HC Deb 21 May 1935 vol 302 cc968-72

4.10 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 101, line 2, to leave out from "were," to the end of line 5, and to insert: then used, otherwise than under a tenancy agreement between the Governor-General in Council and the Government of that Province, for purposes which there after will be purposes of the Federal Government or of His Majesty's Representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States. This Amendment raises a somewhat similar point to one which we discussed at an earlier stage of the Bill. In the Bill, as drafted, the criterion was the purposes for which buildings were being used at the appointed date. Under this Amendment we adopt the other criterion of the purposes for which they will be used under the Bill when the new Constitution comes into force.

4.11 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN

I assume that this Clause deals with such things as Army barracks which are taken over by the Federation. Is it implicit in the Clause that these belong to the Crown and are therefore part of the Federation, or is this Clause more to do with the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States? Army land, I suppose, will be governed by this Clause, and I hope that it will not be in any way interfered with, but will be used for the same purpose as at the present day.

4.12 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

I will answer my hon. and gallant Friend's question in a sentence. Barracks and military land are taken over by the Federation, defence being a Federal subject, are served department, but legally the Federation takes the mover, even although the administration and management of them remain under the direct control of the Imperial Parliament and the Secretary of State.

Brigadier-General BROWN

Thank you.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

May we, then, assume from the statement of the Secretary of State and from the somewhat fuller, though I am bound to say rather complicated, statement of the learned Solicitor-General, that the new words are designed to have the effect that all these buildings, barracks, etc., State property, shall be transferred to the Federation in their completeness, and that nothing shall be left out—to give a wider scope to the Clause so as to make sure that the whole property will be transferred?

Sir S. HOARE

It is a different way of describing it.

Mr. CHURCHILL

A different and a longer way. Is it for the purpose of making the catalogue more exact, or the definition of the property more precise or more full Otherwise one does not see any great advantage in adding a couple of lines or so to this voluminous Bill. I am still at a loss to know what is the purpose. There must be some purpose in having these extra words. I am not suggesting that any sinister motive or deep plot has inspired the Secretary of State in making the change. I am only animated by the desire to know what is the extra advantage claimed.

Sir S. HOARE

The purpose of the service is the test. If my right hon. Friend had been here when we were discussing one of the new Clauses the other day, he would be aware that it was generally accepted by the House that this was a very correct definition.

Mr. CHURCHILL

Thank you very much.

Amendment agreed to.

4.15 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 104, line 16, to leave out "at the said date," and to insert: immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act. This is a drafting Amendment. The words proposed in the Amendment are considered to be more suitable.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 101, line 22, leave out "at this date, "and insert" immediately before the commencement of Part III of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

4.16 p.m.

Sir HOARE

I beg to move in page 101, line 34, at the end, to insert: (3) The lands and buildings vested in His Majesty by virtue of this section for the purpose of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall be under the management of the Commissioners of Works, and, subject to the provisions of sub section (2) of this section, the provisions of the Acts relating to the Commissioners of Works shall apply in relation to those lands and buildings as if they had been acquired by the Commissioners in pursuance of those Acts. This new Sub-section is for the purpose of making clear the destination of the buildings of the India Office.

Mr. CHURCHILL

The destination of the India Office?

Sir S. HOARE

It refers only to the destination of the material structure. Under the proposals in the Bill "the Secretary of State in Council," as a corporate body, comes to an end, and these buildings being at present vested in that corporate body, it is necessary to make provision for their destination. As it is contemplated that the India Office under the reforms would become what is generally described as a Treasury Office, that is to say an Office administered in the same way as other Offices in White hall, it is proposed that the building also should be treated in the same way and should be vested in the Office of Works with the condition that, although it is so vested, it should only be used for the purposes of the Government of India. The next Amendment on the Paper is part and parcel of the same proposal, and the two taken together vest the buildings in the Office of Works. As the contents are of interest both to India and Great Britain they remain 'with the Secretary of State, but the building must be vested somewhere and the Office of Works seems to be the appropriate body.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

It is clear that the Amendment as it stands is merely a matter of transference, but I should like to ask who is to pay for the upkeep of the buildings when the transfer takes place. The financial considerations involved in this Bill are very extensive, and I think it is right that we should know whether the Office of Works, that is to say the British taxpayers, are going to pay for the upkeep of these buildings. I do not raise the matter in any controversial spirit, but unless someone asks for information of this kind and the information is given in the House, difficulties may arise in the future

4.19 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

We dealt with that question upon the Financial Resolution. It was then made clear that the charge would fall upon the revenues of this country with this exception—that in respect of the comparatively wide field in which the India Office will still be acting as agent of the Government of India, a suitable contribution should be made by India to that extent. My answer to my hon. Friend, therefore, is that both the British taxpayers and the Indian tax payers will pay, according to the use which is made of the Office.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

In what proportion

4.20 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

This seems to raise a matter of some material interest and it may also involve a rather serious point of financial procedure. I may betaking a wrong view and if so perhaps my doubts will be relieved by the Secretary of State but unquestionably this proposal seems to involve a new charge.

Sir S. HOARE

We discussed this on the Financial Resolution.

Mr. CHURCHILL

But is it not the case that it does mean a new charge thrown on the British taxpayer?

Sir S. HOARE

It is covered by the Financial Resolution.

Mr. CHURCHILL

As long as the right hon. Gentleman says he has covered it by the Financial Resolution that is all right, but I do not remember at what stage we dealt with the matter.

Sir S. HOARE

At the very beginning.

Mr. CHURCHILL

That is to say at the very beginning and before we had entered on the consideration of the Bill.

Sir S. HOARE

Both before and in Committee.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I am glad that it has not been overlooked because other wise it would appear that this proposal by itself would have converted the Measure into what is virtually a money Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman assures me that the necessary steps have already been taken I do not press the matter.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that this matter was considered during the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution. I have no recollection of any discussion upon it.

Sir S. HOARE

I explained it in detail.

4.22 p.m.

Sir B. PETO

Sub-section(2) of this Clause provides that except with the consent of the Governor-General effect shall not be given to any proposal for the diversion of any buildings for uses not connected with the discharge of the functions of the Crown in relation to India or Burma. That may be appropriate as regards buildings in India, but surely the buildings of the India Office here in London are in a different category. Sup posing those buildings were found to be redundant or much too large for the purposes for which they were being used, and were required for some other purpose not connected either with India or Burma. Is it proposed that we should have to go to the Governor-General in India and ask his consent to their diversion?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 101, line 43, at the end, insert: and, notwithstanding anything in sub section (31 of this section, the contents of those buildings shall be under the control of the Secretary of State."—[Sir S. Hoare.]