§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Alness.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
§ Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
§ Clause 6 [Works below high-water mark]:
LORD ALNESSThere are two Amendments required in consequence of a certain 708 order having been made transferring the powers of the Board of Trade with regard to tidal lands to the Ministry of Shipping. The appropriate Minister to refer to in the Bill is not the President of the Board of Trade but the Minister of Shipping. That is the purpose and effect of the Amendments which I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 6, line 1 leave out ("Board of Trade") and insert ("Minister of Shipping")
§ Page 6, line 2, leave out from the second ("of") to end of line 3, and insert ("a secretary or some person authorised by the said Minister to act in that behalf").—(Lord Alness.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 7 agreed to.
§ Clause 8 [Short title, extent and duration]:
LORD ALNESSPerhaps I may be allowed on the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill to reply to my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, who I regret to see is not present. Your Lordships will remember that I promised on the Committee stage to furnish him with certain information on two points which were raised by my noble friend during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. I can do so in a very few moments. The first question which my noble friend raised concerned the River Annan scheme, which was carried out under the Act of 1930, and of the cost of which I understood the Duke to complain. I am informed that the area improved by the scheme was about 1800 acres, that the cost of the work was £5,638, or £3 3s. an acre, and that the amount of betterment value charged against owners was £4,071, or £2 6s. an acre. Opinions may, of course, differ about the value of agricultural improvement effected by any of these schemes, but as in this case there were only six out of sixty-four landowners and tenants concerned who made any representations to the Department as to the value of the work done, I think one may conclude that the result was not unsatisfactory.
The second question raised by my noble friend concerned the publication of accounts relating to the cost of maintenance of these arterial works in respect of which rates are collected by local authorities. There are difficulties in arranging 709 for local inspection of these costs, but I am authorised to say that such accounts will be available for inspection to any interested owner at the office of the Department of Agriculture in Edinburgh, or, if an owner so prefers, the Department will furnish a copy on receipt of a request to do so. I hope this meets the points raised by my noble friend, and that he will be satisfied with this reply.
§ Clause 8 agreed to.