HL Deb 24 April 1923 vol 53 cc821-9
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (VISCOUNT PEEL)

My Lords, I beg to make the Motion of which I have given Notice—namely, That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider with a view to reporting if necessary thereon any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India.

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make one or two brief remarks in explanation of this Motion. Let me, in the first place, say one word about the origin of this Joint Committee on Indian Affairs. The first reference made to such a Committee is in the Report on Indian Constitutional Reform, but the suggestion there is for the appointment of a Committee of the House of Commons. In the Report of the Joint Committee that dealt with the Government of India Bill of 1919, however, the idea is developed into a Standing Joint Committee of both Houses. The object with which that Joint Committee is to be set up is explained so well in that Report that I should like to read to the House the words of the Committee.

Speaking of the Bill of 1919, they Said:— The change which this Bill will make in the political structure and life of India is very important. It marks a great step on the path of self-government and it is a proof of the confidence reposed by His Majesty's Government in the loyalty, wisdom and capacity of our Indian fellow subjects. At the same time it points to the desirability of keeping Parliament in closer touch with Indian affairs than has recently been possible. The Committee accordingly proposes that a Standing Joint Committee should be appointed by both Houses of Par- liament for that purpose. It should have no set Functions, but a purely advisory and consultative status, and among its tasks is one of high importance—the consideration of amendments to the Rules made under the Bill. As the result of that advice this Joint Committee was set up and it functioned last year and the year before.

Looking into the matter in order that I might understand exactly what the reference to the Committee was, I discovered, rather to my surprise, that the Committee had no reference at all. I have consulted precedents on that subject and I understand that it is not only unusual, but unprecedented, to set up Committees or Joint Committees of both House of Parliament merely to consider generally the affairs of India or of any other place. It seems an extraordinary anomaly to set up a Committee without a reference. A Committee without a reference is like a soul without a body: it has no tenement through which it can act and naturally roves freely, and perhaps rather wildly, over very wide areas. I have been informed, in fact, by my noble friend Lord Islington, who was Chairman of the Committee, that, owing to this general freedom of the Committee, he found it rather difficult to limit the activities of its members in their desire to pasture rather freely on the extensive fields of Indian affairs.

But there is another anomaly about this Committee—namely, that it draws up its own reference. And, if it is an anomaly that a Committee should sit without a reference, it is even more of an anomaly that a Committee should draw up its own reference. And, with all respect to the Committee, I think its reference was drawn up rather freely. It enabled any member to raise any question connected with Indian administration, and I think there are certain risks and difficulties in a procedure of that kind. I will not say that it might to some extent approach to the French system of infringing upon the responsibility of Ministers, but it might have a tendency that way. And whether that system is a good or a had one as applicable to other countries, I think your Lordships will entirely agree with me that it ought not to be introduced by a side wind in the case of a particular Committee, but ought to be introduced, if at all, after careful consideration of the constitutional problems involved. There is or might be another difficulty or danger n the way. If it were generally known in India that a Joint Committee of both Houses was examining into and reporting upon all sorts of administrative questions which are dealt with by the Government of India, it might raise some constitutional difficulty as to the extent to which Committees of the House of Commons really should deal with administrative affairs in India.

But, while I mention those two limitations, it seems to me that it is of very great value, not only for the Government of India and for the Houses of Parliament but also for the Secretary of State, that such a Committee should be established. You thus have a Standing Committee in which is concentrated a great deal of knowledge and information about India and specially fitted to be a sort of standing body to which all measures affecting India should be handed over for consideration and report. Further, any matter which either House of Parliament thinks should be referred to that Committee should stand so referred. But there is another consideration still. As your Lordships know, there are a great many members of this House who, having been Viceroys or Governors of Provinces, have a great knowledge of Indian affairs, and that knowledge might fairly be brought to bear to assist the Government and the Secretary of State on Indian matters. Some of that knowledge, however, must necessarily be not quite up to date, and I think it is a great advantage that a Secretary of State should be able to come before this Committee and post it up, if I may so express it, in what is happening in India in all the different provinces of administration, so that they may be able to apply the great knowledge that they have acquired of India with full information as to the recent developments that are taking place in that country.

You thus have a carefully instructed body of men in both Houses who, when debates on Indian subjects take place, are able to bring to bear in the consideration of Indian affairs not only their own intelligence or their ancient information, but fresh information, dovetailed into the knowledge which they have already gained of India. They thereby have a very considerable effect in organising, controlling, and guiding opinion in both Houses of Parliament as to the best way of conduct- ing Indian affairs. I hope your Lordships will assent to this Motion because, in moving it in this form, I am merely trying to bring back the Standing Committee to the original intention of the Committee on whose recommendation it was set up, and to some extent to limit its functions to those which were intended by the. Joint Committee which advised its being set up.

Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to thorn specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider with a view to reporting if necessary thereon any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India.—(Viscount Peel.)

LORD ISLINGTON

My Lords, the Motion of the noble Viscount gives me the opportunity to say how much I welcome the amended form in which he is now presenting it to the House. I say this with a vivid recollection of the experiences of that Committee during the past two years when I had the honour to preside over it. It is true; as the noble Viscount said, that the Committee was appointed without any reference. It was set up as the result of a recommendation made by the Joint Committee presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, which dealt with the Government of India Bill and reported to Parliament upon it. It was set up with a view of bringing about a closer connection between Parliament and India. Having no reference, it fell to the lot of that Committee when it was formed two years ago, to formulate its own regulations. The first two regulations were similar to those now embodied in the Motion, but the third regulation laid it down that any member of the Committee might suggest a topic for inquiry and that, if the majority of the Committee agreed to that particular topic being inquired into, that course should be taken.

I hold the view, which I think must be shared by many of my late colleagues, that this particular provision led us into a good deal of difficulty during the past two years. It certainly entailed on the members a great deal of work which proved in the result to be of a somewhat abortive character. It is the case with Joint, Committees, as with all other Committees, that all their members are not always present when subjects of this character are brought up. The result in our case was that topics for examination were agreed to by the Committee when some of its members from this and the other House were not present. During the past two years we have ranged over several subjects. We dealt, first of all—properly and, I think, usefully dealt—with the Burma Government Bill. The Committee had been asked to draft a Bill for Parliament. The next topic that came before the Committee was the constitutional position of the various races in Kenya, which, as your Lordships are aware, is one of the most complex and pressing questions of to-day. There was a good deal of controversy as to whether that was a proper subject for the Committee to consider. However, the Committee decided by a majority to go into it. Speaking for myself—I know that some of my late colleagues may not agree—I rather think that the Report we made to Parliament on that subject was not without its uses although I grieve to see that Parliament did not recognise it as such and took no notice of it, nor did the Secretary of Star, for the Colonies notice it at all. I may say in parenthesis that the Committee recommended that a Commission should go out to Kenya to inquire, into the matter on the spot, and I cannot help thinking that had such a course been followed two years ago by a properly constituted Commission the difficulties which now confront my noble friend and the Government might not have been so acute. That in a way was an abortive inquiry although we sat for many weeks upon it.

Last year, the Committee decided first of all to examine into the British military establishment in India. It was very soon found by all the members, though some had fully recognised it at the start, that a subject of such tremendous complexity involving the consideration of questions of the highest policy could not fittingly be dealt with and reported upon to Parliament with any authority by a Committee sitting at Westminster. We reported, but, again, I think that Report was not read by many beyond the members of the joint Committee. The subject that we next took in hand, again on the initiative of the Com- mittee, was the financial and general position of the Indian Civil Service. That, of course, was a subject which could not possibly be dealt with by a Joint Committee sitting in Westminster, because it had not access to the necessary information. While I was Chairman I was often approached by prominent Indians with reference to suggesting to the Committee that they should examine an equally complex question—the adjustment of the financial position of the Central and Provincial Governments of India.

I quote those instances to show that unless a Committee is carefully guided by the proper authority it may find itself confronted with subjects which very soon must be recognised by all the members to be beyond their power to deal with adequately or satisfactorily. I doubt whether there are many questions or problems—I refer especially to problems—in India which a Committee of this character can Usefully consider and report upon, because all these problems have become so localised in India, are so complex and so intricate as to require to be inquired into on the spot with all the best expert evidence and documents accessible to the Committee, none of which can be had in Westminster.

It may be that when the Secretary of State for India makes from time to time a general survey of the situation in India, the Committee may find that there is a subject which it will be a public service to bring to the notice of Parliament and, under this revised Resolution, that can be done in the days to come. I very much welcome this limitation of the powers of the Committee because it places that body on a proper constitutional basis. After all, the Joint Committee is appointed by Parliament, and Parliament is the proper body to direct it as to its investigations and work. It is quite right that the Secretary of State should give the Committee from time to time all the information available, and upon this, of course, the Committee can report to Parliament and leave Parliament to decide whether it is a public service to take cognisance of the Report.

The limitation of this power will also be welcomed, I cannot help thinking, in India, because as India proceeds along its constitutional path I am sure that all who are connected with it, whether Govern- ments, legislatures or members of the public, will look very jealously to Parliament at home to see that no undue interference takes place in regard to subjects with which it has become their proper province to deal. They would certainly resent any Report to Parliament by a Joint Committee based upon what very often would have to be inadequate and incomplete information. The Resolution as now drafted will obviate those difficulties, and I feel that the position of the Chairman of the Committee will correspondingly be easier than it was in the past. I welcome the Motion in its present form.

LORD HARRIS

My Lords, I should like to endorse what was said by my noble friend opposite about the limitation which has been put upon the subjects for discussion by this Committee, because I certainly felt at the end of last Session that we had ranged with very little use over too wide a field. The subjects concerned with the administration of India are wide enough in all conscience to occupy a Joint Committee for many years, but if, in addition to the subjects of the administration of India itself, are to be added the affairs of Indians in any part of the world your Lordships can understand, without my elaborating the point, how immensely the field is widened. That is what happened, as the noble Lord has described, in regard to the subject of the affairs of the Indian colonists in Kenya.

Having accepted the noble Viscount's invitation, subject to your Lordships' approval, for service again on this Committee, I am thankful for the wording of this Resolution. It properly limits the matters which we can be called upon to discuss, and, therefore, we shall be the better able to concentrate upon one or more of the more useful subjects. The only apprehension I have is that the Secretary of State himself, who has a very wide field of reference, may call upon us to report upon any matter relating to Indian affairs, and that may, of course, include the affairs of Indians outside India. I can only say that I deprecate anything of that kind. I sincerely trust that the Secretary of State will curb his desire to refer to us as much as possible, and will confine himself to the affairs of India itself, and not to those of Indians in any part of the world.

VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD

My Lords, as one of the members of the Committee I welcome, with my noble friends, the proposal which my noble friend Lord Peel has brought forward. There is one point with regard to the work of the Committee on which I should like to lay stress. This Committee originated in the Report which Mr. Montagu and I made on the constitutional affairs of India, and the idea underlying our proposal was this. There were few Members in the other place who were acquainted with the affairs of India, and we felt that it would be a very great advantage to India and to the other place if a certain number of Members of that House were able to meet with the Secretary of State for India, and have brought before them and discuss with him questions relating to India. When it came to the Committee under my noble friend Lord Selborne, that Committee was enlarged by Members from the House of Commons into a Joint Committee of both Houses. I may say that when we made that Report we did not suggest the House of Lords, because we thought that there were many of your Lordships familiar with the affairs of India who could speak of them in this House with knowledge and large experience.

I recognise, however, what Lord Peel has said, that it is of very great value to us who have been in India to have our knowledge brought up-to-date by contact with the Secretary of State within the Committee itself, and that is the point I wish to emphasise to my noble friend Lord Peel. I hope the terms of reference will not be regarded by any of his successors as precluding them from giving the Committee information from time to time on questions relating to India. I am sure that will be of the very greatest value to the Committee; indeed, I, as part-author of the suggestion, regard it as the most important part of the work which this Committee is to do.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, may I say one word in reply to the points raised? I am very much obliged to your Lordships for the way in which you have received these suggestions regarding the limitations and activities of the Committee, and I can assure my noble friend Lord Harris that I will try to use such powers as may be granted me by this House with great discretion, and not load upon his shoulders the burden of examining into illimitable details. As regards the observations of my noble friend Lord Chelmsford, I agree that it was intended the Secretary of State should be in touch with the Committee, and place before them information which would bring their already great knowledge of Indian subjects up-to-date. Nor do I think there need be any anxiety on that account. As my noble friend knows, this Motion is moved every Session, and it is always possible, if the reference is too narrow or too wide, to alter it in accordance with the experience obtained.

On Question, Motion agreed to.