INDIA AND BURMA (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 9 May 1939)

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

§ LORD RANKEILLOUR
My Lords, I should be more than human if I did not take the opportunity that this Motion gives me and yield to the temptation of saying to the Secretary of State "I told you so!" In the India Committee, where he and I spent laborious days, and later in this House when the Bill was in Committee, I urged most strongly that in time of emergency the Central Government of India should have the right to supersede the Provincial authorities and to exercise their powers. I did not prevail with the Committee; I did not succeed in converting the noble Marquess. But now I find in Clause 4 that all I then asked for is now to be provided, and indeed rather more, because he now deals with maritime questions and I only made my suggestion with relation to the security of the frontier. I can only trust that if I presume in the future to offer advice to the noble Marquess again, it will not be four years before he takes it.

§ THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND
My Lords, I very much appreciate what the noble Lord has said, but it must not be assumed that I agree with him that Clause 4 of the Bill which is now before your Lordships is the same as the Amendment 998 which the noble Lord proposed to move to the original Bill four years ago.

§ LORD RANKEILLOUR
It is better.

§ THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND
No, no. There is one material respect in which the clause differs from the proposals which were then made by the noble Lord. What the noble Lord proposed to do four years ago was to extend the area of administration over which the Governor-General at the centre and the Governors in the Provinces would act in their discretion; that is to say, without reference to their Ministers. Clause 4 of this Bill does not propose that. Clause 4 proposes that the Governor-General should act in collaboration with the Central Legislature and with his advisers. That, of course, is a very different thing. It is quite true that there are provisions in the Act under which, in the event of the Central Legislature not co-operating with the Governor-General, he would be in a position to go over their heads. The whole intention of Clause 4 is, however, that, in the first instance at any rate, he should act in co-operation with his Legislature and his Government, and not over their heads. I hope the noble Lord realises the difference.

§ LORD RANKEILLOUR
I admit there is a difference, but it is a difference really of very little substance. I indicated a want and the noble Marquess has filled the gap, and I tender him my hearty thanks for doing so.