My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.

My Lords, I beg now to move that this Bill be read a second time. The history and origin of the Bill are as follows. The Government of India recently found it necessary for their defence arrangements to take the power to conscript Europeans in India for military service. They found, however, that this was beyond their powers, which were limited by Section 110 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which among other things bans the making in India of "any law which would affect the Army Act." The Government of India accordingly asked my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to secure the necessary Parliamentary legislation to enable them to do this. My right honourable friend felt that it was only common prudence, having regard to possible developments in the war situation in the near future, to bring in a Bill of rather wider scope, and instead of merely empowering the Government of India to conscript Europeans, to take into account the possibility either that the Government of India might find it temporarily impossible to communicate with His Majesty's Government in this country, or that action urgently required here for Indian purposes which could under the Act only be taken here could not in fact be taken at all or could not be taken in due time. The only means of meeting that situation is to enable the Governor-General himself, as a temporary measure and during the existence of this possible emergency, to take action himself, and that is what this Bill to which I ask the assent of your Lordships' House actually does.

The matters that lie beyond the scope of any authority in India fall into three categories, which are covered by the first three subsections of Clause 1 of the Bill. They are, first, the making of those appointments which are reserved for His Majesty—an obvious instance is that of a Governor of a Province; secondly, the amendment of Orders in Council made under the Act which, as the Act stands, can only be amended by the King in Council after the draft Amending Order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, and the amendment of Rules relating to members of certain of the public Services in India which, under the Act, can be amended only by the Secretary of State himself; and, thirdly, legislation on matters which, under the Act, lie beyond the competence of any Legislature in India as "affecting" the Army Act, the Air Force Act or the Naval Discipline Act, and which therefore can in normal times be enacted only by this Parliament.

To give a concrete example of each of these categories, as regards appointments, circumstances might arise in which, if a Provincial Governor in India suddenly died, it was found to be impossible in practice to secure a Warrant under the Sign Manual appointing a successor. In that event but for the provisions of this Bill it would be impossible for the very important functions of a Governor to be carried out, or easily to be carried out, by anyone. Under this Bill the vacancy would be filled by an appointment made by the Governor-General instead of by the Secretary of State. The difficulty does not arise in the case of the Governor-General, since there is statutory provision for his place to be filled in the event of sudden death. As regards Rules and Orders in Council, it might be found to be vitally and urgently necessary in order to meet circumstances arising out of the war that some provision in the large body of subsidiary legislation under the Act, consisting of Orders in Council and of Rules made by the Secretary of State, should be amended. As your Lordships will remember, the numerous Orders in Council made under the India and the Burma Acts and any amendments of them are peculiar in that they have to be approved in draft (and may be amended) by both Houses of Parliament (and, incidentally, examined by a Committee of your Lordships' House) before consideration by the Privy Council. Without this Bill, if such a breakdown of communications should occur such amendment would be impossible, and the Bill makes it possible for the Governor-General to make the necessary amendment.

I have already given your Lordships an example of the kind of case which might arise about legislation. Here the proposal is not that the Indian Legislature should be empowered to pass a Bill notwithstanding that, in the words of the Act, it would "affect the Army Act, the Air Force Act or the Naval Discipline Act," but that the Governor-General himself should enact the necessary measure under his ordinance-making power, the six months time limit which governs him at the present time being removed. Your Lordships will readily appreciate the reasons for that. It would clearly be undesirable that an Act conscripting Europeans in India should have a duration of only six months, and the same may well be the case with other measures relating to defence. Subsection (4) of Clause I brings the Governor-General directly under the statutory control of the Secretary of State in all his operations under this Bill for so long as such control is physically possible.

Clause 2 repeats for Burma, with the necessary variations in references, the provisions of Clause 1 which apply to India. Clause 3 confines the operation of the Bill from the date of its passage to a date to be signified by Order in Council, and Clause 4 provides that the blank cheque which this Bill presents to the Governor-General and to the Governor of Burma will not in fact be filled in and presented for payment until the necessity has actually arisen. It provides that so long as reference to the Secretary of State is possible such reference is to be made, and it will rest with the Secretary of State to decide whether, in the particular circumstances of the moment, the ordinary procedure can be followed, or whether the powers provided by this Bill should be exercised and the action required taken in India or Burma. The provisions of subsection (2) of Clause 4 are modelled on similar provisions in the Government of India Act, and the idea is to prevent application to the Court for injunctions in India or Burma on the allegation, for example, that the Secretary of State ought to have been and could have been consulted before the action was taken, and that therefore the action was invalid.

It is quite obvious that the powers which this Bill confers on the Governor-General of India and the Governor of Burma are theoretically very extensive indeed, and that the control which was intended to be kept by Parliament in its own hands over the operation of the Government of India Act is theoretically wiped out. But I have very little doubt that your Lordships generally will agree that if the circumstances which the Bill is intended to deal with should in fact arise, we should be well advised to trust the Governor-General and the Governor of Burma to exercise their nominally wide powers prudently and wisely rather than run the risk of possible enemy operations placing very serious difficulties in the way of carrying on the efficient administration of India and Burma. There has been, however, a little misunderstanding about this Bill in certain sections of the Press, which foreshadowed some important constitutional change. There is really no such change. This is really a measure of insurance designed to give the Governor-General of India and the Governor of Burma certain powers in the event, and only in the event, of its becoming physically impossible for the Secretary of State to use these powers. In these circumstances I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

My Lords, my right honourable and honourable friends in another place examined this Bill care- fully and came to the conclusion that it was necessary, desirable, and unobjectionable, and my noble friends take the same view in your Lordships' House. I only have to thank the noble Duke for the very clear explanation he has given.

My Lords, I have no idea of offering any form of opposition to this Bill. On the contrary, I believe it to be a most necessary measure, as the noble Duke has so clearly explained. It must be seen by all the people of India to be an advantage that, in certain circumstances, the strength of the defence of India should be increased by some such measure as this if it proved to be necessary. I can conceive, for instance, that in some circumstances it might be thought desirable to move to some scene of operations a part of the British troops now in India. In such a case I can well believe it would be thought, possibly, desirable to use the powers included in this measure by adding to the defence forces of India a number of civilians of the British race who would, no doubt, be thoroughly glad to take part in the defence of the country. The functions of the British troops in India are, as we all know, to defend India against any act of aggression from outside and, possibly in the last resort, to help to secure internal peace in cases, which we hope are not at all likely to arise, where the police force is not entirely adequate to carry out the instructions of the Government. In these circumstances I feel sure the people of India will welcome the measure, and I have no doubt that both the Government of India and the Government of Burma will have seen, by consultation with those who represent opinion in India and in Burma, that the people of India and Burma in a matter of this kind will work in close contact with the two Governments.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

My Lords, the Commons Amendments are on the Table, I understand, if your Lordships require them. The first Amendment is a very simple one. It inserts the words "and of the time within which, and the place at which, objections to the application may be made." These words are inserted in order to make clear the purpose of the newspaper advertisements calling attention to the local charities. I wish, with your Lordships' permission, to include the next Amendment in the same explanation. This second Amendment inserts the words "after considering any such objections." I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.

My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to prevent a charity from evading the completion of an investigation by transferring its administrative centre to another area. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons to the said Amendment.

My Lords, this Amendment is designed to make the power of inspection conferred on the registration authority and the Charity Commissioners comprehensive and, in particular, to cover the minutes of the meetings of the management committee. I beg to move that this House doth agree.

My Lords, I think this is the only Amendment of any substance at all. In previous discussions there was a question raised as to the size of the authority. In the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons it was pointed out that under the Act of 1916, all borough and urban district councils were registration authorities, but the Charity Commissioners found that some of the large number of registration authorities thus created—and especially those in some of the smaller areas—were inactive. When charities for the blind were dealt with by the Blind Persons Act, 1920, only the county and county borough councils were made registration authorities. The same course was adopted in the present Bill, but a strong plea was made both on the Second Reading and in the subsequent discussion for the inclusion of borough and urban district councils, on the ground that in the towns the local councils are much better qualified to deal with the local charities than the county councils which are often remote and distant bodies. It must, however, be remembered that this is not merely a question of allowing local councils to look after local affairs. Registration is effective for appeals in any part of the country and one slack registration authority might afford an opening for numerous undeserving appeals on a national basis. Moreover, the admission of all borough and urban district councils would increase the number of registration authorities from 147 to 1,029, which would, of course, greatly increase the burden of work thrown on the Charity Commissioners as well as the chance of some authorities being slack in the enforcement of the Act.

In the discussion which was held with the representatives of the borough and urban district councils, it was agreed that the best course would be to admit the councils of the larger boroughs and urban districts, and it was proposed to make the limit a population of 15,000, which would have the effect of increasing the number of registration authorities to 484—still a very large but not an unreasonable number. It remains open to a county council to delegate the duties of registration to other borough and district councils by virtue of the general power which was conferred by Section 274 of the Local Government Act, 1933. This compromise was discussed in another place and the general feeling was that it met most of the criticisms which had been previously advanced. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Amendment.

My Lords, the first of these two Amendments is consequential. The second Amendment re-enacts for the City of London a provision made in Section 2 (1) of the War Charities Act, 1916, which is no longer necessary elsewhere in England and Wales in view of general provisions made in the Local Government Act, 1933, and the London Government Act, 1939. I beg to move that this House doth agree.

This Amendment covers the case where charities are administered by Government Departments. If they wish to extend the objects those Departments must comply with Clause 6. I beg to move that this House doth agree.

My Lords, this is merely an enabling Amendment to cover Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time and I wish to take the opportunity of making an observation with reference to two figures which I gave your Lordships' House on Second Reading. Those figures were referred to in the course of the debate by my noble friend Lord Gainford, and in the absence of further explanation they might cause some misapprehension, or at any rate fail to do full justice to the invariable and indeed meticulous precision of the Treasury. The figures themselves were quite correct in their context, but confusion might arise if it were not appreciated—your Lordships will forgive me for mentioning this—that not all revenue is derived from taxes and that Inland Revenue duties include other sources besides Income Tax and Surtax. Let me, for the sake of accuracy and record, repeat the statement I made in a form which cannot be misunderstood. The total revenue in a full year from Customs and Excise as now imposed will be £472,000,000. Customs and Excise, however, are not only imposed by Part I of the present Bill, but include also other duties which are not specially enacted this year because they continue to apply until they are altered. The other figure I mentioned, also quite correctly, was the produce of existing direct taxation in a full year, and that figure was estimated, as I said, to amount to £760,000,000. Here again, however, the direct taxation which produces this result is not limited to what is to be found in Part II of the present Bill. It includes direct taxation imposed by other Parts of the Bill, and some direct taxation, such as Stamp Duties, which go on from year to year unless they are altered and therefore are not reimposed annually because they do not require to come within this Finance Bill at all.

I have said that for clearness and completeness. I make these remarks merely to avoid the possibility that some wrong deduction might be drawn from the more summary statement I made the other day; and for the sake of completeness perhaps I might repeat that the total estimated revenue of the present year, which amounts to £1,234,000,000, is not entirely due to taxation because there are some additional items: Crown lands for example, and Post Office net receipts, which are not properly classed as taxation. I trust your Lordships will pardon me for adding these details, but the Treasury is always much concerned that its accounting should be most precisely stated in both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

My Lords, I desire to ask if my noble friend the Leader of the House has any statement to make on next week's business.

My Lords, the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill will be taken for its Second Reading on Tuesday. For Wednesday there is at present no business on the Paper, but there will be three introductions on that day. On Thursday the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill will be taken in Committee. There is no other business except that which I have mentioned.

My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to indicate to the Leader of the House that there may be a suggestion put to the Government that we might have a debate on foreign affairs, in view of the fact that we have not had one for a very long time in your Lordships' House and that a great deal has happened since we had our last debate. Perhaps the Government will bear that in mind. Needless to say—I am sure in this respect I speak for all your Lordships—we wish to suit the convenience of the Foreign Secretary, the burden on whose shoulders we fully appreciate, but I thought it right to give notice and perhaps the Government would make inquiries.

My Lords, no doubt the question will be considered whether the debate might be in private or public, or possibly the statement of the Foreign Secretary in public and an opportunity given, if noble Lords wish, to have the debate in private if there are noble Lords who wish to express their views in private. I do not myself express any strong view as to which course is desirable. I only suggest that it might be a matter for consideration.

My Lords, of course if there is a general desire that there should be a debate on foreign affairs, the matter will be considered through the usual channels. With reference to the point mentioned by the noble Viscount, perhaps I might have a word with my noble friend Lord Halifax, and see what course he would propose that the debate should follow. Then it may be desirable to take either all, or part only, of the debate in secret, if your Lord-ships so desire.