BURMA (ADAPTATION OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT) (Hansard, 28 November 1946)

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)
May we have an explanation of this Motion?

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson)
The object of this Order is to carry on for a further period the exemption of Burma from Section 4 of the Import Duties Act, 1932. As the House will be aware, and as I said in March, when a draft Order 1912 on this subject was last passed, it has been necessary, ever since 1937, when Burma was first given self-government under the Government of Burma Act, I935, to provide this exemption. The object is to enable Burma to enter into a trade agreement under the Import Duties Act, 1932. For one reason or another, it has not been found possible for the Government of Burma to enter into a trading agreement with this country, and, consequently, previous Governments as well as this Government, have found it necessary to come to the House from time to time, and ask for this exemption to be continued until it has been found possible for the Government of Burma to enter into this trade agreement. The difficulty at the moment arises because of the approaching international trade organisation conference. It is thought better to wait still further until we see what emerges from that, before His Majesty's Government and the Government of Burma enter into discussions with a view to a trading agreement.

§ Earl Winterton
I would like to say in all courtesy and seriousness to the hon. and learned Gentleman—I know he will not regard this as a criticism but as a friendly suggestion—that the long experience of Indian government which I have had, and which so far as this country is concerned is unique, has shown me that nothing annoys Indian opinion more than the impression that we deal with their affairs in this House in a casual manner. I intend this as a perfectly friendly suggestion. I hope that when these important matters come before us—and this Motion deals with a substantial matter—the hon. and learned Gentleman will get up and explain them.

§ Mr. A. Henderson
I had intended to give an explanation.

§ Earl Winterton
It is important that they should be explained. I am not at all clear, and I doubt if other Members who have studied this matter are quite clear, as to how Burma stands in this matter. May I say in passing—I know you would chide me Mr. Speaker, if I went outside the terms of the Order—that this House is still largely responsible for the government of a vast country like Burma, where there are millions of people. This Order applies to the trading welfare, indeed the 1913 individual welfare, of millions of people who are under the, at any rate, remote control of this House. It is most desirable, in considering an Order of this kind, that we bear this fact, in mind. I wish to ask one question. I am not clear, from the explanatory note, what the position of Burma is at the present time. If hon. Members have the explanatory note in their hand they will see that the first three paragraphs deal with the situation as it existed before the war, and the third paragraph ends by saying: the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) Order, 1937, was made in March, 1937, applying Section 4 to Burma (i.e., classing Burma with the Dominions and India) with effect from the 31st March, 1938. This meant that Burma had a year's grace during which she enjoyed colonial immunity from duties in order to make an agreement under the Ottawa scheme. If at the end of the year she had not made such an agreement she would cease to enjoy Imperial Preference. That is clear enough. Anyone familiar with the Ottawa Agreement knows how Burma stands in relation to that. What I am not clear about, and what I wish to ask a question about, is what is said in the last two paragraphs: Various factors prevented Burma concluding an agreement before the outbreak of war and, so as not to penalise her undeservedly, it was found necessary by successive Orders in Council to extend the period of grace from year to year.

§ Mr. Speaker
This matter was discussed before when this Order came before the House in former years. Therefore we cannot go over that ground again. Surely that is a fait accompli.

§ Earl Winterton
Surely, Mr. Speaker, when an Order is issued with an explanatory note—and I understand this is an explanatory note issued with the Order— one is entitled to refer to it.

§ Mr. Speaker
But these matters were discussed before. We can only discuss the last twelve months because the Order has been renewed every twelve months, for the past six or seven years. We cannot go back on various factors existing before the outbreak of war.

§ Earl Winterton
I am referring to the explanatory note, and I am afraid I must ask you, Sir for a Ruling upon this. I submit that when an Order of this kind is issued, and there is an explanatory note, one is entitled to refer to the explanatory 1914 note. Otherwise it would make nonsense of our procedure. If an explanatory note is to be of use, surely we must refer to it.

§ Mr. Speaker
Various factors might have been discussed when the Order was presented twelve months ago. These various factors have existed every year since the war began, and before. Therefore this reference is simply a statement of fact. I do not think it is in Order to ask about these various factors, now, because they are past.

§ Earl Winterton
May I again call your attention, Sir, to the particular paragraph which I was quoting: Various factors prevented Burma concluding an agreement before the outbreak of war, and, so as not to penalise her undeservedly, it was found necessary by successive Orders in Council to extend the period of grace from year to year.

§ Mr. Speaker
It was necessary to point out from year to year that it had been found necessary to disregard these various factors. The Orders were passed from year to year, and were decisions of the House, and it is not in Order to raise them again.

§ Earl Winterton
Then I must raise another point of Order. The note goes on to say: The last Order elapses on 30th November, 1946. I call particular attention to the next words of the explanatory note: It is still necessary to give the Government of Burma a breathing space in which to make their trade agreement with the U.K., which may depend on the conclusions reached in the present International Trade Negotiations. As the present International Trade Negotiations were not taking place on the occasion of the former passing of the Order, my object was to ask a question about the present International Trade Negotiations. When the House discussed this matter before, the International Trade Negotiations were not in operation. Is it not then in Order for me to ask a question?

§ Mr. Speaker
The Order emphasises that clearly, and, therefore, it is perfectly in Order for the noble Lord 'to ask any question in reference to the International Trade negotiations that are referred to.

§ Earl Winterton
I hope, Sir, you will allow me to make a most humble apology 1915 to the Chair, and to say that I deeply regret that, owing to my stupidity in not making clear at the commencement of my statement that I was referring to the last sentence dealing with the International Trade Negotiations, it was necessary to call me to Order. I now come to the question which I propose to ask the hon. and learned gentleman. I want to know whether it is not the case that since we passed this Order last, there has been a change in the constitution of the Government of Burma. I understand we now have an interim Government in Burma, which is not, in any sense of the word, a Dominion Government or a Government which has the same status as the Government of India. I therefore want to know, reverting to the last sentence of the explanatory note, about the necessity of giving the Government of Burma breathing space, whether we have or have not any power under this Order to approach the Government of Burma to ask them to make an agreement which many of us regard as really desirable. He may say it is ultra viresand, therefore, out of Order to discuss it tonight. Have we not, under the interim Government, full power to make representations; and will he give us an assurance that everything will be done? I think he will be the first to agree that it is most desirable to make this agreement if possible.

§ Mr. A. Henderson
I would like to say at once, that there is no basis for any suggestion that the legal basis of the Burma Constitution has been altered by political developments recently. The legal basis of the Constitution of Burma rests today, as it did during the term of previous Governments since 1935, on the Government of Burma Act, 1935. That is the position today. So far as the Government of Burma is concerned, it is entitled to ask for discussions with regard to a trading agreement with the U.K. Government, but I have indicated that, in the view of the U.K. Government, it is desirable to wait until we see the outcome of the international discussions which are taking place, and which will eventually merge into an International Conference which I believe is to begin in April next year.

§ Mr. Brendan Bracken (Bournemouth)
Is Burma to be represented there?

§ Mr. Henderson
That will be a matter for the Government of Burma—whether they will be represented through the U.K. delegation. This is a matter for the Burma Government and not for the U.K. Government.

§ Earl Winterton
What does the hon. and learned Member mean—does he mean His Majesty's Government? It is very important for the Government of Burma that the agreement should be made on behalf of His Majesty's Government.

§ Mr. Henderson
What I said was that in the view of His Majesty's Government, if we are going to have an agreement between the two parties both parties should express their views as to whether the time is opportune. In the view of the U.K. Government, the time is not opportune now to enter into a trading agreement with Burma because we desire to wait until we see the outcome of the International Conference.

§ Mr. Bracken
But the hon. and learned Gentleman must explain something. Are the Government of Burma to be represented? The hon. and learned Gentleman apparently assumes they are going to attend. But are the Government of Burma in fact going to attend this Conference?

§ Mr. Henderson
I did not say they were going to be represented. I said they would have the right to be represented, but that is a matter for the Government of Burma to decide.

§ Mr. Rees-Williams (Croydon, South)
I rise because on a previous occasion, when an Order relating to Burma came before this House, the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) made certain references to hon. Members on these benches.

§ Mr. Speaker
That has nothing to do with this Order.

§ Mr. Rees-Williams
My remark is only introductory. I was going to say that the insinuation was made that we were not interested in the subject before the House. I want to say tonight, so as to let the people of Burma know, that many of us on these benches are interested in Burma, and fully support this Order, and hope it will have the results which are intended.