HC Deb 30 May 1935 vol 302 cc1393-416

7.42 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 357, line 14, after "areas," to insert: (not being cantonment areas of Indian State troops). The Amendment is intended to make clear what is intended by the expression "local self-government in cantonment areas" is a cantonment area within a State used by that State for its own State troops.

Amendment agreed to.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT

I beg to move, in page 358, line 17, to leave out "Port."

I think hon. Members who laugh misunderstand me. The effect of the Amendment, if it were accepted, would be to remove the limitation upon the jurisdiction of the Federal Legislature to port quarantine, so as to give to the Legislature jurisdiction in the subject of quarantine, without qualification. The reason for the Amendment is simple. It is to give to the Federal Legislature powers to prevent the spread of infectious diseases from province to province, by whatever means that may be brought about, whether by religious pilgrimages or other means. Similar power is reserved to the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and to the Government of the Union of South Africa. If this Amendment be not accepted, Federal legislation to ameliorate what are acknowledged to be appalling conditions will be extremely difficult to set in motion. The Federal Legislature will find it extremely hard to assert its will in these matters, the seriousness of which is well-known, and the importance of which cannot possibly be exaggerated.

Sir B. PETO

I beg to second the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The powers which my hon. Friend desires the Central Government to have they already have under Item 30 of the Concurrent Legislative List, on page 365, which deals with preventing the spread of infection from one district to another. That is the answer to the argument put forward, but there is a further answer. By leaving out the word "Port" here and making all matters of quarantine exclusively Federal subjects, my hon. Friend would be preventing the Provinces taking either legislative or administrative action in connection with local quarantine or the prevention of disease so far as it falls under that term. That would make the matter quite unworkable. The executive authority in this matter must, of course, remain in the Provinces, and we think it right that the special question of port quarantine should be left with them. On the particular question, on one aspect, and one aspect only, of this matter, namely, the spread of disease from one area to another, we believe that the Federal Legislature have ample powers to legislate and take administrative action in respect of that matter under Item 30.

Amendment negatived.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 358, line 21, to leave out paragraph 20, and to insert: 20. Federal railways; the regulation of all railways other than minor railways in respect of safety, maximum and minimum rates and fares, station and service terminals, interchange of traffic and the responsibility of railway administrations as carriers of goods and passengers; the regulation of minor railways in respect of safety and the responsibility of the administrations of such railways as carriers of goods and passengers. This is consequential on the redrafted definition of Federal railways which the House has already inserted in Clause 302, and it is also consequential on the decision which the Committee has taken on redrafts made in connection with Federal control over safety. Under this Amendment, in respect of minor railways which are otherwise Provincial and under. Provincial control, the safety and responsibility of administration of such railways is put into this exclusively Federal list.

Amendment agreed to.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 358, to leave out lines 27 to 29.

By this Amendment Item 21 in List 1, on page 358, is omitted, dealing with the regulation and control of vessels (other than vessels propelled by sails or oars) on navigable waterways situate in more than one unit, and the rule of the road on such waterways. That by a later Amendment, is transferred to List 3, the Concurrent List. This matter has been gone into by my right hon. Friend with the Government of India, and indeed the suggestion for this change was made, I believe, by the Bengal Government, who are particularly concerned with the control of inland waterways, and it is thought on the whole more appropriate that this matter should be in the Concurrent List, that the Provinces should be able to deal with it, but that there should be a power of the Central Legislature to have some central legislation and some common code in so far as it is found to be necessary and desirable. The next Amendment is consequential on that change, and omits words relating to inland waterways in Item 27 of List 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 359, line 1, leave out "by navigable waterways situate in more than one unit."—(The Solicitor-General.)

7.51 p.m.

Mr. RAI KES

I beg to move, in page 359, line 12, after "regards," to insert "production."

The object of the Amendment is to place the production of petroleum upon the Federal Legislative List. At the present time the possession, storage, and transport of petroleum are on the list, but not its production. The Chambers of Commerce, when they gave their evidence before the Joint Select Committee, very strongly pressed that they should have the production of petroleum placed upon the Federal List rather than upon the Provincial List. They pointed out the obvious danger which there must be if the actual production of an important thing like petroleum is left to the control of Provincial Governments. After all, petroleum is an essential commodity for the defence of the Federation, and if it were merely left to the uncoordinated mercies of the Provincial Legislatures, they might use their power over petroleum for their own requirements and financial needs rather than for the good of the Federation as a whole. Therefore, I move the Amendment as one who in this matter at least is striving to make the Federation a real success, and I suggest that this particular effort to put the production of petroleum on the Federal List would at any rate assist the doubtful Federation and give it one prop by which to hold itself. I very much hope that on this, the last Amendment which I shall have the privilege of moving on this Bill, the Government will give me a pleasant but rather unexpected surprise.

7.53 p.m.

Sir H, CROFT

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think the House will appreciate the fact that we have done everything in our power to try to improve the Bill by moving Amendments of this kind. This is a subject on which the Under-Secretary of State need not feel that he is giving way and accepting Conservative principles or anything vulgar and old-fashioned like that. It is simply a question of administration, and I would remind him that it has been found in certain countries, notably in the United States of America, that it really is essential to federalise the whole of the production as well as the transportation and distribution of petroleum. I think, if we look ahead and realise how absolutely essential petrol is becoming in every walk of life, and more especially in the defence of any country, particularly of a country like India, it will be appreciated that it is supremely important that production should also come under the Federal aegis. I hope the Government will find it possible to accept the Amendment, because I think it is one of real substance and would undoubtedly make for the safety and success of the Federal Government in the future.

7.5.5 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

My hon. and gallant Friend said that he and those supporting him had moved many Amendments of this kind. He really did himself an injustice, because this Amendment proposes to do in the wrong place some-tilling which is already done in the Bill as it stands in the right place. That is the pleasant and unexpected surprise which I have for my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes). If my hon. Friend looks at Item 37, a little lower down in the List, he will see—it was the result of Amendments made, I think, in Committee—that it now covers the regulation of mines and oilfields and mineral development to the extent to which such regulation and development under Federal control is declared by Federal law to be expedient in the public interest. I think that gives the Federal Legislature ample powers to prevent arising the difficulties which have been referred to as arising in the United States of America. This item deals with a rather different kind of matter.

Mr. RAIKES

In view of my hon. and learned Friend's explanation, I have much pleasure again in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.59 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 359, line 16, after "including," to insert: corporations owned or controlled by a Federated State and carrying on business only within that State or. This is the item which deals with trading corporations. It is not intended that the Federal Legislature should have power to deal with corporations under or controlled by Federated States and carrying on business only within such States. The effect of the Amendment is that corporations which go outside one unit can come under Federal control, but if they are confined to one unit, then they cannot.

Amendment agreed to.

8.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 359, to leave out line 22, and to insert: 36. Regulation of labour in mines; safety in mines and oilfields. This is an Amendment made as the result of suggestions advanced in Committee that it might be as well to have some central control in respect of safety in oilfields as in mines, and we therefore propose to redraft the item.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

We are very much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for extending the provisions of this paragraph from the wording that appears in the original draft, and we are hoping that we may be able to push the Government a little further to-night and that they may accept the Amendment which I am about to move. Let me clarify the situation a little by saying that we have now before us three sets of words. As they appear in the original draft on page 359, number 36, it reads: Regulation of labour and safety in mines. The Government are now proposing to make it read: Regulation of labour in mines: safety in mines and oilfields. That, of course, extends the original provision. We want, however, to carry the matter a stage further and to amend it if possible to read: Regulation of labour and safety in mines, quarries, and oilfields. I cannot see how the Government can very well resist this proposal, because it is obvious that there must be quarries in India. I have never been there. I have read a little about India, and I shall be astonished if there are no quarries at all in that great continent. We want to link up mines and quarries in this way, because in our own country a great deal of our protective legislation in respect of workmen links up both mines and quarries. We would like the same combination to be effected in India if possible.

There is another small point but rather important to the workpeople in India. I understand that coal in some parts of India is not mined at all. It is quarried, and consequently if it is intended to protect the working conditions of the miners in India it is possible that we shall be restricting the law merely to coal miners who are working in pits, whereas I think the intention is to cover the protective interests of men who are both mining and quarrying coal and quarrying anything else. We want, therefore, not only to secure the regulation of labour in certain respects and the safety of labour in other respects; we want to combine both, and to see that both the regulation of labour and safety in mines, quarries and oilfields shall be included in the list. We have not asked very much for the working-classes of India from the Government in this Bill. Nearly all the interests involved in this House have been satisfied in a measure by several requests made by them to the Government of the day. It would be a sad state of affairs if the last Amendment that is to be moved from the Labour benches in favour of the working-classes of India were left unheard. I think by this time the Government will have made up their mind to accept the Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne)

The hon. Member will appreciate that we have not taken the words out of the Bill preparatory to inserting the words of the Amendment. I take it that he was speaking on the original Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. RHYS DAVIES

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "in mines; safety in mines and oilfields," and to insert "and safety in mines, quarries, and oilfields."

8.5 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT

I rise, not in opposition to the hon. Member, but merely to congratulate him because this subject must be regarded as important. There are more representatives on the Front Bench for this Amendment than I remember seeing throughout the whole Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite combined, will be able to give due attention to the hon. Member's eloquent speech.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK

May I join in the general harmony prevailing, and support the proposal made from the Opposition Front Bench. Quarries are a very important feature of mining in India. There are open face seams of coal of 80 to 100 feet which are quarried. Then we have a very large indigenous stone industry, and there are large limestone quarries supplying the limestone for iron works in Bengal. This is a very reasonable proposal, because quarries are very largely worked, not by companies only, but by small industrial groups in British India and particularly in Indian India,

8.7 p.m.

Mr. COCKS

I strongly protest against the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). If there be anything particularly offensive to say against the Government or the Conservative party he and his friends are here in full strength, but whenever there is anything to be said on behalf of the working-classes of India he and his friends are conspicuous by their absence.

Sir H. CROFT

There are only five of your party.

Mr. COCKS

Whenever there is anything to be said for the masses of India who, he says, are to be handed over to these tyrannical people and politicians, he and his friends are not here. It seems to me that the sole attitude of himself and his friends is simply to make political capital by using the masses of India as a means of attack on the Government. I take this opportunity of resenting this on behalf of hon. Members on these benches, and I think I may say on behalf of the Front Bench opposite.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

The assumption in this country is that quarries and mines are worked together. Our tradition has been on that line. Obviously, the conditions that apply to one would generally apply to the other, and, if that be the result of our experience in this country—that it has been found possible to combine the safety conditions relating to mines and quarries that very often are indistinguishable—I think the onus is in favour of the Amendment. The onus rests upon the Government to show that what has been adopted here all along should not apply to conditions in India. I think the Amendment is deserving of support.

8.9 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I intervene in the Debate at this stage because I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the proposed Amendment realised what he was doing. I say so with some diffidence, but for this reason. The effect of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment would be to prevent any of the Provinces legislating with regard to labour in quarries and oilfields, and make them exclusively Federal subjects. I do not know where I am sometimes. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have impugned indirect election. They said "You are going to keep in a Federal Centre men out of touch with the great beating heart of the people; you will get these people really undemocratic in their outlook.' In the Provinces they would like our franchise to go further. There they are in favour of direct election, and say that the people would be more in touch with those whose interests of which they put themselves forward as being the peculiar guardians. Therefore, I do not understand why it is suggested that it would be in the interests of the working classes or the particular section of them affected by oilfields and quarries, to prevent the Provinces from being able to legislate for their welfare. I do not appreciate the reason at all, because it is clear that under the general labour provisions in the Concurrent List the Centre has power to legislate in respect of labour in this and in other matters. It may be said, why do we suggest that regulation of labour and mines should be an exclusively Federal subject? There is already a code dealing with labour in mines as a central subject, and there is a central administrative staff which carries it out. We think it is desirable that that uniformity which has grown up should be preserved, and, as the subject is already a central subject, we believe that it will be kept properly up to date.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

May I ask if the mines include quarries?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

No. That is the point to which I was coming next. The quarries will be left in the Concurrent List, and they fall in that part of my argument. I am suggesting to the House that, apart from the fact that there is already an existing body of central legislation dealing with mines, it is really in the interests of those for whom the hon. Members opposite are putting forward their plea that it should be left in the Concurrent List, where the democratic stimulus of direct election—and here I hope for the encouraging smile of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot)—can operate in stimulating legislation on these lines.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

Is it clear that "welfare of labour" covers safety in quarries, because you have now put in to the Federal List "safety in mines and oilfields." Safety in quarries is left out. The heading of "Welfare of Labour" does not specifically state the question of safety. Do I understand that that is included? You also have factories mentioned. Here is a specific point of safety in a particular kind of industrial undertaking. It is not mentioned in any list at the present time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL

I will certainly have that point looked into.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK

Is it perfectly clear that quarries do at present come under the mines inspectors? There is no possible way in which the quarries would come under a mining department.

8.14 p.m.

Sir R. CRADDOCK

I support this Amendment very warmly, because my own experience is that the making of provisions for safety in quarries is very necessary. The quarries for that purpose should be on the same lines and in the same article as mines. I had in my former division much experience of various kinds of mines and as far as I can remember now the distinction of mine and quarry was somewhat technical. It did not necessarily mean under the surface, but might include beds on the surface. At this distance of time I am not certain what the exact definition was, but in practice you may get a series of mines and quarries mixed up together, worked by the same men and inspected by the same inspectorate. Therefore, so far as safety is concerned, quarries should be included in the same list with mines.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

I would like to ask the Government whether they do not consider it necessary now to insert in this legislation provisions for the protection of quarry workers on the same lines as mine workers? These two classes of workers are interchangeable; indeed, they are the same people; and what applies to the one class must necessarily apply to the other. I wish to protest against the charge made against us by the Solicitor-General, who certainly misled the House in making it. He said that we desired that nothing should be done for the men working in mines until it was possible to move the Federal Government to provide for their protection. That is far from our desire. The Government themselves are making provision in this list for the regulation of labour and safety conditions in mines and oilfields. Are they to be accused of desiring to prevent anything from being done within the concurrent list by the Provincial Governments '? If not, we cannot be accused as the Solicitor-General accused us.

Our desire is one which I am sure the House will support. Imagine that we are dealing, not with India, but with the United States, where 48 or 49 States are federalised, with industrial conditions varying from State to State. Imagine that the Solicitor-General said that justice could not be done to the mining industry in America unless there was a Federal law to deal with labour conditions and conditions regarding safety in the industry. I am sure that that would be wrong, because I happen to know that one of the defects in the American mining law is that it originated State by State, and is a conglomeration of local provisions which are not uniform, and which sometimes are almost in conflict with one another. We desire that the Federal State in India should have the utmost possible authority, and should itself be the repository of all legal authority affecting conditions that can be made uniform in that great sub-continent. We are very anxious, now that the Indian States and British India are to be brought together in one Federation, that protection shall be given, not only to the workers in British India, but to people who may be called upon to work, and are now working, in States under the rule of native Princes. We believe that something like a uniform labour code can be brought about if that re- sponsibility is placed at the beginning upon the Federal Parliament.

We do not desire to prevent the initiation of legislation in the Provincial Parliaments, if that be the only way in which it can be done, but we desire that the question of protection in mines and quarries—which are synonymus in India—and oilfields shall be brought is as a special subject of legislation by the Federal Parliament, believing that matters concerning the protection of the workers of that very large country should be reposed in the Federal Parliament, and that the Federal Parliament, having once assumed its responsibility for the whole of India, will knit the political conditions in that country into one coherent whole, and will greatly facilitate and expedite the bringing about of a national consciousness which will ultimately benefit both India and ourselves.

8.21 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL

The matter of quarries has been referred to by more than one speaker. I have already said that we will look into what is really the drafting point, and, on the general question, we will certainly reconsider quarries. I will give the reasons which led us to omit them. If they were put exclusively in the Federal list, then it would only be a Federal officer who would be able to inspect any of the small stone quarries, employing one or two men each, all over the country. It is true that a great deal of coal is got out of the Provinces in India, and that there is a number of quarries which are analogous to coal mines, but, once quarries are made exclusively a Federal subject, every ordinary stone quarry, however small, will come under the care of the Federal Government only, and the House will see that there may be administrative difficulties about taking in quarries in that way.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK

Does not that apply also to mines?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL

No. Mines are much more localised. Even where there are small mines, these are generally near to big ones, and they are very much easier to deal with from the point of view of administration. The coal mines in this country are disposed together in districts, whereas ordinary quarries are scattered up and down every field in the country. We will certainly look into the matter, but that is the difficulty which led us to omit quarries.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

Does not the Solicitor-General consider that the argument he has just used is rather a double-edged one? It is true that quarries are scattered about up and down the Indian Provincial field, but equally there are quarries and mines worked together by the same lot of people, and they cannot be distinguished. Is there not a case for reconsidering the whole question

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

8.24 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 359, line 33, at the end, to insert: other than corporations owned or controlled by a Federated State and carrying on business only within that State. This Amendment has for its purpose the exclusion from the purview of Federal legislation banking which is carried on by a corporation which is owned or controlled by a State and carries on business only within the State. If a State chooses to carry on, or is allowed to carry on, within its territory and under its control, a bank, that is a matter of internal administration with which there would be no justification for permitting Federal interference.

Mr. ATTLEE

I should like to thank the Government for recognising the possibility that in some of the more enlightened Indian States the policy of the Labour party with regard to banking is likely to be adopted.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 360, line 39, to leave out "water."

This is an Amendment which is consequential on a previous Amendment to omit the word "water," in the same context, from Clause 137.

Amendment agreed to.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE

I beg to move, in page 362, to leave out line 2.

May I ask if this Amendment, and the Amendment standing in my name, on page 2510 of the Paper—in page 365, line 8, at the end, to insert—"18. Education."—are to be taken together?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

Obviously, because if the present Amendment were not carried, the other Amendment would be out of order.

Mr. SOMERVILLE

India is not yet ripe for responsible government at the centre, but if there is to be responsible government at the centre let us make it as useful as possible. There was a Debate in Committee on a Clause moved by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) to allow the Secretary of State to retain the right of recruitment for the teaching services in India. The Debate dealt with several aspects of education, and the hon. Member for Morpeth deprecated any idea of his saying that the educational service in India had deteriorated under Indian administration. But he envisaged the possibility of a breakdown, and therefore he advocated the retention of the power of recruitment of the teaching services in the hands of the Secretary of State. The First Commissioner of Works dealt with the Clause and made one or two very interesting statements. He said that when he was at the Colonial Office and working with the Advisory Committee on Education in the Colonies: I endeavoured to prevent what was allowed to happen in India happening in the Colonial Empire. As a Member of that Committee I appreciated very fully what he meant. Instead of trying to make good Indians for the last 100 years we have been making a most mistaken effort to Westernise them. The First Commissioner of Works said: I think it was a fundamental mistake that we put all our money, all our personnel and all our effort into higher education for children of the intelligentsia, and lamentably neglected rural and primary education."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 30th April, 1935; col. 310, Vol. 301.] He spoke of it as a tragedy to India during the last century, and that is abundantly true. It is essential that we should put at the centre a directing and regulating force in this matter of education. There is no department of Indian national life which more requires such a directing and regulating force. It may be remembered that the Statutory Commission, in dealing with education, said: At this moment it is wise regulation rather than fresh expansion that is needed. What is the present state of education in India? There are several sources of information; one is the Hartog Report. The Report was considered by the Simon Commission, who recommended an inquiry and report on the state of education in India. A member of that committee was Sir George Anderson, who published last year a report on the progress of education in India from the years 1927 to 1932. He was eminently qualified to report on the matter. It was an official report. Sir William Hartog, writing in 1931, said: India has been to a far larger extent than is generally realised responsible for her own education during many years. It has been responsible since 1921. I hear from the benches opposite reproaches against this country because the state of literacy in India is not more favourable, but if during the last 14 years the administration of education had been more successful, there would now be a far larger proportion of literates in India qualified to exercise the franchise. The figures given in the report of the Statutory Commission are that the percentage of literates in British India 'are 14.4 of males and 2 per cent. of women. That is a serious matter. But one must admit that the difficulties in the administration of education in India are very great. There is no real compulsion to attend school, and the peasants continually withdraw their children from the schools. Therefore, there is an immense amount of wastage.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I must point out to the hon. Member that what he is now attempting to do is to move that certain education should be purely provincial in the Concurrent List. He is making a very interesting statement on education in India, but I cannot see so far that it is connected in the least with the proposed transfer.

Mr. SOMERVILLE

With all respect, what I am trying to do is to give some reason why it is necessary to have an essential direction and regulating force in education at the Centre in India, because if the Bill stands the administration of education will be altogether in the hands of the Provincial Legislatures. The effect of my Amendment, if carried, would be to establish at the centre that directing and regulating force which is spoken of by the Statutory Commission.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

Would not the effect of the Amendment be to deprive the. Provinces of power to deal with this defect of education?

Mr. SOMERVILLE

Certainly not: I take it that when the subject is on the Concurrent List both the Provinces and the Central Legislature have power to legislate on that subject. I am not proposing that the power of legislation in the matter of education should be removed from the Provinces, but that there should be a directing force at the Centre in order to co-ordinate and regulate the whole province of education in India, which is an essential need. May I give a reason or two why this is necessary? If we look- at the progress of education, in point of numbers, during the five years which have been reported upon by Sir George Anderson, we find an immense expansion in the primary schools. The number of boys has risen from 5,500,000 to 8,000,000, and the number of girls from 1,200,000 to more than 2,000,000 and the cost has gone up by something like 45 per cent. The number of secondary schools has largely increased, and the number pupils also. The number of universities increased from five in 1916, to 18 in 1929, and the number of students from 62,000 to 105,000. Those numbers are impressive, but if we look at the quality of the education given we find facts which make us doubt whether that education is really benefitting those who attend the schools and colleges. There is wastage in the primary schools. There is also a great deal of stagnation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member still has not conected his argument with the Concurrent List, which is the only matter before the House.

Mr. SOMERVILLE

I bow to your ruling, but I was under the impression that I could only prove my case by giving reasons why the Centre should be given the power of regulating and directing education.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member does not appear to realise that he has not yet given a single reason.

Mr. SOMERVILLE

I began by pointing out that for the last 14 years the administration of education has been in the hands of the Provincial Governments, and what I desire to argue is that there have been great mistakes made and that the progress has not been what one would have hoped. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a department at the Centre which will counteract and remedy the defects that exist in the administration of education in the Provinces. That is the object of putting the subject on the Concurrent List to give the Centre the power to legislate on education without taking it from the Provinces. Surely, it is relevant to draw attention to the defects of the present system in order to provide a remedy. It is extremely relevant from this point of view that the number of literates in India should increase. At present the number of literates is not increasing. Sir George Anderson in his report says: In The primary system, which, from our point of view, should be designed to produce literacy and the capacity to exercise an intelligent vote, the waste is appalling. The vast increase in numbers in the schools has produced no commensurate increase in literacy. With regard to university and secondary education Sir George Anderson says: The rapidly increasing number of students who throng the colleges and upper classes of high schools, many of whom are incompetent to benefit by such instruction is an illustration of unregulated waste. These are the words of the OFFICIAL REPORT: This causes an alarming increase in unemployment amongst the middle classes. He further said: Unfortunate political influences have also been rife and actual disturbance has not been uncommon.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member has not yet pointed out how this argument is relevant to the placing of this subject on the Concurrent List, and that is the sole point before the House. We are not concerned with statistics at this moment.

Mr. SOMERVILLE

I was under the impression that I was giving some reason why the present system is imperfect and why an attempt should be made to improve it by placing the subject of education on the concurrent list. If my remarks do not commend themselves to you I will conclude by saying that there is no department of national life which it is more necessary to improve and develop than that of education, but that department should be developed in the right way by a direct and controlling power at the Central Legislature.

8.40 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am very glad to have the opportunity of doing so because, speaking from some little experience of educational administration, I attach very great importance to it, and I am glad that even at this late hour the House has an opportunity of considering it. I do not wish to enter at any length into the position of education other than to say that education is one of the only two departments transferred to Indian Ministers in 1921 which have been the subject of thorough examination by an impartial body. The other was agriculture, which was inquired into by the Royal Commission on Agriculture on India. Education was the subject of a thorough inquiry by an auxiliary committee appointed by the Statutory Commission, and the report of that Committee could hardly have drawn a more serious picture than it did. To sum it up briefly, I would say that in regard to primary education the report showed that there had been a great increase in expenditure since the transfer of the service without a, commensurate increase in literacy, a matter all important in India.

In regard to secondary and university education, the Committee said that the standards were not what they ought to be, and that in the secondary schools and universities there were many young people who were not up to the standards that those institutions sought to maintain. Therefore, it was shown that for a great deal of the expenditure on secondary education the country was not deriving full benefit, and the census figures showed what has for long been a blemish on Indian educational administration, namely, the disproportion of the amount spent on secondary and univer- sity education compared with what was spent on primary education. In the last years before education was handed over to the Provincial Ministers the disproportion was being lessened, but between 1921 and 1931 when this has been entirely or almost entirely a provincial subject the disproportion has been increased.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT

If it is dealt with at the Centre it will be dealt with by Indians under the new Constitution in the same way as it was dealt with by Indians in the Provinces.

Duchess of ATHOLL

I am not concerned whether education is dealt with by Indians or Europeans. I realise that Indians must have a large share in the administration of education, whether Central or Provincial, but I hope that for many years to come it will be a service which will be staffed jointly so that educational administrators of experience from this country will be able to go out to India to help to guide and inform Indian Ministers and their officials. There is no proposal to have education centrally administered entirely. The proposal is to put it on the concurrent list so that there shall be brains both from the Centre and the Provinces working upon it.

Now I come to a very important point, and that is that the auxiliary committee which inquired into education expressly desired the Centre to take more power in regard to education than it had been exercising in the years since the transfer. It was their main recommendation that there should be more power to guide and advise from the Centre. They also wished the Centre to have the power to make grants for specific purposes and desired the recruitment of Europeans to be put in an unassailable position. The Statutory Commission, in effect, endorsed the recommendations of the auxiliary committee. They desired the Centre to have power to give information and advice, and to that end wished to see a revival of the bureau of information and advice which had been closed a few years before. They further said that they desired something which went beyond the mere giving of information and collection of statistics. Quite obviously, they wished a power of guidance to be in the hands of the Central Government as well as a power to give information; and they also wished the Central Government to help the Provinces financially in recruitment for the higher personnel, which I think again implies that they endorsed the recommendations of the auxiliary committee to the effect that there should be a certain recruitment of European staff in the higher posts.

These recommendations have not been carried out: and the five-yearly Report published by the educational commissioner to the Government of India records that there has been very little progress in education, very little done to remedy the defects which were exposed by the Statutory Commission and its auxiliary committee. It seems to me that almost every page of the Report of the Educational Commissioner to the Government of India shows the need for guidance in policy from the Centre. It also shows what admirable guidance in policy could be given by the present Commissioner for Education in India. It is a most helpful and illuminating document, and it would be of great assistance to the Provinces if it were possible for the Educational Commissioner to have power to get the Provinces together and give effect to some of these recommendations. Further, the report of a committee of inquiry into the Punjab university two years ago said that a drastic reorganisation of education was required. If a drastic reorganisation of any service is necessary you must get the best brains together and get everybody moving in the same direction. If secondary education in India, and particularly university education, is to be raised, some difficult and unpopular things will have to be done. The standard of entrance to these institutions will have to be raised, and that is not at all an easy thing to do. It would be quite impossible for any one provincial Minister or any two provincial Ministers to take action of that kind unless it were taken at the same time in all provinces. Obviously, such action would be much facilitated if there were someone at the Centre who had the power to call the representatives of the Provinces together, to confer with them and give a lead. I know that the Secretary of State will say that the Bill provides for an interprovincial council, which might be formed for education, and that the Governor-General has power to call that inter-provincial council into operation. It is plain, however, that the Provinces will be unable to take the lead themselves, and it seems to me that some expert at the Centre, should have the power to take the lead, which I feel is necessary if very difficult and unpopular action is going to be taken. I, therefore, deplore the thought that the present department of education in India, known as the Department of Education, Health and Lands, is going to cease to exist when the Bill is in full operation. Having had a little experience of the administration of education in this country as a member of a local authority and in a Government Department, I attach enormous importance to the assistance which a central department can give in helping local bodies to frame their policies wisely, spend their money in the best direction, concentrate their energies on the most important things, and help to secure a general level, or something like a general level, of efficiency. I can imagine nothing that is more important in India at the present time than that there should be drastic reforms in education, which will require great wisdom, great courage and great tact, to carry out. After all, education will be even more important in the future in India than it is to-day when the tremendous powers in this Bill are handed over.

The success of all democracies must depend on education, and it is lamentable to think that this great transfer of power should take place at a time when we have the unhappy picture of Indian education which is painted for us, and realise that the Bill is going to make impossible the very reforms which were urged by the responsible Statutory Commission and the expert committee in order to restore efficiency. From another point of view it is extremely important that no steps should be spared to restore efficiency in education. Large numbers, of young people go to secondary schools and universities who are not always of an intellectual capacity for that form of education, and large numbers of young people who come out of these colleges are unable to find posts, and perhaps not unnaturally become discontented and are afterwards found among the forces which contribute to serious trouble in India. This is an important matter therefore from the point of view of the political development and political stability of India, and as such I urge the Government, at this eleventh hour, to consider if they cannot give the Government of India some power in regard to education by putting it into the Concurrent List.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. BUTLER

I am tempted to follow the story of Indian education which has been painted in such gloomy colours to the House by the two Members. I do not question their sincerity of purpose, but I only say this, that as a member of a Government which is trying to conduct this Bill through the House of Commons I am obliged to stick to the machinery of the Bill, and therefore I have to examine the Amendment from that point of view. The object of the Amendment is to transfer the subject of education to the first part of the Concurrent List. I have to examine whether the objects which the hon. Members have in mind 'are achieved by inserting education as item 18 to the Concurrent List, Part I. The Noble Lady, who has read more closely than I have the advice of the Joint Select Committee in regard to the Concurrent List, will have noticed particularly the reference to Clause 126, Sub-section (2), that the executive authority of the Federation in matters of control and regulation does not apply to the Concurrent List, Part I, but to Part II. Therefore, if they desire control and regulation of education their Amendment has no meaning at all, because they propose to transfer it to Part I of the Concurrent List where the Central authority has no control. In that case it would be a waste of time to pursue the discussion further, and I would only add that it is the view of the Government that education should remain a Provincial subject. It is a matter of nation-building importance in which we are convinced that Indian ministers will concern themselves. There are powers in the Bill to set up an inter-Provincial body which would help and advise the Provinces. We are confident and hopeful that this will be so in the future, and if the long and reasoned speeches which have been made on this subject this evening are conveyed to India, I feel sure they will be studied with great interest, and if they do good the object of my hon. Friends will have been partly achieved.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES

I think that the Under-Secretary has disposed of the Amendment on the technical point that he has raised, but I would say one or two other words. While the two hon. Members who supported the Amendment were speaking, it seemed to me that they were thinking of a Province very much in terms of a county in this country. We are not discussing a small administrative area like that, but a Province that is much greater in area than our own country. Therefore, when you have granted to a Province autonomy in the matter of education, you have handed over a unit of administration which is very substantial indeed. I cannot imagine a case for transferring to a concurrent list except upon very limited ground. For instance, we in this country are very much concerned with the problem of raising the school-leaving age. We cannot do that locally because of the difficulty of boundaries and so on. There may be difficulties of that sort: there may be a case in favour of concurrent legislation for dealing with a difficulty of that sort. But it seems to me, as the Under-Secretary said, that the inter-Provincial arrangement provided for in the Bill will largely assist India to get over those difficulties.

I do not quite see, therefore, that the case in favour of transfer to the concurrent list is as strong as the hon. Members seemed to suggest. I rather felt from the beginning that the desire was to show how much the Provinces have failed in the matter of local administration in education. I do not think we are quite entitled to sit in judgment. After all, they have been at this job only some 15 years, and the figures given by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) are ample proof that they are active in the matter and doing their best to overcome arrears which ought not to have been there.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 362, line 5, after "railways," insert "subject to the provisions of List I with respect to such railways; municipal tramways; rope-ways;"

In line 6, leave out "List I with regard to navigable waterways situate in more than one unit," and insert" "List III with regard to such waterways."

In line 22, after "encumbered," insert "and attached."

In page 363, line 33, at the end, insert: subject to any limitations imposed by any Act of the Federal Legislature relating to mineral development.

In page 364, line 5, at the end, insert: 51. Dues on passengers and goods carried on inland waterways. 52. Tolls.

In page 365, line 30, at the end, insert: 32. Shipping and navigation on inland waterways as regards mechanically-propelled vessels, and the rule of the road on such waterways; carriage of passengers and goods on inland waterways."—[The Attorney-General.]