Orders of the Day — Government of India Bill. – in the House of Commons at on 27 March 1935.
Mr Thomas Inskip
, Fareham
I beg to move, in page 70, line 14, to leave out "public moneys in India," and to insert "the revenues of the Federation or of a Province."
This is a Clause, as hon. Members will see, which deals with subsidies for the encouragement of trade or industry, and the proposal contained in the Clause is:
Notwithstanding anything in any Act of the Federal Legislature or of a Provincial Legislature, companies incorporated, whether before or after the passing of this Act, by or under the laws of the United Kingdom and carrying on business in India shall be eligible for any grant, bounty, or subsidy payable out of public moneys in India for the encouragement of any trade or industry, to the same extent as companies incorporated by or under the laws of British India are eligible therefor.
It was never intended that the words "payable out of public moneys in India" should apply to any of the States. The words that we now propose to insert in place of the words "public moneys in India" will make it perfectly clear that the clause is not intended to include moneys that are payable in or by the States. It is really a drafting Amendment from the point of view that it was never intended that the words "public moneys in India" should have the wide scope that it has been suggested to the Government they might have.
Lieut-General Edward Fitzroy
, Daventry
Does the Noble Lady desire to move her Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (2)? If so, I must reserve my right, after she has explained it, to rule it out of order if I find that it involves repetition of a discussion which has already taken place.
Duchess of ATHOLL:
I beg to move, in page 70, line 30, to leave out Subsection (2).
The Sub-section says:
Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, an Act of the Federal Legislature or of a Provincial Legislature may require, in the case of a company which
at the date of the passing of that Act was not engaged in British India in that branch of trade or industry which it is the purpose of the grant, bounty or subsidy to encourage, that the company shall not be eligible for any grant, bounty or subsidy under the Act unless—
The Committee will see that the Subsection imposes very serious restrictions on companies which propose at some future date, at a date to be selected by the Indian Legislature, to trade in India and so to become eligible for some bounty or subsidy that is proposed to be given. I cannot help feeling that conditions (a), (b) and (c) with regard to the giving of the bounty are reminiscent of conditions which were imposed on British companies in India during the time of the boycott in 1930–31 as a condition of being allowed to carry on their business. Those were not the only terms that were then imposed. The conditions as a whole which were imposed on British companies constitute one of the most humiliating documents I have ever had in my hands. I cannot describe my feelings when I realised that British firms all over India had been subjected to the humiliations therein imposed, and it seems to me very terrible to find that in this Bill, which is going to give a new Constitution to India, there should be conditions very similar to the conditions in that terrible document. It seems to me lamentable that the Government should embody in the Bill conditions clearly allowing such discrimination.
The Sub-section is absolutely unjustified. It allows discrimination to be made in the future unless certain anomalous and unparalleled conditions are complied with. In this country no such conditions are required. I understand that in the case of foreigners who wish to have a company incorporated here the fact has to be entered that so many directors are of foreign origin, but nobody suggests that we will not have more than a certain number of foreign directors, and it is not the case that we are foreigners in India. It is a case here of Indians refusing to treat us as British subjects who have a right to trade in India. This seems to me to be flying in the face of what we always understood was to be one of the conditions under which powers would be transferred, namely, that no discrimination would be imposed on British trade in India.
Viscount Wolmer
, Aldershot
This Sub-section appears to me a very good example of "directly and indirectly." I cannot help wondering whether my hon. and learned Friend did not have it on his official note in support of the Amendment he was moving just now that the words direct and indirect were inconsistent with Clause 116, Sub-section (2). It appears to me that they were. I strongly support the Amendment of my Noble Friend. When one remembers what Britain has given to India in the shape of security, peace, prosperity and trade, it is intolerable that the Indian Legislature should be in a position to discriminate directly or indirectly against British companies in this matter. That action, I think, is not taken against companies of this country in any other part of the British Empire, except Southern Ireland. If the Government are content with a framework, a shop-window camouflage of accession to the British Empire, I am not, and I would much rather see those parts which are working against British trade outside the protection of the British Flag. It appears to me wrong in principle that it should be admitted in an Act of Parliament that any part of the Empire should be entitled to discriminate against British companies in the fashion contemplated in this Sub-section. I am aware that in India there is a very acute feeling against certain Dominions, particularly South Africa, and I think also Canada, where it is felt there has been discrimination against Indians in those Dominions. I think I am right in saying that the Bill, while in some parts it gives India the power of retaliatory action against those Dominions which have discriminated against India, in every other part it puts the inhabitants of these Islands in a different position.
Great Britain has never discriminated against India. What public man has ever ventured to say that an Indian company with a Majority of Indian shareholders, and a board composed en- tirely of Indians should not be able to claim in Great Britain every right which is enjoyed by a British company? No one in public life has ever dared to advance such a proposition. I prefer to think of Indians and Englishmen as equally British subjects. Here you are allowing the legislature of India to effect a discrimination in their bounties and subsidies against firms which are British. That is deplorable. It is opening the door to further diminution of British trade in India; it is admitting a principle which is fundamentally wrong and which cannot be justified by any moral consideration as long as India remains a part of the British Empire and enjoys the privilege of the defence of the Empire.
Mr John Wardlaw-Milne
, Kidderminster
I feel rather sorry that I cannot follow my two Noble Friends in their denunciation and indignation of the Clause. I suggest that they are reading something into it which does not exist at all. The principle embodied in this Sub-section is nothing new. It was accepted long before any new constitution for India was thought of. From my own personal knowledge I know that this matter was discussed 20 years ago and accepted by Governments in India, which had no tendency towards a new constitution. The question really has nothing to do with prejudice or discrimination. It is simply this, that if and when the Government of India decide to give Indian taxpayers' money to support or promotae a new enterprise by means of a subsidy, it is suggested that it is only right that the subsidy should be given to a company which has a certain number of Indian shareholders and Indian directors, and which gives certain facilities for the trade of Indians in that particular industry. It is a question when Indian taxpayers' money is being spent. You may say that it is wrong that India should lay down these conditions. The Noble Lord asked most emphatically whether such a thing could be suggested in England. I say that it is very natural to suggest when we are going to give British taxpayers' money as a subsidy to industries in this country, that the companies must be British, with British capital and British shareholders. India does not ask that all should be Indians, but that there should be a cer- tain proportion of Indians. That is not an unreasonable proposal.
Viscount Wolmer
, Aldershot
Does the hon. Member suggest that the Dutch—
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
Laws are the rules by which a country is governed. Britain has a long history of law making and the laws of this country can be divided into three types:- 1) Statute Laws are the laws that have been made by Parliament. 2) Case Law is law that has been established from cases tried in the courts - the laws arise from test cases. The result of the test case creates a precedent on which future cases are judged. 3) Common Law is a part of English Law, which has not come from Parliament. It consists of rules of law which have developed from customs or judgements made in courts over hundreds of years. For example until 1861 Parliament had never passed a law saying that murder was an offence. From the earliest times courts had judged that murder was a crime so there was no need to make a law.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
The term "majority" is used in two ways in Parliament. Firstly a Government cannot operate effectively unless it can command a majority in the House of Commons - a majority means winning more than 50% of the votes in a division. Should a Government fail to hold the confidence of the House, it has to hold a General Election. Secondly the term can also be used in an election, where it refers to the margin which the candidate with the most votes has over the candidate coming second. To win a seat a candidate need only have a majority of 1.
