HC Deb 14 May 1935 vol 301 cc1595-626

5.50 p.m.

Mr. DOBBIE

I beg to move, in page 299, line 6, at the end, to insert: and one of such persons shall be appointed by the Governor-General, after consultation with the All-India Railwaymen's Federation, as a representative of the workers in the industry. I am hoping that the obviously moderate character of this Amendment will induce the Minister to accept it. The Eighth Schedule deals with the method of appointing the Federal Authority of the Indian Railways, and the Federal Authority may be regarded in the same light as the board of directors in this country. At the moment the appointment is being made by the Governor-General, and the number of members of the Federal Authority will be seven. We are not asking that the union should appoint a member, but we are asking that they shall be able to make a nomination, and that that nomination shall be taken into consideration by the Governor-General when the appointment is being made. Clauses 175 and 176 of the Bill lay down the function of the Federal Railway Authority, stating that the Federal Railway Authority shall construct, operate and maintain the railways; and the construction, operation and maintenance of the railways affect the whole lives of the people who are working on the railways.

Two or three times an endeavour has been made to get real recognition of the railroad workers' union in India. It has been a long and painstaking job on the part of the people who have been concerned in building up this representative body, and they have demonstrated in negotiations and by the building up of the union that they represent 100,000 railroad workers, or half the total trade union movement in India. At an inquiry which the Secretary of State instituted in 1923 this proposition was placed before him and before the Committee, not only by the federation of railway workers in India, but by the body which represents the whole of the organised labour ideals and movements in India. In 1931 the Royal Commission on Labour in India again reviewed the situation, and they made recommendations urging the Government to give greater consideration and recognition to the union. They said in their report: We believe that a more generous policy in respect of recognition would be to the advantage of all concerned in railway work, and we commend the matter to the careful consideration of administrations and unions. I should be glad if the Minister, when he is replying, would say something with regard to the recommendation of the Royal Commission as to the setting up of machinery of negotiation on behalf of the railwaymen comparable with the machinery that is in operation in this country. I know that in India the same argument has been adduced which has been adduced in this country against the recognition of trade unions, but the experience of those who are in the position of controllers and of those who are in the position of workers has been such that I think that anyone who has reviewed the situation and watched the procedure of the railways since the machinery of negotiation has come into existence would agree that it has been a good thing for the railroad owners, the railroad workers, and the country in general. We believe that, if the same extension were given to the people who work on the railways in India, it would react to the benefit of those who control the railways as well as of those who work on them. The board, as at present constituted, which deals with the Government-owned railways in India, consists of six-people, of whom one deals exclusively, or at any rate mainly, with staff matters—wages, conditions, and the general work of the staff. We believe that our proposal is a good one, and we hope that the Minister will be able to see eye to eye with us and to accept it. We believe that it would be as beneficial in India as it has been in this country. I would ask the Minister, when he is replying, to inform the Committee how far the Government have gone in giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1931 with regard to setting up machinery of negotiation in relation to the wages and conditions of railwaymen in India.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH

We have heard, during the discussions on various parts of the Bill, that it is the intention of the Government to give due consideration to various classes in India, and, if that be so, I hope that organised labour in India will be taken into consideration in connection with this Amendment. The Committee will observe that the Federal railway authority which is to be set up under this Schedule is to be composed of seven people, and the Schedule goes on to say that they must have had experience in commerce, industry, agriculture, finance or administration, and so on. I am informed that the All-India Railway-men's Federation is composed of more than half of the organised trade unionists in British India, and no one can say that men who have control of a large trade union are not possessed of administrative knowledge sufficient to warrant their appointment upon a Federal authority of this kind. It may be remembered that there are in India more than 730,000 railway employés, and it follows that there should be some one on this Federal authority not only charged with the duty of looking into labour matters, but one who has also direct knowledge of the organised workers, and who can bring to bear on this authority the benefit of his experience. The Royal Commission on Labour Conditions in India, of which the late Speaker of this House was chairman, in a very excellent report a year or two ago, recommended that every encouragement should be given to the workers in India not only to be recognised from the point of view of the trade union movement, but to take an interest in the welfare of their own and other industries.

The present request is a very reasonable one, and I fail to see any sound argument against it. From the point of view of knowledge and of administration, the man who would be appointed from the All-India Federation would fulfil that request, and, if he did not, there are sufficient provisions in the Schedule to deal with the matter. The Committee should remember that this is a State-owned railway undertaking, and that there are a good many factors which go to make up a State undertaking. In a case where you have, roughly, more than 750,000 workers, it is a very modest request indeed to ask that at least there should be one representative of the trade union movement. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply will not turn down the Amendment, but will be prepared to accept it. If he does so, I am satisfied that he will get a representative with the requisite experience, and that at least it will encourage the organised workers in India to the point of view that this Government has some regard for their welfare.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. DAVIDSON

The speeches of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) were very sweet in their reasonableness, and I am sorry to have to tell them that I am not able, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Amendment. Far be it from the Government to wish in any way to take the position that organised labour should not have its fair place in India, whether it be on the railways or in any other industry in India, but conditions of labour in India—and this is a matter which cannot be too strongly stressed, especially by those who really have experience of India—and its stage of development do not in any way resemble or approach the conditions which have been reached in this country, and to make the provision mandatory, that is to say, to compel the appointment of a representative of labour, might produce very unfortunate results in existing circumstances. On the other hand, hon. Members will realise that under the existing provisions which have been quoted by the hon. Member for Rotherham: A person shall not be qualified…unless he has had experience in commerce, industry, agriculture, finance, or administration it would appear to enable the appointment to be made of any suitable representative of labour to the board, and also—I am speaking subject to correction—probably under Clause 11 to be appointed as an additional commissioner to deal with the executive side of the work of the railways. We feel that it would be wise to leave the discretion to the Governor-General in his judgment to choose the right commissioner, and if it happens, as it may well happen at some time in the future if not at the present time, that some representative clearly able to speak for those who are working on the railways is a suitable man for the appointment, such an appointment might well be made, and there is no reason why it should not be made. We feel that to make it mandatory in the present conditions would not only be dangerous, but would not produce the results which hon. Members really would like to see. Therefore, we feel that we must resist the Amendment and leave the position as it is at present.

Mr. DOBBIE

Would the right hon. Gentleman mind giving a reply to the question which I asked, namely, What progress is being made, if any, in regard to the recommendation of the Commission on Labour relative to the setting up of machinery on the same basis as that in England?

Mr. DAVIDSON

I am afraid that I should not be in order in answering that question. This has to do with the setting up of a Railway Authority, and the question which the hon. Member asks is something about the existing administration in India which does not really arise under this Bill. But if the hon. Member is willing to accept the assurance, we will send him the information as to how the position stands at present.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

I am bound to confess that we are disappointed with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. We scarcely expected that he would fall over himself to tell us that the workers should have facilities provided for them to play a part in the direction and conduct of the Indian railways. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) put in a very good point that these railways are nationally-owned, and they are run as a great service for the general community, and, broadly speaking, they are recognised as a very efficient service. That fact implies to some extent that the workers on the service must also be efficient. As to the condition laid down with regard to experience in commerce, industry, agriculture, finance or administration, we all know from our general experience that the trade union leader in India who has been able to avoid being characterised as a Communist and placed in gaol for a long period has proved himself to be a great diplomat and marvellous administrator, and one who is qualified to occupy one of the highest posts in that country. We recognise that the qualifications called for here make it extremely difficult for any organised representative to secure appointment. The seven members to be chosen by the Governor-General will almost certainly be drawn from a certain section of the community, and the most successful trade unionist, or the most successful among the Indian railway workers who has been acting on behalf of the railway workers in all their delicate negotiations, because of his general practical knowledge of the system and of the service, and of the needs and rights of the railwaymen, will probably be the last person to be considered to occupy a position on this august body.

One could give precedent after precedent for accepting the Amendment on the Order Paper. With regard to the London Passenger Transport Board, for instance, it was felt that at least one member with practical working experience of the system, who not only knew the mechanical side but the human side also, could render very real and valuable assistance to the Board in the City of London. The appointment was made, directly or indirectly, by the present Government, and, therefore, they do, on occasions, recognise ability in those who are drawn from the working classes, and who have served a term of apprenticeship and have acquired a sound and comprehensive knowledge of the undertaking of which they form a part. It could be argued that unless one had the technical qualifications he could not hope to fulfil all the obligations laid down in the Schedule. I remember that the moment the right hon. Gentleman the Member Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who was a Minister of State for a good many years, and who presumably knew as much about railways as I did, was no longer a Minister, was made a director of a railway company. Quite recently another hon. Member of this House, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Lord Burghley), who is a marvellous athlete and has acquired international fame for his athletic ability, and who I am not at all sure knows anything about the management of railways, was made a railway director. With these examples before our eyes, we are more than justified in demanding that those million workpeople should have some representation, so that their human requirements shall always be in front of the body of seven who are to conduct the Indian railways.

I know that to mandate the Governor-General to do anything is very unpleasant, but why mandate the Governor-General to make any appointments at all? You saddled this one individual with the whole responsibility of the Indian railways. Why should not the Federal Government make the appointment? The idea of mandating the Governor-General with regard to the appointment of one person out of seven seems to me not to be the reason which the Attorney-General gave on a previous Debate, but a very thin excuse. From every conceivable point of view the man himself will have to satisfy the Governor-General, after consultation with the railwaymen's organisation that he is qualified for the post in that, according to the Schedule, the Governor-General has the power at any moment to terminate an appointment if the individual fails to fulfil the conditions laid down. There is every safeguard for the railways, and, in view of the fact that the wages and working conditions of those million workpeople are dependent upon the success of the railway undertaking, and the one person who would be feverishly anxious to secure the maximum efficiency and ulitimately the maximum wage and the best conditions for his late colleagues, would be the person drawn from the ranks of the railway workers, we think that a very fine case can be made out for one out of seven to represent those who actually do the job.

I am very disappointed that the right hon. Member put up all the arguments and excuses, but gave no reason why he should not accept the Amendment. We shall be obliged, despite our desire to proceed with the Bill, to go to a Division unless he is willing to undertake between now and the Report stage to reconsider the whole question, to remember the precedents that have been established in this country, the number of appointments made to boards of directors of people who do not know the first thing about those undertakings, and that he will, at least, give a chance to the best informed of the workers, the most capable and the most efficient workers who have served the railway service and the people of the country, to be appointed to the Board.

6.16 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON

The Chancellor of the Duchy pointed out that it would be undesirable to make it mandatory that a particular person should be appointed. Will he make it clear whether such a person as is suggested in the Amendment could be appointed? I am rather doubtful, under the reading of the Schedule as it stands, whether such a person could be appointed. A person cannot be appointed unless he has had experience in commerce, industry, agriculture, finance, or administration; or if he is, or within the twelve months last preceding has been—

  1. (i) a member of the Federal or any Provincial Legislature; or
  2. (ii) in the service of the Crown in India; or
  3. (iii) a railway official in India."
I should like the Government to make it perfectly clear that if a suitable railway representative were available there would be nothing to prevent him from being appointed.

6.17 p.m.

Major MILNER

The debate has proceeded upon a misapprehension. It seems to be in the mind of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that we are asking in the Amendment for a trade union official, or some similar person. What the Amendment says is that one of such persons shall be appointed by the Governor-General, after consultation with the All-India Railway Men's Federation, as a representative of the workers in the industry. That being so, the whole course of the argument of the Chancellor of the Duchy goes by the board. In effect, all that he said was that the conditions in India were not the same as in this country. That is no answer to the proposition in the Amendment. I imagine he means that the conditions of the railwaymen in India are not so advanced, that they are not so experienced and not so well paid, or so well cared for. That is all the more reason why the workers in the industry should have representation.

We are not even asking, as I think we ought to have asked, for a trade union nominee to be appointed, but we are asking that the Governor-General should do the All-India Railwaymen's Federation the courtesy of consulting them. It is not even proposed that the Governor-General should accept the advice of the All-India Railwaymen's Federation or, having consulted with them, that he should pay the slightest regard to what they say. All that we are asking is that the Governor-General shall consult with the railwaymen's union, and thereafter appoint someone as representative of the workers. That someone might be a person from this country. It might be my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) who has served for a long time with credit on the executive of the National Union of Railwaymen in this country. It might be the Secretary of State for the Dominions. That being so, there could be no possible objection on the part of the Government to agreeing to the Amendment. The request is that one out of seven should represent the workers, an extremely moderate request, especially as it is not made on the condition that the representative should be an official of the trade union or selected by the trade union. In the circumstances I hope that the Committee will think that it is a very reasonable and proper suggestion to make. It is a suggestion that has been adopted in connection with almost every large authority in this country, with the acquiescence of Members of the Government. That being the case, the Government would do well to accept it in this instance.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS

I am at a loss to understand exactly what the Chancellor of the Duchy meant when he said that it was possible for someone of the type we suggest to be appointed within the terms mentioned in the Schedule. If we spent some time analysing the Schedule we could prove conclusively that someone who might be nominated by the Railwaymen's Union would be debarred. The Schedule is drawn in such a way as to make it practically impossible for such a person to be appointed. Assuming that the meaning of the Amendment is that a workers' representative should be one of the seven the Schedule is drawn in such a way as to prevent such an appointment. It could not be construed as meaning that someone working in a merchant's house would be a person with commercial experience, or that a person working in a textile factory would be a person possessing industrial knowledge. I am referring to the general rule in regard to these appointments. A worker in the industry under the terms of the Schedule would not be qualified to sit upon the authority. I think I should be correct in saying that an agricultural labourer, although he possessed agricultural knowledge, would not be considered qualified to sit on the board under the terms of the Schedule. With regard to finance, I do not suppose that a bank clerk would be considered a person competent to sit as a financier on the board. In regard to administration, a booking clerk, although he would have some administrative knowledge, would not be considered qualified.

The Schedule is drawn in such a way as to debar a workers' representative from appointment. I cannot see how it is possible for a workers' nominee to come within the terms of the Schedule. If the workers' organisation would have the right to nominate someone, or the Governor-General bad to consult them in the nomination of a person before that, person was selected as one of the seven, it would rule out entirely any workers who might have commercial knowledge and so on. I trust the Minister will explain how it would be possible within the terms so narrowly drawn in the Eighth Schedule, paragraph 2, for such a workers' nominee to become one of the seven persons to sit on the board. If he can convince us that it would be possible, there would be no purpose in our Amendment. The hon. Member said that there was no desire to make such an appointment mandatory. The person to be appointed by the Governor-General will have to be chosen from the narrow circle mentioned in the Schedule. That is mandatory. In other words, the persons appointed must be drawn from persons possessing knowledge of certain kinds. Therefore, the Governor-General's scope of appointment is narrowed down. He cannot do what he likes. He must do something within the words of the Schedule. It would not cast a reflection upon the Governor-General or interfere with his prestige if he had to go a little further than is contained within the words of the Schedule. I ask the Minister to meet our case in that regard. I think the Under-Secretary said that it would be possible for a workers' representative to be appointed within the terms of the Schedule. If that assurance can be given, we shall be satisfied that it will meet the case.

6.28 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Suppose I were to brush aside the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) on the ground that he was a man who had no knowledge of industry or administration. I should expect him to rise and convince me by a very short statement of his record that I was entirely wrong, and I hope that I should make a handsome withdrawal. We do not draw the distinctions between those engaged in industry that right hon. and hon. Members opposite sometimes draw. In the words of the Schedule there are words which are specially applicable as a directing sign to industry. There are the words "commerce, industry, finance and administration." In our view it is quite clear that someone who has been a worker on the railway in any capacity, and afterwards has experience in administration in connection with organised labour, would clearly be qualified under the two heads of industry and administration. We contend that such a man in India would be eligible.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS

Will the Solicitor-General be good enough to apply his mind to the paragraph which declares that no person can become a member of the Federal Railway Authority unless he has been a member of the Federal or any Provincial Legislature?

6.30 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I think the hon. Member has misinterpreted the provision. We do not want to add unnecessary words to the Schedule, but we desire that someone who has had practical experience and has emerged as an administrator should be eligible to take his full place in the work of the board. We do not want to encourage what the Amendment might be supposed to suggest, that is, the placing on this board, in this or any other connection, of people who would regard themselves as representing interests rather than as persons who with their colleagues are carrying on the work of a great undertaking, and who are to have due regard to all interests which come into the scheme. We do not favour the idea of representatives of workers or others being put on this board as representatives, but if men with the necessary administrative experience and practical knowledge are available they should be eligible for appointment. That is really as far as we can go.

6.31 p.m.

Major MILNER

The objection of the Government now is to any one sitting on this Federal Railway Authority purely as representing the workers, and I, therefore, draw the inference that they would have no objection to a man being appointed on the Federal Board who was nominated by the workers, as long as he regarded himself as a member of an authority responsible for its general interests. That is the position of the representative of the Transport and General Workers' Union who sits on the London Passenger Transport Board. He does not represent simply the interests of the workers, their conditions and wages, but takes his full place with the other members of the Board in running that great undertaking. That is all we are asking for in this Amendment. We are not asking that a particular individual should represent the interests of the workers. We want a representative of the workers on the board who will work with the other members in the general interest. The Chancellor of the Duchy gave the impression that the Government had no objection to a workers' representative on the board, but that they did not desire that his appointment should be mandatory on the Governor-General. The Government have given special instruct- tions to the Governor-General to regard certain matters as his special responsibility. The Chancellor of the Duchy when be was appointed a member of the Commission was instructed to have special regard to particular questions, as was the Under-Secretary of State, who was to have special regard to the interests of women. Is it not possible in the Instrument of Instructions to direct the Governor-General to have special regard to the appointment of a representative of labour on the board? If that assurance could be given, I think hon. Members on this side would take another course on this Amendment. The Governor-General might be instructed to consult the All-India Railwaymen's Federation on the matter, but at any rate there is no excuse for the particular line which the Government are taking, and I hope that the matter will be reconsidered.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

If the Solicitor-General will look again at the Schedule I think he will find that some additional words should be added. Take the case of a man who has been prominent in labour organisations and has attained a position of authority and trust; he may never himself have been engaged in any administration whatever, yet he might be just the man to secure the confidence of the workers and be capable of giving advice on labour conditions. It would be no harm if such words were inserted. There should be no doubt as to the freedom of choice on the part of the appointing authority, but I hope that before the Report stage additional words will be found which will meet the situation.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

It seems to me that the position as it arises in paragraph 2 has not been dealt with in the Government reply. It says that a person shall not be qualified to be appointed to the Authority if he has been within the last 12 months a member of a Provincial Legislature, in the service of the Crown in India, or a railway official in India.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

There is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) dealing with that point which I hope to call.

Mr. WILLIAMS

In that case I will not go into the matter any further at the moment.

Mr. DAVIDSON

While I did not give a specific assurance that we were prepared to add any words to make the meaning clear, I can say that we will look into the matter before Report. The Government hold that the case is already covered, and, while I cannot give any promise to add further words, which I think it will be found are not necessary, we will look again into the matter. Our desire is not to exclude from the Bill or the Schedule the possibility of some representative of labour finding a place on the board.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I beg to move, in page 299, to leave out lines 11 to 14.

I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), and the proposal is to leave out the words: if he is, or within the twelve months last preceding has been— (i)a member of the Federal or any Provincial Legislature. The effect of these words in the Schedule is that you will exclude a large number of people who have great administrative experience in India. No one who has been working on an Indian railway for the last 12 months could be a member of the board. The provision is drawn in a very narrow way. I think it would be easier to meet this point if the Government would cut out this Sub-section. It is rather a pity to lay down a hard-and-fast rule that all people who have been Members of Parliament, a trade union representative who has been a Member of Parliament, in the service of the Crown, or has been working on the railways are to be cut out from serving on the Railway Authority.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) were taken together. The second Amendment is to leave out line 15, "in the service of the Crown in India"—and the third Amendment is to leave out line 16—"a railway official in India."

Sir BASIL PETO

The provision in the Schedule says that no one who has been during the last 12 months in the service of the Crown is eligible for appointment. It is a most extraordinary provision. I should have thought that anyone who has spent the greater part of his life and has had considerable experience in railway administration as a servant of the Crown in India is the very man who is most qualified to be a member of the Railway Authority. An explanation of the reasons for this provision should be given.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

The doubts and questions of hon. Members upon this point are quite legitimate, and I will try to explain how this decision was arrived at. This matter of the constitution of the Federal Railway Authority was discussed at great length about two years ago by a Committee consisting of eminent representatives of railways in this country, distinguished Indian statesmen and representatives of public opinion in this country. The evidence is set out on page 232, as Appendix (iv) to that part of the Report of the Joint Select Committee. It was their opinion that this Federal Railway Authority should be constituted in this way, and they made special reference to the particular provisions upon which hon. Members have asked questions. They referred in particular to a person who had been a servant of the Crown in India, or a railway official, and considered that within a period of their having held their last posts they should not be members of the Railway Authority. The Federal Railway Authority is the great board of management of this vast network of railway systems all over India, and it has been thought that as far as possible it should be free from any political influence or ties.

It was thought desirable to lay down these provisions for its constitution and the Federal Railway Authority is as explained in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 and so forth on the next page of the Schedule. Provision is made there for the executive staff of the authority, the railway commissioners. Take the case of an official. It has been thought wise that if an official is retained in the service of the Indian railways in a high capacity, his best place would probably be on this staff in the very important post of a railway commissioner, and that the Federal Railway Authority, which is the board of management, should include membership subject to these limitations.

With regard to men who have been in the service of the Crown in India, I agree that at first sight it would seem suitable that they should be put on the Authority if they are suitable candidates; but hon. Members will notice that there is the limitation of a year, and that after the period of 12 months it is possible for a man who has been in the service of the Crown in India, or has been a railway official, to be put on the Railway Authority. In view of the fact that this proposal has some history behind it and that it has been agreed by a large section of British and Indian expert opinion, and that these persons can perhaps find their most useful tasks as members of the executive staff of the railways, as railway commissioners, and that there is a limitation of 12 months only, we prefer the terms of the Schedule as it stands.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I was not very clear about these provisions when I started the Debate on this matter. I asked why a member of a Provincial or Federal Legislature should be excluded. It seemed to me rather a pity to exclude such people, who may have left Parliament for one good reason or another. Would it not be possible to reduce the period of 12 months to six months? There may be people who have been in the service of the Crown and are excellently qualified for this position. They might come to England on six months' leave, but if they stayed away from India for 12 months they might never go back.

6.50 p.m.

Sir B. PETO

Will the Under-Secretary say why a man who has been in the service of the Crown in India becomes any more qualified to be a member of the Railway Authority at the end of a waiting period of 12 months than he would be directly after he left the service of the Crown? Has he to be fumigated or disinfected before he is safe to go on this Authority? I cannot see any meaning in the delay.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE

This paragraph refers to service of the Crown in India. What about service of the Crown in England?

6.51 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

In reply to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), I do not wish to cast any slur on the servants of the Crown, many of whom might be found to be suitable candidates; but this matter was carefully reviewed by the Committee on Indian Railways and they came to their conclusion with a view to getting as independent minds as possible on the railway authority. Some people who have spent their lives in the Government service may not be entirely above suspicion, and although I, personally, would not share that view, it is the view of certain interests in the country. The Federal Railway Authority is an extremely small directional body, and it is thought better not to make a direct appointment from the service of the Crown to this authority. I think it wise to leave the matter as it is in the Schedule.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked whether we would be willing to reduce the period from 12 months to six, and he said quite truly that if a man had been home 12 months he was perhaps not so inclined to return to India as he would be after a shorter stay in this country. I will promise to look into the question of putting into the Schedule a period of six months instead of 12. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his return, and with him look into the matter. On the question about membership of a Federal or Provincial Legislature, the object there is to keep this authority free from any suspicion that a politician may be passed immediately from the Legislature to this Railway Authority. We are determined to try to keep this authority outside political influence, so that it may conduct its very onerous duties in an atmosphere free from any sort of suspicion.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

In view of the Under-Secretary's statement that he will consider the possibility of reducing the period of 12 months to six months, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.54 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 299, line 28, at the end, to insert: 4. The Governor-General, exercising his individual judgment, may make rules providing for the appointment of temporary members to act in place of any members temporarily unable to perform the duties of their office. The Amendment speaks for itself. It enables the Governor-General, in the exercise of his individual judgment, to make rules providing for the appointment of temporary members to act in place of any members temporarily unable to perform the duties of their office. The functions of this Board are of very great importance, and the case might arise where a member of it has to be away for some time.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

Do I understand that the original members of this body are appointed, not by the Governor-General in his discretion nor exercising his individual judgment, but on the advice of his Ministers? If so, what justification is there for the change?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

They are appointed by the Governor-General in his discretion. This Amendment deals not with the actual appointment but with the rules as to temporary appointment. I have no doubt that the rules will make proper provision, in the event of a temporary man having to take the place of what I might call the Governor-General's man, for the Governor-General to have the right to appoint.

Mr. JONES

Does it not mean here the same thing as we have understood the phrase "in his individual judgment" to mean in the past? Does it not mean that he acts after having consulted his Ministers, but not necessarily having accepted the advice of his Ministers?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Yes.

Sir B. PETO

Does the disability in regard to a servant of the Crown, which we were discussing on the last Amendment, apply here in the case of a temporary appointment? If so, it seems to me that it might be extraordinarily inconvenient to the Governor-General to be unable to appoint anyone who is in the service of the Crown to a temporary position. There might be no one else who could so appropriately fill the position temporarily.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL

My opinion is that the rule-making power would not enable the conditions for permanent members to be over-ridden in the case of temporary members. I will, however, look into the point, and into the question of inconvenience which has been referred to.

6.59 p.m.

Major MILNER

I understood that the words "exercising his individual judgment" meant that the Governor-General had first to consult his Ministers, but of course not necessarily to follow their advice. Is the learned Solicitor-General quite sure about that? If so, is it not better to set that out in a definition clause. Unless the matter is dealt with somewhere in the Bill, a Governor-General in the future might read these words as giving him absolute discretion in making such appointments as he thought fit. If there is any doubt about it, I suggest that some words might be inserted to the effect that the Governor-General exercises his individual judgment after consultation with his ministers, or whatever the appropriate phrase may be, so as to make the matter perfectly clear.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I do not want to go again over a matter which has been dealt with many times. We think the Bill is best drafted in this way. The words "individual judgment" are used when the question which is being dealt with is within the field of Federal responsibility, and is therefore by its nature a mater with which Ministers deal, and with which they are responsible for dealing. The idea is that these are matters for which the primary responsibility falls on the Ministers, and the insertion of the phrase "individual judgment" merely means that in the last resort, if the Governor-General disagrees with the ministers, he can overrule them and exercise his individual judgment.

Amendment agreed to.

7.1 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 299, line 39, after the second "of," to insert "or tenders for."

This Amendment and the following Amendment add to the Clause the ques- tion of being concerned with holding a tenure or tendering for a contract, as well as actually holding a contract.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

Does this particular phraseology cover the case of a person who is not himself directly and solely, in his own person, a contractor, but is a contractor as a member of a company or a corporation?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Read line 41.

Mr. JONES

That is quite so. I beg pardon. That is quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 299, line 42, after "holding," insert "or tendering for."[The Solicitor-General.]

7.4 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move, in page 300, line 15, to leave out "Authority, subject to confirmation by the."

The Committee will remember that when this matter was previously considered, some doubt was cast upon the exact method of appointment of the chief railway commissioner, the head of the executive staff of the railway. There was some doubt as to whether this man should be a man who had the Governor-General's approval, and my right hon. Friend said at that period that it was his intention that this should be so, and these words are being left out and others inserted in order that the Clause shall read that the chief railway commissioner "shall be appointed by the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment, after consultation with the Authority." Our object, therefore, is to say that this man shall be appointed by the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment, but after consultation with the Authority. In the first part of the Amendment we have the approval and support of some who do not often support us, that is, the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) and his friends. In the second part, we stand alone. We think that the Governor-General should consult with the Authority before he makes this appointment, although the last word in case of disagreement will be with him. This, therefore, really implements the statement made by my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage of our proceedings and makes the appointment of the chief railway commissioner, the head of the executive staff of the railway, perfectly clear.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

There is an Amendment down in our name. I do not know whether it will be called or not, but we assume not, and, therefore, I take the opportunity now to call attention to it in relation to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The effect of our Amendment is of course clear. We take strong objection to this steady tendency, to which we have called attention from time to time in the discussions on this Bill, of concentrating unduly heavy responsible duties in the hands of the Governor-General, reserving to him decisions of very first importance in relation to the future of Indian affairs. It may be—I am not discussing it at the moment—that there is a case for reserving to the Governor-General certain functions and decisions without relation to the authority at all, although I can think of very few cases of that sort, but I certainly cannot agree in relation to the Railway Authority that the Federal Government should have no decisive word in the matter.

We believe that, apart altogether upon the strategic aspect of these railways—and I admit that is there—there is the normal, commercial importance of the railways. There is the importance of the railways from the point of view of the general well-being of the country. I cannot understand the case for taking out of the hands of the federal authority—not completely, because under the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Governor-General is to consult the authorities—the final decision. I have argued this so frequently that it is difficult to find anything new to say on the matter, but however old the case is, it is so strong that it is worth repeating. Sooner or later these railways will have to be governed by the Indian authorities themselves, and I am quite sure that it is worth while familiarising them at as early a date as possible with the actual task of administration of such an important function.

I do not know that there is any reason to suppose that the Indian Federal authorities would be any more prone to make mistakes or to make bad appointments than the Governor-General himself, exercising his own individual judgment. In any case, if their advice is worth seeking by the Governor-General, and that is provided for in this paragraph, surely that advice, if sufficiently good to be sought, ought to be good enough to be depended upon in the matter of making a final decision. We really must protest against this incorrigible habit that the Government are disclosing from time to time of not trusting the Indian people. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he knows that it is so. He says "We will talk to them; we will ask their opinion; but, in the matter of the final voice, we cannot leave it to them. We cannot trust them as far as that. We must leave it to the Governor-General." That is lack of trust, lack of faith and lack of confidence, and it is that element of the matter to which I wish to object. We shall invite the Government once again to consider the proposal we are making.

7.11 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON

My name is down to this Amendment, and I am one of those Members of the House who do not often on this Bill vote with the Government. I wish to thank them for accepting that portion of our Amendment to which our names are put down. I believe it would have been stronger and better without the addition the hon. Gentleman proposes. On the other hand, it is definite and I desire to offer my acknowledgments. I am not sure whether the other Amendment, line 24, will be called, so I will reserve my remarks.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I had better inform the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is not going to be called.

Colonel GRETTON

Then I want to draw attention to an anomaly which appears to be left. The Government is dealing with the case of the chief railway commissioner, who is to be appointed by the Governor-General after taking the advice of the Authority and of his Ministers, but, apparently, in the case of dismissal, the Authority acts, and the Governor-General will ultimately have a veto. The Governor-General has responsibilities for finance, the maintenance of order and other matters of that kind, and the chief executive officer of the Railway Authority is appointed by the Governor-General. But when political opinions arise and questions of that kind produce strong feeling that the chief commissioner should be dismissed and another appointed, the Governor-General has weaker powers in making this appointment than, apparently, he has in the first place. I would suggest that at such a time the power to retain a man who is trusted, and who is competent to carry out the railway duties necessary in order that the Governor-General can fulfil his special responsibilities, should be as strong as possible and the Governor-General should have all the freedom that can be afforded him to exercise his individual judgment, after consulting those constitutional authorities whom it is his duty to consult. I hope the Government will be able to give a satisfactory explanation as to why they do not accept the second Amendment, and I would suggest that it is a matter which, if they have not fully considered it, might very well be examined.

7.14 p.m.

Major MILNER

There is another serious objection to be added to those urged by my hon. Friend in front of me to the course which is being adopted by the Government. I should have thought that, it was essential, with a large undertaking such as this, to avoid even the' possibility of any conflict between the Federal authority running the railways throughout the whole country and the chief railway commissioner. For that reason, if for no other, I should have thought it was extremely desirable that he should be appointed by the Federal Authority, from whom he is going to receive his instructions for the future, and whom he is going to serve. The Government do not, apparently, take that view. They say, "It is true we are going to consult with you, but we shall not necessarily take your advice. We may appoint a man who is anathema to you, whom you may think not willing to carry out your orders, or who is unsatisfactory in another respect." It seems the height of absurdity to take the course proposed by the Government in this Amendment.

There is a direct possibility, to say the least of it, of conflict arising between the chief railway commissioner and the Federal Authority. The Federal Authority in this case are in the position of the directors of a railway. I never heard of a case in which the directors of a railway did not reserve to themselves the right, without interference from any person, however highly placed, to appoint their own chief executive officer. The Government for no apparent reason are making a great mistake in this matter. There is a further point which I hope the Law Officers of the Crown will forgive me for bringing up again. Although I always defer to their rulings in these matters, I am not at all happy about the explanation which has been given of the expression, "exercising his individual judgment." The Solicitor-General told us that it would be the duty of the Governor-General, as a matter of course, to consult the Federal Authority, and that the insertion of these words was intended to mean that this subject was one which would come under the Federal Ministers. Curiously enough, I understand, certain words are to be added to this Schedule.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

That is with regard to the Authority.

Major MILNER

Yes, I understand that words are to be added to the effect that the Governor-General is to act on his individual judgment after consultation with the authority. First, we have the interpretation of these words, "exercising his individual judgment," that they imply consultation with the Ministers whose responsibility this matter will be. According to the Solicitor-General's first interpretation the Governor-General is to consult the Ministers. Secondly, because of the other words which it is proposed to add, he has to consult the authority. It seems a curious way to go about this business. We do not mention the fact—although according to the Solicitor-General it is to be inferred—that the Ministers have to be consulted. But it is considered necessary to insert the words, "after consultation with the authority." I submit that if consultation is to take place with the Ministers it ought not to be left to inference. It ought to be stated in all cases with whom consultation is to take place. The Schedule should read, "appointed by the Governor-General after consultation with his Ministers," or "after consultation with the Authority," as the case may be. It should not be stated expressly in the one case and not stated expressly in the other case. I do not know whether the Law Officers can offer any further explanation of the matter, but it seems to me, as yet, to be far from clear.

7.18 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I must apologise to the Committee for intervening again on a matter which has been discussed previously but as my hon. Friend opposite has put a particular point I wish to answer him. With all respect to him, he starts with a misconception. The basis of the Bill is that the executive authority of the Federation is in the Governor-General. Therefore, executive acts are the Governor-General's acts, and in the absence of any specific words he, of course, acts on the advice of Ministers. If the words, "in his individual judgment," are inserted, they are inserted in respect of matters such as this, which are within the ministerial sphere. Therefore, I deprecate the words which my hon. Friend opposite wants to put in the Bill—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have since looked up the previous Debate on this subject which I find took place as long ago as 28th February. On that occasion the Committee came to a decision with regard to these particular definitions and, therefore, we cannot reopen that question now.

Major MILNER

I am not raising the point that any particular definition should be put into the Schedule, I am merely asking for an explanation of these particular words in this particular connection. We understand that something is going to be added here which was not proposed when the previous Debate took place. As the circumstances are different I submit that I am entitled to ask for the explanation which I understood the SOLICITOR-GENERAL was about to give.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I only wish to point out that this matter was previously discussed and that an explanation was given of the meaning of these phrases and the Committee came to a decision. We are bound by that decision, but the hon. Member is entitled to ask for an explanation of the effect of these words as they appear here.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I do not wish to go outside your Ruling, Captain Bourne. It relieves me of the necessity of going into a great deal of matter which I was conscious had been gone into before, although I could not remember the exact occasion. But I think that, without trespassing, I might say this. The hon. Member opposite described the effect of these words as meaning "after consultation with the minister." I do not say that that is wholly inaccurate but I would rather put it the other way. This is a mater which will come before ministers in the ordinary course. It is a matter the responsibility for which is on ministers. The words, "in his individual judgment," mean that when the excutive act, which runs in the name of the Governor-General, finally comes to be performed, he can, if he thinks right, act on his individual judgment and contrary to the advice of ministers. These matters are really matters the primary responsibility for which is on ministers and it would not only be contrary to our previous decision but it would not be an accurate statement of the position, to say that the Governor-General acts on his own individual judgment after consultation with ministers. This is a thing which is within the ministerial field. In regard to the later Amendment which I understand is also under discussion at present as to inserting "after consultation with the authority," that of course is a different matter because the authority there is quite a distinct body from the ministers.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

We are still in doubt as to the precise meaning of these words. I understood all along that when we used the phrase, "exercising his individual judgment," it was understood to mean that the Governor-General or the Governor, as the case might be, was arriving at a decision, having first, automatically, taken the advice of responsible ministers. Now, in this case, it would appear that there are three parties concerned in the decision. There is the authority and there is, by implication, the Federal Ministers and there is the Governor-General. Is the procedure to be that the chief commissioner is appointed by the authority but his appointment is to be subject to two further decisions? By implication that clearly is the case. It must be subject to confirmation by the Governor-General. He already has consulted the Federal authority whose advice he may or may not follow. Is not that so?

7.24 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

As I said when I was moving this Amendment, there was such doubt about the original drafting of this part of the Schedule that my right hon. Friend said he would look into it, and the result of that examination is the proposed insertion of these new words which make the situation perfectly clear. We are dealing with a very important appointment, that of the head of the executive staff, and it is fair that the Governor-General, when considering that appointment, should have before him the views of the Authority and should have consultation with the Authority. Then he exercises his individual judgment and that, on the implication which the hon. Gentleman himself described, means that having consulted Ministers he makes up his own mind. Let us hope that there will be no difference of opinion. If there were any difference of opinion he would have the last word. Therefore, this important officer is appointed after consultation with the Authority whom he will serve and with the Ministers who are interested, and he is appointed by the Governor-General who is also interested.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

This Amendment was originally put down in my name as a sequel to the discussion which we had upon Clause 176. Its effect is to alter the bias in this matter. As it was originally conceived the railway authority would pick out the man they thought best and submit his name to the Governor-General through the Ministers. Therefore, fundamentally, the initiative was bound to come from the authority. Now the initiative in theory would not come from the authority though it might in practice. The hon. Member opposite thought that this was a most reactionary thing to do, but I think I can give him an analogy in this country. Permanent secretaries to Government Departments in this country are appointed by the Prime Minister who is under no obligation to consult, for example, the Minister of Labour when deciding who is to be chief permanent official in the Ministry of Labour. In actual practice no doubt he does so because we do these things sensibly. But it has been regarded as proper that the selection of the high commands in our Government Departments should be the responsibility of the chief Minister of State, and should not be the responsibility of what may be called subordinate Ministers.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

But if an appointment made by the Prime Minister were challenged in this House and if he were defeated on it, it would mean the defeat of the Government.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I never heard of a case in which a promotion in the Civil Service has in itself been the subject of a vote of confidence in the House. At any rate the question is whether the authority is to be the appointing body or the Government. In this country if we are appointing a Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade it is not the President of the Board of Trade who takes the initiative. That initiative is vested in the Prime Minister, and I suggest that that provides a very close analogy with what we are doing here. I am not sure that the general manager of the British Broadcasting Corporation does not come into the same category but I am sure that I could produce a substantial number of cases in this country in which executive officers are appointed by an outside authority who is not even under any obligation to consult with the persons under whom the appointee will ultimately have to act.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

I should have replied previously to the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) and thank him for raising the matter. I have looked into the point which he has put to the Committee and I am advised that what he desires is already covered and that the only effect of the Amendment which he wished to move would be to leave out the consultation with the Authority in the unfortunate event of the question of the chief commissioner's dismissal arising. Let me assure him that under the present drafting the last word in connection with the dismissal of the chief railway commissioner would rest with the Governor-General. The chief railway commissioner could not be dismissed without the decision of the Governor-General acting in his individual judgment. I hope that will reassure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Apart from the question of contact with the Authority, which I think is legitimate because this officer is to be the servant of the Authority, the ultimate responsibility in case of difference would rest with the Governor-General.

7.30 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON

There appears to be now an apparent contradiction in that there are two different processes in the appointment and dismissal. They will raise doubt and confusion, and I suggest that, having made the alteration in the method of appointment, the question of dismissal should be made equally clear, and there should be no doubt that the Governor has full power in both processes.

Sir B. PETO

It seems to me to be very doubtful whether the authority can dismiss a chief executive officer who was appointed by the Governor-General direct. Technically the wording must be wrong if you leave it in its present form, for you say that the appointment of this principal officer is to be the appointment of the Governor-General exercising his individual judgment, and, if he is dismissed, he is dismissed by the authority, of whom, the Under-Secretary says, he is the servant. Technically, he is the servant of the person who appoints him, namely, the Governor-General. Therefore, nobody else can dismiss him. I am sure that that point must be looked into again before the Report stage. The person who appoints him ought to be the person who dismisses him, and the process of appointment and dismissal should be the same.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 300, line 16, at the end, to insert, "after consultation with the authority."[Mr. Butler.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of Government of India Act continued in, force with, Amendments until the establishment of the Federation.)

7.34 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 307, line 28, at the end, to insert: or (d) relating to tribal areas. This Schedule sets out the provisions of the Government of India Act which are to remain in force until the establishment of the Federation. Paragraph (3, vi) deals with expenditure classified by the order of the Governor-General in Council as ecclesaistical, external affairs, and defence. These are non-votable heads. In Clause 11 of the Bill the Governor-General's functions in relation to tribal areas has been dealt with as a separate head to that of external affairs, and, in order to bring this provision in the Schedule into line with the terminology of the Bill, this Amendment adds a fourth head, namely, "tribal areas."

7.35 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

It is a little difficult to remember precisely what we have decided weeks and months ago, and I may therefore perhaps be forgiven if I ask a question. Even though we insert this further item relating to tribal areas, and therefore make the question of the provision of money non-votable, would that preclude the discussion of the administration of these tribal areas in the Centre or the Province?

7.36 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, these are transitional provisions. Therefore, any provisions in the Bill which have been passed relating to what can or cannot be discussed in the Federal Assembly do not arise here. The Schedule merely contains provisions that will operate until Federation is established, and it is a continuation of the existing provisions of the present Government of India Act during the transitional period. Nothing that is in the Bill as to what can or cannot be discussed in the Federal Assembly when it is set up applies to anything in this Schedule.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. JONES

I do not understand that these subjects—ecclesiastical, external affairs, and defence—are reserved in relation to any transitional period. I understand they go on even after Federation comes into operation. The same, therefore, will presumably apply to the new subject of the Amendment. If that be so, when the Federation and the Provinces are in existence, will they, by reason of the fact that they are precluded from voting this money or withholding this money, be precluded from discussing the administration of these affairs?

7.38 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I do not want to show any unwillingness to answer questions, but we must keep within certain limits of Debate. If the hon. Member will look at the heading of this Schedule, he will see it is— Provisions of Government of India Act continued in force with Amendments until the establishment of the Federation. That is all it is. Therefore, it seems to be wholly out of order for me to enter into a discussion as to what may or may not be discussed in the Federal Assembly when Federation is set up and when ipso facto the operation of the Schedule comes to an end. This Amendment merely extends with minor modifications the existing provisions of the Government of India Act during the transitional period. It is an example of a minor modification which has to be made in order to bring the terminology of the Schedule in accordance with the terminology which we have used in the Bill. It has nothing whatever to do with the power of the new Federal Assembly, nor indeed does it in any way affect the power of the existing Assembly, as to what it can or cannot discuss. My hon. Friend knows that, broadly speaking, under the present position the Budget and defence can be discussed, and there are certain powers in the Governor-General whose sanction has to be obtained before discussing certain other matters, but it would not be right to go into that question on this Amendment.

Mr. JONES

I am sorry to be persistent on this question, but it may be due to my stupidity—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have now become seized of this question. The question is to what is discussable in the new Federal Legislature does not arise on this Amendment or this Schedule. The question whether this can or cannot be discussed in the existing Assembly, if these words are put in, will obviously follow the practice which now goes on.

Mr. JONES

That was not quite the point I was raising. In the Schedule there is reference to provisions that will prevail, not merely in the interregnum, but after the Federation has been established. There is reference to functions which would be discharged not only during the interregnum, but after the Federation is in operation—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think the hon. Gentleman ought to raise that matter on the question, "That this Schedule be the Ninth Schedule to the Bill."

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Schedule, as amended, be the Ninth Schedule to the Bill."

7.41 p.m.

Mr. JONES

I shall not repeat my question, but try to resume where I left off. My difficulty is this. If this Schedule only refers to the period of the interregnum, where may we find the authority for continuing the functions after the intervening period has come to an end? Does this Schedule lapse completely when the Federation has been set up, and if it does lapse, does it affect at all the question of these four points—ecclesiastical, external affairs, defence and tribal areas? In Clause 11 we have only three of the functions—ecclesiastical, external affairs and defence—

7.42 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

"Tribal areas" is mentioned at the end of Subsection (1) of Clause 11. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained to the Committee that it is necessary to put in this item in the Schedule, otherwise Clause 11 would lead to the inference that where "external affairs" were mentioned without "tribal areas" it would not include "tribal areas." That is why the Amendment was moved to put "tribal areas" in the Schedule. The hon. Gentleman is right in his understanding that these provisions in the Ninth Schedule are only to last for the period up to the establishment of the Federation. If he will look at Clauses 290 and 295 he will see that that is there stated. On the termination of the period for which these provisions prevail there will come into operation the provisions of Clause 11 and the other Clauses in the first part of the Bill.

Mr. JONES

I am sorry I had forgotten Clause 295. It is difficult to remember all these things.