HC Deb 30 May 1935 vol 302 cc1323-33

3.52 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA(Mr. Butler)

I beg to move, in page 179, line 36, after "in," to insert "British."

This corrects what was a slight error. The definition of "existing Indian law" upon which this Amendment operates, must, of course, refer to British Indian law and could only be made by an authority in any territories for the time being comprised in British India.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move, in page 180, line 16, after "India," to insert "Burma and Aden."

The pensioners referred to in the Bill are or may be pensioners who have served not in India only, but in Burma or Aden. The definition of India is now given in this Clause, and the Amendment supplies a deficiency in the original draft of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move, in page 180, line 31, to leave out "and."

This Amendment is to be taken with the following Amendment, which includes a number of other definitions. The definition of "taxation" includes the words "any tax or impost whether general, local or special," which had been excised in an earlier part of the Bill. The several railway definitions are a re-draft of the original definitions included in the Seventh Schedule to the Bill. There will also be introduced an Amendment under the name of my right hon. Friend to the Seventh Schedule, which we shall come to later. The definition has been revised in order to fit in exactly with different Clauses in the Bill relating to railways, and to put them in line with Item 20 of List 1, which we shall consider when we come to the Seventh Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 180, line 32, at the end, insert: taxation' includes the imposition of any tax or impost whether general or local or special, and 'tax' shall be construed accordingly; 'railway' includes a tramway not wholly within a municipal area; 'federal railway' does not include an Indian State railway but, save as aforesaid, includes any railway not being a minor railway; 'Indian State railway' means a railway owned by a State and either operated by the State or operated en behalf of the State otherwise than in accordance with a contract made with the State by or on behalf of the Secretary of State in Council, the Federal Government, the Federal Railway Authority, or any company operating a federal railway; 'minor railway' means a railway which is wholly situate in one unit and does not form a continuous line of communication with a federal railway, whether of the same gauge or not; and 'unit' means a Governor's Province, a Chief Commissioner's Province or a Federated State."— [Mr.Butler].

Mr. BUTLER

I beg to move, in page 180, after the words last inserted, to insert: (3) No Indian State shall, for the purpose of any reference in this Act to Federated States, be deemed to have become a Federated State until the establishment of the Federation, unless the context of the reference otherwise requires. This makes plain what has always been intended, and, indeed, is obvious, that a State cannot within the meaning of the Bill, be a Federated State unless and until the Federation of which it is a member has come into being. There is an Amendment to the proposed Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) to leave out the words "unless the context of the reference otherwise requires." I am advised by the draftsman whom I have consulted that these words are very often added to an Interpretation Clause, and it is regarded as better to leave them there. I asked whether they were absolutely necessary, and I understood that it would be wiser to leave them. They do not detract from the strength of the Clause, but they are words which are evidently the joy of the draftsmen and are usually put in Interpretation Clauses. It will be wrong for the House to exaggerate their importance, and they do not detract from the general sense of the new Sub-section. I am prepared to look into them before the Bill reaches another place in order

to as certain whether the words "Federated States" actually does occur in other parts of the Bill, and I would ask the House to leave these words in the Amendment in the meantime.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL

It seems to me that these words are utterly meaningless.

Sir BASIL PETO

On a point of Order. May I have, the opportunity of moving the Amendment to the proposed Amendment standing in my name before the right hon. Gentleman addresses the House?

Mr. SPEAKER

Just as the hon. Member likes.

Mr. CHURCHILL

I am not excluding my hon. Friend. On the contrary, the procedure enables the point to be ventilated on two separate occasions: first on the general question, and, second, after the Amendment to the proposed Amendment in my hon. Friend's name has been moved. Although I am anxious not to stand in his way or in any way to lengthen the proceedings, I should like to conclude the very brief remarks I was going to make before we come to the more direct and serious issue which the Amendment to the proposed Amendment raises. I want to know what the words of the Government's Amendment can possibly mean. How can any State be deemed to have become a Federated State unless a Federation has been established? I suppose that the Government are contemplating that they will erect the States into the Federation one by one. All the force and power of the Executive here and in India will be concentrated on the Indian States in an intensive manner one after another, like we sometimes see the agents from many parts of the country employed in a by-election. Then when gradually a certain number of these States have been, as it were, fixed, settled, brought into the group, the Secretary of State for India or my right hon. Friend, in whatever office he may then be occupying, will be watching anxiously the barometer rising. Every month these intensive methods will have enabled another State to become a Federated State pending the establishment of Federation, and then, as the number approaches the 50 per cent. limit the excitement will be really quite intense. No one knows how long will intervene before this period is reached, but one can imagine the feelings of emotion which will arise in the Government up to this level.

I gather that no State which has agreed to Federate will be allowed to—may I say—rat—to go back on its decision to secede. [An HON. MEMBER: "Resile."] Let us use the peculiar terminology of this Bill and say that no State will be allowed to resile. Indeed, the excitement would be almost intolerable if some were being added at one end and others were dropping out at the other end. One can imagine propaganda being attempted on both sides, and that while one body of gentlemen in India possessed of great official power will be putting the greatest pressure on the States to come in to make the 50 per cent. quota, other gentlemen will be advising them most strongly to stay out. Consequently, we may believe that this period will be a very lengthy one, possibly lasting four or five years before the actual majority has been scraped together, and the desire of the Princes to enter Federation has become fully manifest to the world. It seems to me a very reasonable thing—indeed, only a reasonable reassurance—that when a State has agreed to be a Federated State it shall not be deemed to be Federated unless the whole deal goes through. I think that is very natural, and what I want to know is why should there be any exception to the rule— unless the context of the reference otherwise requires. The only explanation given by the Under-Secretary was when he said that it was for the joy of the draftsmen. Far be it from me, or for any of my friends, to wish to withhold from a laborious, faithful and most competent body of public servants any meed of satisfaction, any personal indulgence in draught-refreshing liquid which their exertions may lead them to require, and to which their character certainly entitles them. All the same, when the Bill at this stage is definitely leaving our control cumbered with the addition of words to which no explanation can be assigned, except the one which has been given, and for which there is no justification except this desire to indulge the draftsmen, I do trust that the Government will not insist upon these words. If on reflection in another place they find that they are absolutely necessary, there is the place to insert them. We really cannot use a serious vehicle like this India Bill merely for distributing fleeting pleasurable emotions among our public officials, and I hope that the Government will not persist in these words.

4.5 p.m.,

Sir B. PETO

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, to leave out: unless the context of the reference otherwise requires. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has covered the whole ground in words infinitely happier and more humorous than any I can use, but there are some serious aspects, and one is that as the Under-Secretary said that he was going to consider the necessity for the retention of these words carefully before the Bill reaches another place, we are really countenancing the insertion of words in a Bill for which he can give no explanation or rather no substantial reason. If the argument is merely that of adding to the joy of the draftsman, there is a hope in another place of correcting our somewhat foolish step of putting these words into the Bill. I do not deny the enormous value of another place in being able to correct errors of all sorts but when I have actually put upon the Order Paper an Amendment to take out these words, arid when we have heard from the Under-Secretary that they really have no meaning so far as the Bill is concerned, I think it is rather asking too much of the House to ask us to leave them in the Bill in the hope that somewhere else they may be corrected. This is the Interpretation Clause—a very important Clause—and in Sub-section (1) there is the definition of an Indian State very clearly set out, but I notice that the Government do not attempt to put in a definition of a Federated State. On the other hand the Under-Secretary has just moved a new Sub-section which says: No Indian State that is, of course, an Indian State as defined in Sub-section (1)— shall, for the purpose of any reference in this Act to Federated States, be deemed to have become a Federated State until the establishment of the Federation. We have no definition of "Federated State." No doubt it is mentioned frequently in the Bill, and therefore the natural thing would have been to have had a definition not only of an Indian State but of a Federated State. Probably to avoid the difficulty of doing that, they give us one guiding rule which says, in the words of the Amendment, that it is not to be deemed a Federated State until the establishment of the Federation. If it ended there, we should know where we stood—that until Federation was established there was no such thing as a Federated State. Then we come to the mysterious words: unless the context of the reference otherwise requires. They cast a doubt on the whole matter as to whether there is any meaning at all in the new Sub-section (3), because if we have to search for every case when there is a reference to a Federated State, the ingenuity of someone might lead him to say that in that particular case there could be a Federated State before the establishment of federation, then I do not think it is worth while putting the words in at all.

Therefore, on these grounds I would beg the Government at this stage to leave out these words which are in the Bill not for any admirable reason given by the Under-Secretary but that the only reason they were put there was because in many other cases they had been found of some real use, and, that the words were dear to the hearts of the draftsmen. I do not think we can attach a great deal of importance to that. The question is whether in this particular case it is conceivable that they can add anything or clarify the position in any way, or only leave us in doubt as to what "Federated State" means in the Bill.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT

I beg to second the Amendment.

Almost everything that can be said on this Amendment was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and what little else there was to be said was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). There therefore remains little for any hon. Member who desires to second the Amendment. Nevertheless, I should like to add a word or two. It is obvious from the very candid remarks of the Under-Secretary that he could not, by the light of nature or of his own intellect, discover any justification for these words. Obviously, he went to the draftsman and said, "Now what do these words mean?" or "What is the effect of them?" and the draftsman said, "Well, we always insert them in such Clauses." But mere precedent is no justification for them. No real reason was offered by the Under-Secretary. I think that it is a great mistake to insert in an Act of Parliament words of this nature, which are of uncertain intention and meaning. In the past, such expressions have offered great difficulty to those who are charged with the duty of interpreting Acts of Parliament. They are a type of words which afford employment to gentlemen of the long robe, but the primary purpose of the Bill is not, I understand, to give work to lawyers. That may be one of its subsidiary effects, but the primary purpose of the Government is not to afford employment to lawyers. I certainly think that this phrase, for which no real justification except that of precedent has been offered to the House, should be omitted from the Clause.

4.13 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CR I PPS

I would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General whether he agrees that these words ought to be in or ought to be out? I understand that it is one of the prime functions of the Law Officer to advise His Majesty's Government as regards the best form in which a Bill should be placed before the House so far as the draftsmanship is concerned. Apparently, during the cross-examination of the draftsman by the Under-Secretary, on behalf of the Government, he was unable to elicit any satisfactory explanation for such words. There is always a tendency to adhere to traditional form in draftsmanship, words very often being put in just because they have always been used before. Originally words were put in a Statute for some quite good purpose, because there is an exception in a case where an interpretation does not apply universally. The words are pat into the next Statute, where there may be an exception, or they get put into a Statute where there is not an exception. They hang on because they are traditional, and not because they are justified. We all have experience of the liability of draftsmen to hang on to traditional forms. I did not appreciate what the Under-Secretary told us, that it gave draftsmen some sort of aesthetic pleasure.

I think it was due to their not liking to depart from precedent. I would ask the learned Attorney-General whether they have any meaning, and, if not, I would ask the Government to omit them. If the right hon. Gentleman can point to any Clause in the Bill where these words might operate so as to affect the interpretation in a different way from that in which the interpretation Clause would operate with their omission there may be good ground for leaving them in.

4.16 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare)

If the inclusion of these words has done nothing else it has stimulated a very important Debate and has given my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) the opportunity of making an eloquent, impressive and moving speech on this all-important question. Hon. Members on all sides of the House are grateful to him for his intervention. Upon this last day of the Report stage I should like, for once, to find myself in agreement with him, and therefore I feel sorely tempted—

Mr. CHURCHILL

To yield.

Sir S. HOARE

—to accept his proposition, particularly when it is supported by an equally weighty speech from the acting Leader of the Labour party and an eloquent appeal by my hon. Friend' the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto). In these circumstances I can take no other course than to accept the Amendment—with this reservation, that if it is found that in dashing this cup of bliss from the lips of the draftsman we are acting rashly or prematurely I shall have to ask the Government to take the necessary action in another place. With that reservation I am prepared to accept the appeal which has been made to me from all quarters of the House.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

Before the Secretary of State comes to a final conclusion, I would ask him to read the first two lines at the top of page 5 of the Bill—Clause 6, Sub-section (7)—because there is there a definition of a Federated State: In this Act a State which has acceded to the Federation is referred to as a Federated State. A State which has acceded to the Federation is defined in Clause 6, Sub-section (1) in this way: A State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty had signified his acceptance of an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler. Those Instruments of Accession have to be executed, so far as 51 per cent. are concerned, before the Federation comes into being, and therefore the words "Federated State" have a meaning, though there is no Federation, which leads me to the conclusion that the words in Sub-section (7) of Clause 6 are an unsatisfactory definition because the words "Federated State" have two meanings. There is the meaning before the Federation comes into being and there is the meaning afterwards, and even those which have acceded before the Federation fall into two classes, because Sub-section (2) provides that the accession may be conditioned on the Federation coming into being before a certain date. So there will be Federal States which have acceded without qualification and others which have acceded with a qualification that so many more have formed before a certain date. If the Federation never comes into being the one lot still remain technically as Federated States. In those circumstances I think we need a better definition than we have got and I think that even the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) is wrong, because it makes things even worse than in the Government's own proposal.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip)

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has made an eloquent speech about a Clause which we struck out of the Bill several days ago.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS

I shall not make a speech about a Clause which has been struck out of the Bill, but without wishing in any way to disturb the present state of harmony I should like to say that I think we shall be a little unkind this afternoon if we accept this Amendment. We all indulge in our own types of amusement, and why should not the draftsman be allowed to have this one little joy of having these words in the Bill? I admit, of course, that we are in an extraordinarily interesting position in sticking phrases into a Bill simply for the purpose of giving joy to the draftsman, but, after all, it means very little and it does no one any harm. I do not see why the Government should make an alliance on this occasion with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). If they are going into an alliance with him they might do it on some big thing which had real meaning and real effect. It may be, of course, that the Government fear a combination between my right hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), fear, perhaps, that they are going into co-operation on a joint dictatorship or something. For my part I entreat the Government to rely on the rank and file of their supporters in this House instead of on the various discordant elements and to stand by their draftsman who, after all, has served them very well on this Bill. Cannot we keep in these words, even if we do create a new Parliamentary precedent by doing something for the sake of giving joy to the drafts man? Why should not somebody get something out of it? After all, we are getting our joy out of it. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) certainly is, because she is always interrupting. Are we not getting joy out of it? Are we not finishing with the Bill on Derby Day? What could be a more perfect jest.

I have one question to ask the Government. In the second line of their Amendment there is the word "until," referring to the establishment of the Federation. I hate the idea of having to ask the Government questions which they cannot answer, but could they enlighten the House as to when they expect that date will be—the establishment of Federation Now that we have here the whole of the quintuplets, all in one lot, side by side, could not one of them answer that simple question? It is a big question and a matter of importance, but I am only asking them something which they must know and about which they must have made up their mind. Surely the House of Commons might be given that information. Unfortunately, three of them have spoken, or I was hoping that the largest of them might have given me the answer to this ques- tion. I think that somehow or other, before we leave this interesting situation, that vital question might be answered.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.