing a treaty they are exercising powers which they have not by reason only of that entry, but because the subject matter is subject matter already in the federal list, it is not the intention that in that case they should get this leave. They can, of course, legislate on subjects in the federated list whether the legislation arises from the fact that there is a treaty or from any other reason. In order to make that plain, it is proposed to insert this new Sub-section. It is really writing out in detail what is implied by the word "only," which occurs in the second line of the Clause.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.