CO885-(11-12) — Page 522

442

PECORD OFFICE

Reference-

milumi

C.O.882/12

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AF PEPROAUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT THOTOGRAPH-NOT 10|

106

We, the undersigned Members of the State Council, in terms of Section 23, Sub- section 2 of the Order in Council, wish to record our strong objection to these acts on the following grounds

*-

(1) In regard to the Enabling Bill for a levy on the salaries of Public Servants :— Section II (1) of the Ordinance provides that the Governor may by order issued with the prior approval of the Secretary of State authorize the deduction from the salaries and wages payable to Public Servants of such a sum calculated in such manner as the order shall prescribe.

Sub-section III provides for the specification in the order of the period for which it should remain in operation. Shortly then, the effect of these provisions is to vest in the Governor (with the prior approval of the Secretary of State) the power by the mere issue of an Order, without any consultation or advice of the State Council, to make a levy on the salaries and wages of Public Servants, at such time, for such period, and in such manner as he shall deem expedient.

(2) We are strongly of opinion that the vesting of any such power in the Governor is not contemplated by the Order in Council, 1931, and is a deprivation of a power which the Council now possesses.

Our reasons for these contentions are the :-

The Donoughmore Commissioners in their Report intended that the State Council should always have the power to discuss and express its opinion on all matters affecting the salaries and emoluments of Public Servants, merely reserving to the Secretary of State the final decision as a safeguard. This is clearly indicated in the following passages of their Report :-

"Whilst it would be unfortunate if Members At page 130 of the Report they say of Council were to devote a large amount of time to discussion of the salaries of public officers, we see no reason why they should be altogether debarred from such discussion. always provided that the ultimate control is not in their hands alone.'

Discussing the suggestion that "the grant of the new Constitution should be made dependent on the passage of an Ordinance guaranteeing a definite scale of salaries, &c., to Public Servants, the Commissioners say (page 131): "The suggestion would be of the nature of a threat to the Council and could not fail to arouse strong resent- It would be difficult indeed to imagine circumstances more paramount for the ment. introduction of a new Constitution."

Discussing the suggestion that there should be an Article in the new Order in Council providing that the final decision in all matters affecting the pay, &c., of Public Servants shall be vested in the Secretary of State, leaving it to be understood that the "Under Council would be free to offer comment and criticism, they say (pages 131-32): any scheme that could be devised for their protection the hopes of the Public Servants must inevitably rest on the Secretary of State

This being so there appears to be no sufficient reason for depriving the elected members of the liberty of comment."

(3) In his despatch of 2nd June, 1929, to the Secretary of State, the then Governor, Sir Herbert Stanley, stated:-

**The proposal of the Commissioners that the final decision in all such matters (i.e., salaries, &c., of Public Servants) shall be preserved to the Secretary of State has been widely understood here to mean that the State Council, though it would be afforded an opportunity of expressing its views, would be debarred from any and that effectual control over these matters and their financial implications..

the Secretary of State's decision, therefore, even though it might have been dis- cordant with the representations submitted by Council, must imply, in order to become operative, the exercise of a right to appropriate the necessary funds, no matter how large a portion of the public revenue, might be involved. If this was the intention of the proposal, it is intelligible that strong resistance to it should have been offered. In this context I might perhaps invite attention not only to the resolution of the Unofficial Members

that the present financial and other

powers and privileges enjoyed by the Legislative Council of Ceylon should not in any way be abridged or taken away.'

If, however, the intention of the proposal was only that the votes or resolu- tions of the State Council or ruling of the Governor which affected the salary of the officers in question

should be subject to confirmation or disallowance

by the Secretary of State, and that his decision thereon should be final, then I do not think that any very serious objection need be apprehended."

107

This further strengthens our view expressed above regarding the power proposed under the new Constitution to be exercised by the State Council over the salaries, &c., of Public Servants. The only relevant sections of the Ceylon (State Council) Order in Council, 1931, which deal with this aspect of the subject are Sections 86 and 87.

Section 86 refers to the appointment, promotion, transfer, and dismissal and dis- ciplinary control of Public Officers, which are vested in the Governor. It will be seen that this has no reference to control of the finances of the Public Service, and merely deals with matters which may be considered departmental.

Section 87 (1) provides that no Bill, Motion, &c., affecting salary, allowances, &c., of any officer in the Public Service at the date of the commencement of this Order shall be introduced into Council without the sanction of the Governor, and that it shall not take affect without the approval of the Secretary of State. It is submitted that this merely provides the safeguard referred to in the Donoughmore Commission Report and Sir Herbert Stanley's despatch.

(4) Nowhere in the Order in Council is it provided that the Governor may on his own motion make an alteratjon in the salaries of Public Servants.

Further, the fact that all items dealing with the salaries and allowances of Public Servants form part of the Annual Appropriation Bill placed before the Council for discussion and approval strengthens the view that these matters are within the control of the Council.

The Ordinance which has now been certified by the Governor, while depriving the Council of a power which it possessed, seeks to vest in the Governor power which he does not possess.

The salaries and emoluments of Public Servants for this year amount to about half the anticipated revenue. Any action, therefore, that would militate against the control over such expenditure by the Council, at least to the extent of exercising the power of discussion and expression of opinion, we cannot but consider as a grave and unjustifiable invasion of our rights and privileges.

(5) The certification of this Bill as a matter of paramount importance by the Governor is in our opinion an altogether unreasonable use of the power confirmed on him by Article 22 of the Order in Council.

<

The Donoughmore Commissioners in their Report (page 45) state that the scheme they recommended is one which, while giving responsibility as well as power, guarantees that political progress shall go hand in hand with administrative knowledge. It is a scheme which gives the Ceylonese free institutions and direct responsibility.".

The Secretary of State in his message to the State Council at its inauguration stated : "The domestic interests of Ceylon will now be for all practical purposes in your keeping."

If these sentiments were sincere, and if these words had any real meaning, we feel that this act of the Governor is entirely contrary to its spirit and is one that is calculated seriously to shake our confidence in the pledges and assurances of British statesmen.

(6) In regard to the certification of the vote for Rs. 250,000 to provide for free passages to Public Officers and their families going on leave we submit our emphatic protest for the following reasons:-

Prior to the War Public Officers were not granted free leave passages. During the War the matter was specially considered owing to the difficulty in which officers pro- ceeding on leave found themselves in regard to meeting the greatly increased cost of passages for themselves and their families. In order to meet this special difficulty Government at first issued advances to officers to meet their expenses, and later, in January, 1919, adopted a temporary scheme whereby

(1) Officers whose emoluments amounted to less than £600 per annum were granted free leave passages for themselves, their wives, and children once in four years' continuous service.

(2) Officers whose emoluments amount to £600 to £900 per annum inclusive who shall contribute to a passage fund at the rate of Rs. 30/- a month in the case of married officers and Rs. 10/- a month in the case of unmarried "officers were granted a sum not exceeding half the cost of the actual passages paid for on the amount of their contribution for four years which- ever is less.

!

The whole question was again considered by the Salaries Commission of 1921, who recommended the grant of free leave passages to all officers irrespective of the amount of their salary and independently of nationality once in four years. The Commission