Lords Sitting of 15 February 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  TRIBUTES TO THE LATE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY
  2.35 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who to his great regret is unable to be present to-day, has asked me to say these few words on his behalf. The death of Lord Londonderry will be mourned not merely by members of this House but by a far wider circle of friends outside it, for he combined, to a rare degree, the qualities of a great figure in the social life of the country and of a man distinguished in his political life by the many offices he had held. He possessed a personal charm of character which endeared him to all who knew him. He had a gift of simple and loyal friendship which took no account of differences in rank and station. If your Lordships want evidence of this fact, you will find it in the abiding respect and affection of those who worked under him in the many offices which he held in political life. I do not pretend that I agreed with his political outlook, but no one—least of all myself—could cast a doubt on the sincerity of the standards which prompted him. He was ever ready to give the greatest consideration to opinions which did not coincide with those which he himself held.
  Before he came to your Lordships' House he was a Member of the House of Commons for a number of years, then served in the 1914–18 war, during which he was twice mentioned in despatches. In this House he held a number of posts—First Commissioner of Works, Secretary of State for Air and, finally, Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House, a leadership distinguished for his strict maintenance of the spirit and traditions of the House and by an invariable courtesy to all who came in contact with him. My Lords, a link has been severed with the old spacious days by the passing of a great figure from the social, sporting
  748
  and political life of the nation. We extend our sympathy to those he has left, and we share their sorrow.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, we remember to-day one who, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, was a brave figure in our public life and a personal friend of so many of us. Born and bred in a long tradition of public service, his own record was remarkable: soldier and airman; eleven years' service in the House of Commons; more than thirty years in this House, during part of which time he was its Leader and held many ministerial posts; Chancellor of two universities, one in England, the other in Ireland; a model landlord and a very progressive colliery owner. That would have been a remarkable record of achievement in a man whose whole and sole interest lay in politics and in public affairs. I think it is all the more praiseworthy in one who had an extraordinary zest for life in town and country, and whose great possessions afforded him every opportunity of satisfying those agreeable tastes in the most beautiful surroundings. It was that very zest for life which contributed so much to his success and which made for him a host of friends.
  If I were asked to name Charlie Londonderry's outstanding characteristics, I would say they were courage, kindliness and youth. His courage made him avid of new adventure. He became a pilot at an age when many experienced airmen think it time they should be grounded, and his untimely death was the result of a gliding accident. His generous kindness, in things great and small, seemed second nature. The world knew of his great benefactions. It is probably known to many of your Lordships that during a deep industrial depression he kept open for two years a pit that lost him £1,000 a week. For two years, at his own expense, he kept that pit open, just because he recognised his duty as an employer and because, out of his personal generosity, he did not wish to add to the sorrow and trouble of those times. Generous actions like that, which were known to the public, were matched, as I know, by countless unknown actions of friendship and generosity. His youth was eternal. With all his long and varied experience, it could be said of him in

  749
  the best and happiest sense of John Buchan's words:
  "In you I think the boy is not over."
  Now, that life, so full alike of friendship and of service to his country, is ended. Our sympathy goes out to his family, and especially to her who was the vivid partner in all his enterprises.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches would wish to join in the tributes so fittingly rendered by the Lord Chancellor and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Underlying the many striking qualities of Lord Londonderry there was one in particular—namely, that he was throughout a man of good will. In personal intercourse, in industrial affairs and in political life the impression he gave was of one who was anxious in a spirit of friendliness to fulfil his duties, and to fulfil them rightly. He was for over forty years in Parliament—by far the greater part of that time in your Lordships' House—and he took throughout an active part in the often troubled, and sometimes stormy, events of that long period. As we all know, he specialised in what were then the new problems of aviation. In that sphere he kept himself abreast of the times, and was often ahead of them. In office he was a conscientious administrator. In the long discussions on the coal industry he was one of the coal owners of genuinely progressive views. We who are Liberals found ourselves often in disagreement with him on mans of the main controversial issues of our times, but that in no way lessened the liking which we—as everyone—felt for his personality, or our respect for his character and our admiration for his sincerity and unfailing good will. To Lady Londonderry, and to his family, your Lordships would wish to offer respectful sympathy.
  LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, Lord Londonderry played many parts on the stage of English life. All I am here for to-day is to pay a just tribute to him for his work on the civil side of aviation. He was the first of the Air Ministers to have the vision of encouraging civil aviation to try and turn the gift of flight into a blessing instead of a curse. No wonder he was a hero in the eyes of many who had seen so much effort and sacrifice go towards creating an armament, rather than a binding force
  750
  that should bring peoples closer together! He did all he could to help the "little man" in his small machine; he owned and flew one himself, and his was a great example. In the Councils of the Royal Aero Club, and in the International Federation I know how helpful and welcome he was. In this changing world, it was through his vision and his generosity that the famous Londonderry House lives on, still in high distinction, as the great centre of all matters to do with private flying. There will be no one piloting a private machine who will not dip in deep respect at the passing of a great patron and also—if the pilot ever had the fortune to know Lord Londonderry—at the loss of a much loved friend.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  2.48 p.m.
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of passing the Coast Protection Bill [H.L.] through its remaining stages.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  GREEN PARK HOLLY HEDGE
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Marquess of Reading, I beg to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government what was the cost (including the cost of the hushes) of planting the new holly hedge along the Piccadilly side of Green Park, when the work was completed and what percentage of the bushes are still alive; and also whether it is the intention that the newly-erected concrete posts shall be permanent.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, the hedge and fence along the Piccadilly side of Green Park were erected primarily to prevent wear and tear of the grass, which had turned the Piccadilly edge of the Park

  751
  into an eyesore, and secondly, to enclose the Park, following representations by the police about a number of offences committed there after dark. The cost of planting the hedge was £1,122, of which £937 10s. was the cost of the holly bushes, the remainder being for labour. Work began on October 29 last, and was completed on November 8. It is too early to estimate the loss of bushes, but I hope that it will not exceed 5 per cent., which would not be excessive, having regard to the petrol fumes, tar dust and tree roots with which the plants have to contend. It is intended that the concrete posts shall remain permanently, as the fence must be strong enough to withstand the pressure of crowds on ceremonial and other occasions, when, without the fence, the hedge might suffer severely. However, when the hedge grows the posts and wire mesh will be largely concealed.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform us to what height it is proposed to grow this holly hedge?
  LORD MORRISON: Without notice, I could not.

  MINISTER OF FOOD (FINANCIAL POWERS) BILL
  Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
  2.50 p.m.

  COAST PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 2:
  Constitution of coast protection boards
  10. This section shall not apply to Scotland.
  LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Braintree, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 41, at beginning of subsection (4) insert—

  ("(a) Before making an order under this section which does not provide for the inclusion in a coast protection board of representatives of all the bodies mentioned in
  752
  paragraphs (b) to (e) of subsection (2) of this section, the Minister shall submit to the Ministers (other than himself) concerned in relation to the bodies of which representatives are not so included, and, if any such Minister so requests, the Order shall include representatives of the body in relation to which that Minister is concerned;

  (b)").—(Lord Quibell.)

  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Clause 1 of the Bill provides that all round the coast there shall be established coast protection authorities based on rural district councils, urban district councils and county boroughs. On a large part of the coast these authorities will carry through without assistance work laid down in the Bill, but here and there, because of the problems arising and because of the number of authorities possessing powers related to coast protection, boards will be formed under Clause 2. These boards will vary in numbers and in kind. Much will depend upon the part of the coast and, as I have already indicated, on the number of authorities involved. Where such is the case, the Minister ceases to be responsible for the making of orders; the responsibility will fall upon Ministers concerned in the bodies which are to form part of the new boards. Your Lordships will Lind that in subsection (4) of this clause.
  When the order has been made it will be published, and if any authority feels itself aggrieved because it has been left outside the board, it can then object and its objection will be considered, not by the Minister but by the Ministers concerned. Undoubtedly attempts will be made to seek a settlement, but if the authority is still dissatisfied and does not agree with the proposals put forward by the Ministers concerned, that objection may be carried to the floor of both Houses of Parliament under special Parliamentary rules. Therefore, my noble friend will see that whereas, in the first case, the Ministers will undoubtedly analyse the position and judge of the rightness of any invitation the board may extend, should they fail in any particular case, the authority which has the grievance can appeal and, finally, come to both Houses of Parliament.
  The Amendment which my noble friend has moved is, I am afraid, somewhat defective. In the first place, it provides that the Minister—not "the Ministers concerned"—shall circularise his fellow

  753
  Ministers who are concerned with authorities not included in the boards. Those Ministers, in their turn, if they think there is a case for the authorities in which they are interested, can "appoint"—not "nominate"—them to the board. The position of the Minister of Health, who is to be the chief administrative authority for coast protection, is that he can only nominate, and the nomination must be approved by the Ministers concerned. In one case one set of Ministers would have the right of appointment, and in the other case only the right of nomination. If my noble friend looks closely at this Amendment, he will find that the Minister must "submit" to other Ministers, without any indication as to what it is he has to submit. Therefore, the Amendment is defective and, if accepted, would not carry us anywhere. In view of the information I have given as to the rights of appeal, and eventually of coming to this House if not satisfied. I trust that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
  LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, in view of the assurances given, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment. I trust that we shall not be disappointed with those assurances.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is re-drafting. It is to make clear that the order will not lay down the amount of remuneration of the board's employees, but will merely authorise their remuneration by the board. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 6, leave out from ("board") to end of line 7 and insert ("authorise the remuneration of such officers and servants, and make provision with respect to their pension rights").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this meets a point raised by the County Councils Association, for which I am grateful.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to enable a board to defray or contribute to expenses which consisted of a contribution to the cost of works (rather than the cost of actually carrying out the works) incurred before the making of the order. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 12, after ("work") insert ("or of contributing to the cost of such work, being expenses").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is to delete from the top of page 4 the following words:
  "Provided that, in the case of an order made jointly by the Ministers concerned, references in that Schedule to the Minister shall be construed as references to those Ministers."
  The purpose of deleting these words is to permit their inclusion in the First Schedule, to make sure that, where there is an objection to an order made jointly by the Ministers concerned, the objection shall be to the Ministers concerned and not to the one Minister. This is a safeguard which we undertook to give during the debate in Committee a fortnight ago. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, leave out lines 3 to 5.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this Amendment meets a point that was raised on the Committee stage of this Bill. It is obviously far better that if one is to work in accordance with the Schedule the only people one has to deal with should be specified in the Schedule; one should not have to look back to a proviso right at the beginning of the Bill. I presume that these words merely make way for a later Amendment, or Amendments, which the noble Lord will move. But the Amendment does meet the points we raised on the Committee stage, and I am obliged to the noble Lord.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for having raised this matter on the Committee stage. I desire also, in anticipation, to thank the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for the later Amendments which I take it he will move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to omit subsection (10). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and myself. It is the same Amendment as I moved on a previous occasion in your Lordships' House, and it seeks to give the Secretary of State for Scotland the same powers as are possessed by the Minister in England. In the interim, I have had some discussion with represent-

  755
  tatives of His Majesty's Government, and I gather that while they would have no objection to this Amendment being carried if there were any public demand in Scotland, they are not convinced that there is that public demand. Moreover, they consider that there is no need for it, on the ground that Scotland is not, and will not be, subject to the same great geological forces that have to be encountered in England. With regard to that, I should like to say that I am not seeking to legislate for the present. I am seeking to give to future Secretaries of State powers which they may need, not only for Scotland but for the working of joint schemes between Scotland and England.
  I realise that it would be foolish to expect a technical Bill of this kind to receive a great deal of public support from the general community in any country. Our object should be, of course, to produce the best Bill possible, whether it is suddenly to be popular or not. So far as that argument goes, I submit that it adds force to our contention that Scotland might well be subject to a separate Bill. It is said that Scotland is not, and will not be, subject to the same devastating geological forces that have confronted England. My answer is that, apart from the examples I gave your Lordships on a previous occasion, I challenge anyone to say that more earthquakes are felt in England than in Scotland. I myself have experienced an earthquake in Scotland—and I have certainly never done so in England. When the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, took the historic journey from Aberdeen to London which led him to such a commanding position in Tottenham, his journey was made past 50 ft. and 25 ft. breaches—and they would have been on his route if he had started even farther north than Aberdeen. These breaches were created by the same forces that operate all the way along the east coast of Scotland. Although there may be no immediate need for these powers, they might at any time become important, and I do not see why the Secretary of State should not arm his successors and put them in a position to meet a danger that might arise in the future. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 32, leave out subsection (10).—(Lord Saltoun.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, for a great number of years past I have often wondered why it was that I so foolishly decided to leave Scotland; but I can assure the noble Lord that earthquakes had nothing at all to do with it! Your Lordships will remember that we discussed this Amendment at some length on the Committee stage and also, I think, on Second Reading. I have also had the privilege of seeing the correspondence with the Secretary of State to which the noble Lord has referred, and it seems to me that the whole matter all comes down to one small point. I do not think it is so much a question of whether public opinion in Scotland is in favour of this power being given, as of whether the public bodies who will be responsible for operating this legislation are showing any signs of wanting Scotland included under Clause 2.
  I understand that since the debate took place in this House, communications have been directed to these authorities, but that up to now there is no sign of any support—though there may be some later on, as a result of the communication. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, and other Scottish Lords who are interested in this, will not press this Amendment if I repeat, so that it can be placed on record, the assurance that has already been given in the letter from the Secretary of State to the noble Lord. I am authorised to say that the Secretary of State will be prepared to reconsider the matter, during the later progress of the Bill, if we are clear that any of the bodies in Scotland who will be concerned with its administration feel that powers should be taken to establish coast protection boards there. In the meantime, he would prefer to leave the Bill as it stands. In these circumstances I hope the noble Lord will agree that only when replies have been received from these public bodies will it be possible to come to a conclusion. This point can then be embodied in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, since the noble Lord spoke during the Committee stage, an Amendment dealing with estuaries in Scotland has been tabled. The only estuary which is specified is Solway, and I believe that there is a possibility of some work being done on that. I hope the noble Lord is alive to the position of the public bodies

  757
  in this connection. I am sure he will find this proposition agreeable to all concerned.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am content to accept the noble Lord's assurance, but the bodies of which he speaks are just the bodies that would be overridden by the boards.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  3.10 p.m.
  Clause 4:
  General powers of coast protection authorities
  (4) For the purpose of determining whether, and if so in what manner, any power of a coast protection authority under this Part of this Act is to be exercised, the authority may defray or contribute to the cost of obtaining a report of a consulting engineer or surveyor as to any coast protection work or proposal to carry out any such work.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (4) of Clause 4 enables coast protection authorities, if they wish, to obtain skilled opinion. During the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, moved the omission of the subsection on the ground that if it remained in the Bill it might cause some doubt as to the powers already possessed by local government bodies. On request, the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment and the subsection was retained. However, on consideration, the Government have decided to accept the suggestion that this subsection should be omitted. Their reason for this is that there is no real doubt that a coast protection authority could obtain an expert opinion on matters germane to coast protection, whether or not works were carried out in consequence. It is agreed that the insertion of the subsection might cast doubt upon the powers of a coast protection authority. Therefore, I beg to move that this subsection be omitted.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 22, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Shepherd.)
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I think that the County Councils Association will again be satisfied with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for which I thank him.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Objections to, and approval of, proposals to carry out coast protection work.
  5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act as to works schemes, a coast protection authority proposing to carry out any coast protection work, other than work of maintenance or repair, shall publish, in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister or as the Minister may in any particular case direct, such notice of that proposal, including an estimate of the cost of the work, as may be so prescribed or as the Minister may so direct.
  (5) Nothing in this section shall prevent a coast protection authority from carrying out, without the provisions of this section having been complied with, any coast protection work which appears to them to be urgently necessary for the protection of any land in their area.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1) to leave out in "such manner" and insert:
  "in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area of the authority and in such other manner (if any)."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, moved an Amendment to Clause 8 dealing with the publicity that had to be given to works undertaken. We accepted the Amendment, but we find that in doing so a certain item was missed. Therefore, we are moving this Amendment in order to complete the point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 39, leave out ("in such manner") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, the noble Lord says that "a certain item was missed." He is not putting it quite accurately, if I may say so, because I moved an Amendment in words very similar to these, and I was told that if I would leave out the words which the Government are now seeking to restore, my Amendment would be acceptable. Of course, I bear no ill feeling about it. The Government are kindly putting back the words that were originally in my Amendment, and I am grateful to them. I would like to ask one question and then perhaps, by leave of the House, the noble Lord opposite could give me an assurance. In the case of small works, an advertisement in two local newspapers is quite sufficient, but, for large-scale works

  759
  in which people with big business interests may be concerned it is rather necessary to have a notification of those works published in the London Gazette. Associations such as the F.B.I. look through the London Gazette and hope there to find those things to which they should give their attention. I should like to ask the noble Lord for an assurance that in that kind of case this further procedure will be adopted, and that there will be notification of these larger works, in most cases at any rate, in the London Gazette.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, speaking again with the permission of the House, I say that there are a number of Amendments to the Bill itself which provide for more extensive advertising, or at least give power for it, and the Minister, within those powers, can quite well undertake what the noble Lord is now suggesting.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Then that is what will be done?
  LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
  "(2) Where regulations made by the Minister so prescribe or the Minister in any particular case so directs, a like notice shall be served on such authorities or persons as may be specified in the regulations or direction."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is put down to meet some suggestions that were made on Committee stage respecting the notifications that have to be given to authorities concerned. We sincerely hope that the proposal will meet with acceptance. It paves the way for specific notice under regulations to certain bodies which the Minister undertook would be notified wherever work was proposed on land which came within their jurisdiction. If this Amendment is accepted, I think it would be well if the later Amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Braintree, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, were withdrawn. I refer to them now because we have attempted to cover the ground in a way that will meet all the difficulties that were previously anticipated. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, will remember the discussions that took place on Committee stage. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 43, at end insert said new subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I well remember the discussions upon this Amendment. It was one of those occasions when we saw the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, back in his old form, as when I first knew him in another place. Of course, what we were pressing for here was that in each case where a river board or a harbour authority were concerned in these protection works, they should automatically be notified. That is what the next Amendment seeks to do. We have the Government so far along the road as to stating that there will be regulations saying who should be notified and that, once those regulations saying who should be notified have been made, those bodies will be notified. I should like to ask one further question: Is it intended that the bodies who will be notified under these regulations will be these river boards and harbour commissioners?
  LORD SHEPHERD: Yes. Wherever those bodies are concerned, they will undoubtedly be notified.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Then, so far as I am concerned, this Amendment meets the points I made on Committee stage. I am obliged to the noble Lord for introducing it.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I feel I am treading on somewhat thin ice. As the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has appealed to me to withdraw my Amendment lower down on the Paper. I find it difficult to withstand his request, but I hope he will not think I am lacking in appreciation of what he has done. Like the noble Lord opposite, I recall what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said on Committee stage. I was with him in another place forty-three years ago, and he certainly was returning to his old form when he addressed your Lordships in Committee. But while I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth, I am not sure whether this is completely watertight. I should be grateful for a little further explanation. This Amendment provides that a
  "notice shall be served on such authorities or persons as may be specified in the regulations or direction."
  The subsequent Amendment in subsection (5) provides that,

  761
  "… where work is so carried out in the area of any river board or other drainage authority, and the coast protection authority is not a board on which the drainage authority are represented, the coast protection authority shall give to the drainage authority … notice of the nature of the work."
  My later Amendment, to which the noble Lord has referred, is an Amendment to provide that specific notice of any proposal shall he given to any harbour authority, conservancy authority or navigation authority. I confess that I find it a little difficult to understand why specific notice should be given to a river board or other drainage authority whilst notice to other authorities should be at the discretion of the Minister. I would venture to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether he can at least give us a rather more amplified assurance than that which he gave just now to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that such regulations will definitely specify harbour, conservancy and navigation authorities as authorities to which such notice will be given.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can speak only by leave of the House, but wherever there are authorities such as the noble Lord has just mentioned in the area covered by a particular work and a particular authority, it is the intention that notice shall be given to those authorities. It will be appreciated that in a general matter of this kind, where we are legislating for the whole country, it is best to leave the matter as we have put it, rather than to specify it in the way the noble Lord wishes us to do. He has drawn my attention to a subsequent Amendment which I have to move to subsection (5), but if he will read the subsection concerned he will find that it deals with matters of very great urgency—
  LORD ROCHESTER: I agree.
  LORD SHEPHERD: —matters that cannot be undertaken in the usual course of events. The Amendment provides that if these works have to be undertaken in the vicinity of a river board's works the board should be notified about it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Braintree, I formally beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 9, at end insert—
  "( ) Where any such work as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section is proposed to be carried out in the area of a drainage authority or river board by a coast protection authority (not being a coast protection board on which such drainage authority or river board is represented) the coast protection authority shall, in addition to and contemporaneously with the publication required by that subsection, serve on the drainage authority or river board a copy of the notice as so published, and the drainage authority or river board may, within the period prescribed under subsection (2) of this section, serve on the Minister and the coast protection authority notice of objection to the proposal on the ground that the proposed work will, or will be likely to,—

  (a) affect detrimentally any of their drainage works; or

  (b) interfere with the exercise by the drainage authority or river board of their functions under any enactment other than this Act."—(Lord Quibell.)

  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in dealing with the Amendment we have just passed, I mentioned that it would cover part of the ground of the noble Lord's Amendment. The latter part of this Amendment is also covered by this clause, and the point does not require to be dealt with in this particular manner. I sincerely hope that that meets the point raised by the noble Lord.
  LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER had given Notice of his intention to move the insertion of a new subsection after subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, I do not feel that I can press this Amendment. I hope he will not misunderstand the position, however, if those for whom I speak feel it incumbent upon themselves to raise it in another place. I will not move the Amendment.
  LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Braintree, I formally beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 10, leave out from ("under") to ("and") in line 11 and insert ("any of the foregoing provisions of this section").—(Lord Quibell.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which the noble Lord has withdrawn.
  LORD QUIBELL: Then I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (5):
  "but where work is so carried out in the area of any river board or other drainage authority and the coast protection authority is not a board on which the drainage authority are represented, the coast protection authority shall give to the drainage authority, before or as soon as possible after the commencement of the work, notice of the nature of the work."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils an undertaking to secure that when emergency work is done, notification, although not required before the work starts, shall be given as soon as possible to any drainage authority in whose area the work is done. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 45, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils a point that we raised on Committee stage. We should have liked notification given before the work started, but there may be isolated occasions where that might be impossible because of the urgency of the work. When the Bill originally came to us there was no provision at all for the notification of these river boards, and I think we have considerably improved the Bill by now having this provision inserted.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  Confirmation of works schemes
  (3) Where a notice has been published by an authority under subsection (1) of this section, any person may serve on the Minister and on the authority, in the manner and within the period, not being less than twenty-eight days, prescribed by regulations made by the Minister, notice of objection to the scheme on the ground that the work provided for by the scheme, or any part thereof, is unnecessary, or that the carrying out thereof in the manner provided by the scheme would cause hardship to the objector, or that the land indicated by the scheme as contributory land includes land which ought not to be so indicated or does not include land which ought to be so indicated, or, in the case of a scheme which specifies the persons by whom coast protection charges are to be paid as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the last foregoing section, that any other provision of the scheme as to such charges is inequitable or unduly onerous.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is in similar terms to one which I moved on Clause 5, and there is no need for me to speak further about it. I can continue the assurance that I have already given in regard to the London Gazette.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 24, after ("authority") insert ("and in such other manner (if any) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister or as the Minister may in any particular case direct").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this too is similar to the second Amendment I moved to Clause 5. It paves the way for regulations which, as in the case of Clause 5, will be made as undertaken at the Committee stage, in order to secure that drainage authorities will be notified of proposed constructional works in their area. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 29, at end, insert ("and on such other authorities or persons (if any) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister or as the Minister may in any particular case direct").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment. It fulfils the promise to re-draft for greater clarification the subsection relating to service of notices of works schemes involving coast protection charges. That also applies to the Amendments which follow. It makes clear that where the charges are to be determined after the carrying out of the work, the notice will be served on the owners and occupiers of land on which the work will be done and also on the owners of contributory land. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 31, leave out from ("charges") to end and insert ("the persons on whom copies of the scheme are to be served shall include").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, all these four Amendments go together and they are moved for the purpose of redesigning this clause to meet some comments that I in particular made about it on Committee stage. In my view it is now far better than it was, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for putting down these Amendments.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 34, leave out ("on").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 37, leave, out ("on").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 38, leave out from ("land") to end of line 40.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.28 p.m.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (3) after "unnecessary" to insert "or that the cost thereof is excessive." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment because some of us feel that the grounds of objection in this Bill are relatively narrow and should be somewhat widened. It seems fair to ask that the owner of land should be able to object on the ground of excessive cost of any scheme that might be put forward, if that scheme is likely to be uneconomical. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 3, after ("unnecessary") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the purpose of the Amendment is to make it a statutory ground of objection to a works scheme that the cost of the works is excessive. It must be remembered that at the stage when objection is made only an estimate of the cost will have been given. It the estimate seems too high it will be because some of the work is unnecessary, not because the work has been extravagantly carried out. But it is already a statutory ground of objection that some of the work is unnecessary. Therefore this extra ground of objection is not needed, and will only invite fruitless discussion without furthering the interests of the objectors. The Minister may be trusted to see that the cost of the work to be done is as small as possible, because
  766
  the Minister will be involved, since he will, usually, be making a grant.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am afraid, that I cannot quite agree with what the noble Lord has said, nor can I see his argument. In the circumstances, however, I do not wish to press the Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD ROCHESTERhad an Amendment on the Paper, after subsection (4) to insert:
  "( ) Where a works scheme involves coast protection work within an area within which any harbour authority, conservancy authority or navigation authority is exercising jurisdiction, the coast protection authority shall, not later than the date on which notice of the scheme is required to be published under subsection (1) of this section, give to the harbour, conservancy or navigation authority notice in writing of the scheme, accompanied by a copy thereof."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of the undertaking which the noble Lord has given, and on the understanding that it includes harbour, conservancy, and navigation authorities. I will not move this Amendment.
  Clause 9:
  Carrying out of work provided for by works schemes.
  (3) Where an owner by whom a notice has been served under the last foregoing subsection fails to carry out the work to which the notice relates in accordance with the scheme, the authority may give notice to him that unless the work is so carried out within such period as may be specified in the notice the authority will themselves carry out the work; and if where such a notice has been given by the authority the work is not so carried out within the said period, the authority shall have power to take all necessary steps for carrying out the work in accordance with The scheme.
  LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved in subsection (3) after "such" to insert "reasonable." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment suggested here is the insertion of the word "reasonable," and I think the Amendment is as reasonable as the word which is suggested. It is, I submit, natural and most desirable that a word of this nature should be inserted here in order to remove any sense of injustice or hardship on the part of those who may be affected. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 40, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment. Its purpose is to make the clause say that the authority responsible for a scheme shall give a private owner a reasonable period in which to do the work, after the period of his option to do it has expired. This Amendment is unnecessary, because the owner cannot be said to have failed to exercise his option unless he has been given a reasonable period in which to exercise it. The insertion of "reasonable" in line 40, as suggested, would very much hamper the local authority by inviting litigation at the moment when they were about to proceed with the work. In this way, a single owner might be enabled to do harm to general interests.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that in the first part of this subsection which reads:
  "Where an owner by whom a notice has been served under the last foregoing subsection fails to carry out the work to which the notice relates in accordance with the scheme, the authority may give notice to him …"
  we are to take it that the words, "within a reasonable time" are implied? Is that the purport of what the noble Lord says? Is it correct that this clause means that the owner must be given a reasonable time before he can be said to have failed to carry out the work?
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I take it that when notice is given to an owner that work is to be undertaken, a reasonable period will be allowed for carrying out that work. After that there will be a short period within which the authorities will act. There seems to be a view that if the word "reasonable" is inserted, it will confuse the issue very much indeed.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, perhaps by leave of the House I may just add this. I believe that, in law, impliedly, the owner could not be said to have failed unless he was given a reasonable time in which to do the work. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack will give us his view upon this point. If the understanding is as I have said, then there does not
  768
  seem any need for the insertion of the word "reasonable" here.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I confess that to me that seems obvious. I do not see how you could possibly say that a man has failed to do anything unless he has had a reasonable time in which to do it. I think that is impliedly connected with the word "fail."
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and also to the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack for the reassurance which he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
  Exemption of work from planning permission and development charge.
  ". The carrying out by the owner of any land of work specified or authorised in or by a works scheme shall be deemed not to constitute development for the purposes of Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and no development charge shall be payable in respect thereof under Part VII of the said Act."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had some discussion during Committee stage as to whether in connection with these coast protection works the Central Land Board would have the power to levy a charge. At the present time they are levying charges in some extraordinary cases under the Town and Country Planning Act. It seems to me that this is one of the cases where we can, either in this measure or by some other method, include this class of work in the work exempted under the Town and Country Planning Act Regulations (the Exemption Regulations). We should make certain that in respect of this kind of work—which, after all, will have been done not only for the good of the owner of the land but for the good of the coast, and the country, by preventing bits of it falling into the sea—there should not be any possibility of a charge of this kind being levied on the owner for betterment. I have put down this Amendment in order that I may learn what attitude the Government have taken up since we last discussed this question. I was told that the matter would be looked into between the Committee stage and the Report

  769
  stage, and I have put down this Amendment in order that we may have the benefit of hearing the Government's views. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved.
  After Clause 9 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)
  THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, we want to meet the noble Lord's point, and I will give him an assurance in that sense. The assurance is carefully worded and I will therefore read it. It is in these terms:
  "When amendment of the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemption) Regulations, comes to be considered, this point will be borne in mind and the Minister of Town and Country Planning will include the necessary provision in the Instrument presented for approval by your Lordships' House and in another place. The Secretary of State for Scotland will take parallel action in respect of the appropriate Scottish Regulations. If before the Regulations are amended a case arises in which a charge would be assessable in respect of coast protection work, arrangements will be made to give a new assessment in respect of that work."
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I rather shuddered when I heard him utter the words "will be borne in mind," but they will be overruled, I gather, by the words "will include," which are undoubtedly the operative words. Again expressing my sense of obligation to the noble Earl, on that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.39 p.m.
  Clause 11:
  Incidence of coast protection charges, etc.
  11.—(1) Any coast protection charge, and any expenses incurred in carrying out work under a works scheme, shall as between capital and income he treated as outgoings of a capital nature.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: My Lords, the clause as it stands goes somewhat further than the Government
  770
  originally intended. When the draft was made, it was thought that Clause 11 (1) would suit the case of public authorities quite well. It has since transpired, however, that if this subsection were applied to private organisations, it might have a somewhat unfortunate effect upon them. The Government, therefore, suggest to your Lordships that the subsection should be withdrawn or deleted, and if a number of Amendments which follow this are adopted, modifying the rest of the clause, then the position of mortgagees, trustees, universities, and so on, can be sufficiently covered by the other subsections. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 21, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite will remember that I pressed him on this matter of deleting subsection (1). I am obliged to the noble Lord for enabling us to get rid of this subsection. So far as I am concerned, the Amendments that follow are quite in order and could be moved formally.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, all the Amendments to this clause down to and including the Amendment at page 16, line 32, are consequential on the Amendment we have just carried. I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 25, leave out from ("paid") to ("shall") in line 26 and insert ("by a mortgagee in respect of a coast protection charge or in respect of expenses incurred in carrying out work under a works scheme").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert:
  "( ) The following provisions shall have effect as to the raising of money in particular cases for the payment a coast protection charges and of expenses incurred in carrying out work under a works scheme, that is to say—"—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 45, leave out from ("expenses") to end of line 46.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 1, leave out ("as aforesaid").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 16, leave out from ("expenses") to ("in") in line 17.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 25, leave out ("as aforesaid").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 32, leave out from ("expenses") to the first ("a") in line 33.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13:
  Recovery of cost of maintenance of works not constructed under works schemes.
  (2) The right of recovery conferred by the last foregoing subsection shall not be exercisable unless a notice in respect of the work in question has been served on the owner under subsection (1) of the last foregoing section and the notice contained a statement that the works to be maintained or repaired are works to which this section applies, and a sufficient indication of the effect of this section.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "on the owner." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and all the Amendments to Clause 13 are consequential upon the Amendment which was accepted at the beginning of Clause 11. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 24, leave out ("on the owner").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I would suggest that this Amendment deals with a different point. The Amendments to Clause 11 deal with the differences between capital and income; this is a question of whether in some cases it is not right that the occupier as well as the owner should pay. I raised the point on Committee stage, that in some cases the occupier may be the person who ought to pay these charges, just as he pays charges under the Land Drainage Acts. As I read them, this Amendment and those that follow will allow the coast protection authority to levy the charge on the occupier or owner and apply the provisions of the Local Government Act to see how charges eventually should fall. So far as I am concerned, the Amendments meet my point. I think they improve the measure and I am much obliged to the Government for putting them down. I refer to the Amendments down to page 18, line 29. The last Amendment to the clause raises a different point.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 27, leave out ("and") and insert ("stated whether the authority propose to exercise their right of recovery against the owner or against the occupier, and contained").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 30, leave out from the first ("owner") to ("may") and insert ("or occupier of such a notice he").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 31, at end insert:
  "(a) that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is equitable that the right of recovery conferred by subsection (1) of this section should be exercisable, as respects the whole or some part of the cost of carrying out the work, against whichever of the owner and the occupier is not the complainant;".—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 35, leave out ("or") and insert—
  ("(c) that the work specified in the notice under subsection (1) of the last foregoing section is not work of maintenance or repair; or").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 42, at end insert ("and, if the complaint is made on the ground specified in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection, on whichever of the owner and the occupier is not the complainant").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment, also, is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 44, after ("order") insert—

  ("(a) directing that the right of recovery conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall be exercisable, as respects the whole or such part as may be specified in the order of the cost of carrying out the work against whichever of the owner and the occupier is not the complainant;

  (b)").—(Lord Shepherd.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 1, leave out ("or") and insert—
  ("(c) declaring that the work specified in the notice under subsection (1) of the last foregoing section is not work of maintenance or repair; or
  (d)").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 27, leave out from ("where") to ("aggrieved") in line 28, and insert ("any party to the proceedings is").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 29, leave out ("or they").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this, Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 29, at end insert—
  "( ) Save as expressly provided in the last foregoing subsection, the determination by the court of a complaint under paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of this section shall be conclusive, as respects any right of recovery under this section, of the matter of the complaint."—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, here we are dealing with subsection (7) of Clause 13, which now provides that any party to the proceedings who is aggrieved by the decision of a court may appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions. Paragraph (c) of subsection (3), (which your Lordships have just inserted) states that the owner may complain:
  "That the work specified in the notice under subsection (1 of the last foregoing section is not work of maintenance or repair …"
  therefore, as I read it, by this Amendment the finding of the court of summary jurisdiction will be conclusive. If in the present Amendment "the court" refers not to a court of summary jurisdiction but to a Court of Quarter Sessions, I have no objection; but otherwise I should like to know what happens.
  In the normal way, and in all cases so far, there is an appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions, sitting as an Appeal Committee, which hears the case de novo, and all witnesses are called before it. If this Amendment seeks to, remove a part of the case from the jurisdiction of the Appeal Committee of Quarter Sessions it is fundamentally altering the normal procedure between those two courts. Once again the complainant (or whatever he is called in a case like this) has to call his witnesses, and to make out his case anew on appeal. I see no reason why he should not be able to make out the whole case again, just as he does in any other kind of litigation.
  I am surprised to see this proviso, if the court referred to means the court of summary jurisdiction. If the proviso is put in to prevent an appeal beyond

  775
  Quarter Sessions, I have no objection; but where there is a court that has necessarily to go into the whole facts again, it ought to be allowed to do so, as it does in every other kind of case. If "the determination by the court" means determination by the court of summary jurisdiction, I should like to know why the whole procedure between a court of summary jurisdiction and the Appeal Committee of Quarter Sessions is being altered in this particular instance. Those are my objections to the Amendment as moved, and I should like an answer to them.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord will note that the Amendment commences as follows: "Save as expressly provided …" In view of what the noble Lord has just said, I am advised that the right to appeal is preserved in the foregoing subsection.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this did not arise on the Committee stage, and perhaps, with the permission of the House, I may be allowed to ask a further question. If the right to appeal is expressly preserved, why are these words inserted at all?
  LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps I had better read the note given to me originally, which may help the noble Lord's understanding. The court's decision as to whether the work is maintenance is to be conclusive for recovery purposes, subject to appeal to Quarter Sessions. That is what I had in the first place. Then, arising out of what the noble Lord said, I had a note sent up to me to indicate that "Save as expressly provided" meant that the right of appeal had been preserved.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I shall be out of order if I speak again, but I would be obliged if the Government could look into this—perhaps in another place—because, if what the noble Lord has said is right, I fancy that this proviso is unnecessary, or at any rate is drafted in an ambiguous manner.
  LORD SHEPHERD: We will look into the matter.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the next two Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 33, after ("complaining") insert ("to a complainant").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 35, after the first ("application") insert ("to a person making an application").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.55 p.m.
  Clause 14:
  Compulsory acquisition of land
  14.—(1) A coast protection authority may be authorised by the Minister to acquire by compulsory purchase any land which they are authorised by Section four of this Act to acquire by agreement, and the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, shall apply in relation to any such compulsory purchase, as if this Act had been in force immediately before the commencement a that Act:
  Provided that, in relation to any such land as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of the said Section four, the power conferred by this subsection shall be exercisable only if it appears that the value of the land immediately after the completion of the work will be greater than it would then be if the work had not been carried out; and in estimating for the purposes of this proviso the value of the land at that time it shall be assumed, as respects the works proposed to be constructed, altered or improved, that they will in future be maintained without expense to any person entitled to an interest in the land.
  LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (1) after the third "by" to insert "paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to limit compulsory purchase powers to the land on which the work is actually being done. Your Lordships will appreciate that the compulsory powers taken for purchase are very wide. An authority may acquire both the land on which it is proposed to carry out works and also the land benefiting by works. In the latter case the criterion appears to be that the land has increased in value in consequence of the works. This seems to many of us to be very wide. It is already provided in the Bill that there shall be a right to acquire additional land, but by agreement. I move this Amendment in the hope of obtaining a rather fuller explanation than we have had hitherto of the reason for extending these compulsory powers of acquisition. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 42, after the first ("by") insert ("paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to confine compulsory powers to the acquisition of land on which works are to be placed. The Government consider that they must also extend these powers to the acquisition of land which is to be protected. This is an essential feature of the Bill on which the Government cannot give way, because the acquisition of land which is to be protected might in many cases prove the best way in which the coast protection authority could obtain a fair return for the expense of carrying out their works. If any authorities sought to exercise this power in an unconscionable way the compulsory purchase order would not be confirmed. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, frankly I am not convinced by what the noble Lord has said. I think this is a very important point. I cannot acquiesce in the view that the Bill would be wrecked if the limitation of the powers of compulsory purchase were effected in the way suggested by the Amendment. At the same time, I do not propose to divide the House on the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15 [Compensation for depreciation and disturbance]:
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential on the moving of a new clause after Clause 18. A redrafting of the clause was necessitated, first by the adoption on Committee stage of an Amendment deleting "immediately" on the old form of the clause and, secondly, by the need to cover the right to compensation given under the new Clause 17. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 15.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think if we had the full story it would be seen that this has been done as a result of the barrage of criticism of the way in which this clause originally appeared in the Bill. In face of that criticism the Government said: "We will take the clause back and think out something
  778
  fresh." Let us give credit where credit is due, and I think we can share the credit for having succeeded in the withdrawing of a rather obnoxious clause and securing its replacement by something which seems to us, at any rate—and, I am glad to say, to the Government also—to be much better. The noble Lord can rest assured that he has our full support when he moves that Clause 15 shall no longer stand part.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I want to ask only one question, and I must throw myself on the indulgence of the noble Lord. My difficulty is this. On Thursday there was a Marshalled List circulated which contained this new clause. I left home this morning before the Parliamentary Papers came, and when I came to the House I was given a new Marshalled List. Comparing the two, I have been able to see only one difference between the two Amendments, but I would like to be assured that that is so. That difference is to delete the word "consent" and insert "permission." I would like to be clear on that point, because it may be that there is some other point involved.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct: we have changed the word from "consent" to "permission"; that is the only change.
  LORD ROCHESTER: Then I will not press the matter.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Enforcement of obligations to carry out coast protection work]:
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is much the same as that of the Amendment to Clause 9. If I could have the same assurance from the noble Lord as to the interpretation of the word "reasonable," I would be very grateful and would not press the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 7, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I can give the noble Earl that assurance.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.2 p.m.
  Clause 17 [Application for planning permission for development of land on the seashore in certain areas]:
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to leave out Clause 17 and to insert:
  Consent of coast protection authority required to carrying out of coast protection work.
  ".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who carries out any coast protection work, other than work of maintenance or repair, without the consent in writing of the coast protection authority in whose area the work is to be carried out, or in contravention of any conditions subject to which that consent is granted, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act.
  (2) Without prejudice to any proceedings under the last foregoing subsection, where any person has constructed, altered or improved any works in contravention of that subsection or of any such condition as aforesaid, the said coast protection authority may serve a notice on him requiring him, within such period (not being less than thirty days) as may be specified in the notice, to remove the works or to make such alteration therein as may be so specified.
  (3) If within the period specified in a notice under the last foregoing subsection the person on whom the notice is served fails to comply therewith, the coast protection authority may themselves remove or alter the works, as specified in the notice, and if they do so they shall be entitled to recover the expense thereof from the person on whom the notice was served.
  (4) Where for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section application is made to a coast protection authority for their consent, they shall, before determining the application, give notice thereof to any coast protection authority whose area adjoins their area and to any river board or other drainage authority whose area comprises the whole or any part of their area, and shall consider any representations made by any such authority.
  (5) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to the carrying out of work by any body or person upon whom any powers or duty relating to the protection of land have been conferred or imposed by or under any enactment.
  (6) A coast protection authority in England or Wales shall have power to institute proceedings for a contravention of subsection (1) of this section."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 17 in the Bill provided very largely for the developments which might take place on the coast and, as your Lordships will remember, it brought forth a considerable number of Amendments, which, if they had been carried, would have rendered the clause unintelligible. As your Lordships will further remember, we gave notice that on Report we would move the deletion of the clause and the substitution
  780
  of another. The Clause 17 which appears on the Marshalled List is the clause that we propose to substitute.
  Your Lordships will have gathered that it confines itself entirely to coast protection work, and has nothing whatever to do with the developments which one may see arising in various parts of the country. The coast protection authority must be approached by any person who desires to carry through coast protection work, and the consent of that authority must be given before the work is started. If a person commences the work before he gets the consent, then the authority can call upon him to reduce the work, and, if the person fails to do that, the authority can carry it out itself and charge the person with the cost. Your Lordships will notice in the Amendment that where a person can prove that his land has declined in value because of the refusal of the authority to permit of the work being done, or because of conditions that are laid upon him, he can apply for compensation, and that will be provided for in the new clause I shall be moving later. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 17 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this clause appears to deal with the matter in a better way than did the old Clause 17. What the private owner will have to do, unless he is merely carrying out maintenance work on existing coast defence works, is to put the matter before the coast protection authority for that area, so that all these works may be properly co-ordinated. It is a better clause than the one which has been withdrawn, and here again I think we can say that between us we have improved the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 18:
  Prohibition of excavation, etc., of materials on or under the seashore.
  18.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, and notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, it shall be unlawful to excavate or remove any materials (other than minerals more than fifty feet below the surface) on, under or forming part of any portion of the seashore to which the provisions of this section are applied.
  (3) A coast protection authority may make an order applying the provisions of this section to any such portion of the seashore within their

  781
  area or lying to seaward therefrom as may be described in the order:
  Provided that the order may, as respects the whole of that portion of the seashore or any such part thereof as may be specified in the order, except from the provisions of subsection (1) of this section the carrying out of operations of any such class as may be so specified, and any such exception may be either unconditional or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved, in subsection (1), after the first "than" to insert "seaweed ordinarily used for agricultural purposes or." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment raises a new and, I think, a rather interesting point. Round wide stretches of our coast it is a practice to cart away seaweed and use it for agricultural purposes. That is true of many parts of the country, but particularly is it true of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where the crofters regard seaweed as a very valuable dressing and, indeed, would be seriously handicapped if they had not full access to it. As Clause 18 is at present drawn, it seems to me that it would become unlawful to remove seaweed from any part of the seashore. I move this Amendment in order to safeguard the interests of those crofters and farmers who require the seaweed. I understand that the Government may be well disposed towards this Amendment, so I shall confidently sit down and await their reply. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 9, after the first ("than") insert ("seaweed ordinarily used for agricultural purposes or").—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I can endorse from personal experience what the noble Lord has said as to the value of seaweed. As he has indicated, the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, with this conditional point. They are not quite sure at the moment whether it would be wise to limit the Amendment to seaweed used for agricultural purposes. There are increasing uses of seaweed for industrial and other purposes, and it may be necessary, therefore, at a later stage still further to amend the noble Lord's Amendment. On that understanding, the Amendment can be accepted.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I also am grateful to the Government. This is not solely a Scottish question, because
  782
  seaweed has the same properties, whether it is growing on the coasts of Scotland or on the coasts of England or Wales. It is used equally in the south of the British Isles for agricultural purposes. For instance, it is the best dressing I know for asparagus beds and it is also used, as the noble Lord has just told us, for industrial purposes, and especially for the production of iodine. I am also obliged to the noble Lord fur accepting this Amendment, for the suggestion he made that it does not go wide enough and for his assurance that it will be further widened to accomplish even more fully the purposes for which it was put down.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to add to subsection (3):
  "Provided further that there shall be excepted from any order under this subsection the excavation, removal or deposit of any materials resulting from the carrying out of any dredging operations authorised by any local Act in accordance with the provisions thereof."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, as Clause 18 stands at present, I fear it may prejudice the interests of certain authorities who have powers to keep open dredged channels and to carry out dredging operations for that purpose. I had in mind particularly one case, that of the Clyde Lighthouse Trust, and I have an Amendment at the end of the Fourth Schedule which will probably elicit a statement from the Government on this question. I do not intend to say more now than to ask whether, at this point, the Government would assure us that they have fully in mind the responsibilities of such an authority. This Bill is designed to protect our coasts from erosion, but it is equally important that these authorities who keep open channels for shipping should be protected in the statutory carrying out of their work. I have therefore moved this Amendment at this stage, not to force an issue but to get a few words from the Government on the subject. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 28, at end Insert the said proviso."—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for explaining the real purpose of this Amendment. As he suggested, when we came to the question of the further Amendment about the

  783
  Clyde Lighthouse I will make a statement. It may happen that dredging operations in a particular area will be causing the greatest danger to the coast, and that there will be no protection against it. If that were the reason for the Amendment, I should not be able to accept it, because we feel that without the Amendment there is already sufficient protection in the Bill for dredging authorities. The Second Schedule provides that special notice of a draft order shall be served on any harbour authority, navigation authority or conservancy authority, besides being published in the London Gazette and the Edinburgh Gazette and in local newspapers.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. While I am not wholly satisfied, I will await his statement in connection with the Second Schedule. I fully appreciate the difficulty to which the noble Lord refers, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (5), to insert:
  "( ) An order under subsection (3) of this section may provide that this subsection shall have effect as respects any part specified in the order of the area to which the order relates, being a part of the area with which any drainage authority so specified is particularly concerned; and where an order so provides the coast protection authority shall consult with the drainage authority before granting a licence under the last foregoing subsection relating to land in that part of the area."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we had Clause 18 under discussion, an Amendment was moved to protect the interests of river boards and drainage authorities; but it was moved in such terms that we could not at that stage accept it. However, the Government have now tabled an Amendment which we think will meet the case. It will enable the Minister to ensure that these authorities are consulted before licences are given under orders relating to areas with which they are particularly concerned. In other words, if a licence is to be issued, it will not be issued until there has been consultation with the river board or drainage authority. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 43, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this goes a long way to meet a point which was raised on Committee stage. On that occasion some noble Lords were pressing that consent should be obtained, and this Amendment provides for consultation. When we are considering this matter we have to realise, first, that the area has to be specified or designated; and it is not until that happens that anyone is prevented from taking anything away. Now, as I understand, we have areas marked out wherein, before anything is taken away—such as gravel or sand—the river board or drainage board concerned has to be consulted. I think that that is a great improvement; they can now, once they have this area specially designated on the map, sit back, as it were, in peace. They will not always have to be watching the position, because they know that they have to be consulted before any licence is given to take away sand or ballast, or anything else of the kind, from an area in which they are directly concerned. That meets the position to a great extent, and I am glad that we are enabled to get the point included in the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:
  Provisions as to compensation
  ".—(1) Where on a claim being made under this section it is shown—

  (a) that the value of an interest of any person in land has been depreciated, or that any person has suffered damage by being disturbed in his enjoyment of land, in consequence of the carrying out of coast protection work by a coast protection authority in the exercise of the powers conferred by this Part of this Act, or

  (b) that the value of such an interest as aforesaid has been depreciated in consequence of the refusal of consent for which application has been made under the last but one foregoing section, or in consequence of the granting of such consent subject to conditions,

  the coast protection authority shall pay to that person compensation equal to the amount of the depreciation or damage:
  Provided that a person shall not be entitled to compensation under paragraph (a) of this subsection unless the act or omission causing the depreciation or disturbance would have been actionable at his suit if it had been done or omitted otherwise than in the exercise of statutory powers.
  (2) A claim for compensation under this section shall be made to the coast protection

  785
  authority within twelve months of the completion of the work, the refusal of consent, or the imposition of conditions, giving rise to the claim.
  (3) Any dispute arising under this section shall be determined by arbitration.
  (4) Where any interest in land is subject to a mortgage,—

  (a) any compensation under this section which is payable in respect of depreciation of the value of that interest shall be assessed as if the interest were not subject to the mortgage;

  (b) a claim for any such compensation may be made by any mortgagee of the interest, but without prejudice to the making of a claim by the person entitled to the interest;

  (c) a mortgagee shall not be entitled to claim any such compensation in respect of his interest as such; and

  (d) the compensation payable in respect of the interest subject to the mortgage shall be paid by the coast protection authority to the mortgagee or, where there is more than one mortgagee, to the first mortgagee, and shall in either case be applied by him as if it were proceeds of sale.

  (5) In this section the expression "interest" includes any estate in or right over land.
  (6) In the application of this section to Scotland,—

  (a) for references to a mortgage, to a mortgagee and to the first mortgagee there shall be substituted respectively references to a heritable security, to a creditor in a heritable security, and to the creditor whose heritable security has priority over any other heritable securities secured on the land; and

  (b) any reference to land shall include a reference to salmon fishings."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this new clause dealing with compensation, which is to take the place of the former Clause 15. That clause, I think, met with approval on all sides of the House, after the Amendment had been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. As I have explained, because of the acceptance of the Amendment we had to redraft the clause to some extent in order to make the matter clear. Paragraph (a) of the first subsection deals with compensation to be paid where land has suffered detriment because of the activities of coast protection authorities. Paragraph (b) of the same subsection covers the case of land and the value of land where the authority has decided that works of a particular character must not be carried out, or where conditions have been attached. I do not think there is anything more I need dwell upon in connection with the clause, in view of
  786
  what I have said already about its reception on the Committee stage. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 18 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I have no objection to this clause and I am particularly glad to see in subsection (2) of it the limitation if at a person has twelve months in which to make his claim. I am obliged to the noble Lord for having met me in this matter.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.20 p.m.
  Clause 19:
  Contributions towards expenses of coast protection
  19.—(1) The council of a county in England or Wales shall from time to time pay towards the expenses incurred under this Act by the council of any county district within the county such contributions as may be agreed between the two councils, or as, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Minister.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from the commencement of the subsection down to, and including "contributions," and to insert:
  "Where the Minister undertakes to make, or makes, a grant under the next following section towards expenditure incurred under this Act by the council of a county district in England or Wales, the council of the county within which the county district is situated shall pay to the council of the county district such contribution towards that expenditure."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment was tabled in order to meet a point which was made, by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and supported by several other noble Lords opposite—certainly by Lord Cranworth and Lord Kennet. They all feared that the clause as it stood would give a dangerous power to the Minister of Health to compel a county council to contribute towards the expenses of a neighbouring county district in connection with coast protection work. They were afraid both of the power itself and also of the unlimited contribution which such power would authorise the Minister to exact from a county council. Of course, the Ministry are most anxious not to do anything that might appear unreasonable in the eyes of the county councils. My right honourable friend has gone a long way towards meeting this

  787
  objection. I should like to state the whole distance to which he has been able to go, and that will cover an Amendment to be moved later on by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, which we are prepared to accept—namely, the proposed Amendment to page 24, line 40.
  The Amendment to which I am speaking lays it down that such a contribution can be exacted by compulsion from a county council only in the case of an Exchequer grant. If the two authorities have failed to agree, it limits the cases in which such contributions can be required to be made to those in which an Exchequer grant is also made. But we are prepared to go further than to limit the class of case in which compulsion can be used. We think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the amount which a county council can be compelled to pay towards the expenses of a county district should be not more than the amount of the Exchequer grant. That is one limiting condition. We are prepared to accept yet another limiting condition: that in any event it shall be not more than the product of a penny rate, although of course there may be instances in which a penny rate would be less than the amount of the Exchequer grant. With both those provisions as regards the amount which can be levied on a county council, and with the general limitation to the class of case in which the Treasury has made a grant, I hope that noble Lords will feel that as much as possible has been done to meet the objections which the county councils would otherwise have felt. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 36, leave out from beginning to the first ("as") in line 39 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, if it is convenient to the House that I should follow the example of the noble Earl and make all the remarks that I have to make at this stage, I should like to confirm that, when this Bill appeared as first drafted, giving the Minister, as it did, powers to say what the works should be, how much they should cost, how much he should contribute and how much the local people should contribute, and still further, if there was any dispute between the county and the district, to say how that dispute should be resolved, we
  788
  thought that the Minister had dealt himself a hand with rather more aces in it than are customary in a friendly game, particularly as the county council was to have no say in the scheme at all. We considered that, if there was to be any coercion of the county councils, it should be exercised under Clause 2, which, although it gives the Minister some powers, entitles the county to have a voice in the vote for the scheme, and does give them some Parliamentary protection. We thought we had convinced the noble Earl, to some extent, that we were reasonable. The Government Amendment has been put down. By itself, it does not seem to us to go very far because it appears only to say that the Minister should have all these coercive powers merely by paying a sum which might be quite nominal.
  The whole position is a little changed by the attitude explained by the noble Earl in regard to my two Amendments, because they deal with the principle which we consider to be obnoxious—namely, that of the compulsory levy in which we have no say. That still stands. Nevertheless, to our way of thinking my Amendment has the great merit of letting the county council know the full extent of their liabilities. Under my Amendment, we shall know that, when we have contributed to schemes upon which we are not represented the product of a penny rate, either voluntarily or by the direction of the Minister, we cannot be made to pay more. We have been told that the Government have accepted my Amendment.
  I am most grateful for that, but I must point out that the Minister still preserves great powers of coercion, because a penny rate can service a loan of great magnitude—at least, whatever Whitehall standards may be, certainly by local standards in my county a penny rate would service a loan of £300,000, which we consider quite a lot of money. It leaves quite untouched the Minister's power of coercion under Clause 2. So I cannot claim that this is a tremendous vindication of the independent rights of local authorities. I think that the County Councils' Association would wish me to say that they hope that their acquiescence in this matter will not be taken to indicate that any further extension of this principle in other new Bills will be greeted by them with

  789
  any degree of enthusiasm whatever. However, I am glad that on this Bill, which I think in every other way is a good Bill, we have been able to come to agreement. I beg to thank the noble Earl and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for their courtesy in arranging for the discussions which have made this possible.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to subsection (1):
  "Provided that, where the amount of any such contribution is determined by the Minister, it shall not, without the consent of the council of the county, exceed the amount of the contribution which the Minister has himself undertaken to make.
  Provided also that the total payment made by the county council under this subsection shall not, without the consent of the county council, exceed in any financial year the produce of a rate of 1d. in the pound for general county purposes."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg formally to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 40, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I gather that the draftsmen are not quite satisfied with the wording of these two provisos of the noble Viscount. If he will allow us so to proceed, I would suggest that his Amendments be withdrawn, on the understanding that similar Amendments, though different in wording, will be introduced when the Bill reaches another place. They will be identical in substance but different in wording. I should like to add that we are grateful to the noble Viscount and to those associated with him for their extreme reasonableness in meeting us and in accepting this compromise, because we are all aware how deeply they felt about the importance of this matter.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I rather hope that my noble friend does not assent to the suggestion that has just been made by the noble Earl. Here we have these Amendments. They are no secret to us, and the Government have been able to see them for some little time. We have also assented to a very early Third Reading of this Bill in order to facilitate Government business. The Government have come to the Report stage with a view to getting a compromise—which I am glad to see has been reached in this matter.
  790
  If the Government wanted more opportunity to find the right words, they have had a considerable period between the Committee and Report stages. The right way to do it would have been to put down on Third Reacting an agreed Government Amendment, which is allowed in this House.
  I know the Government want to get their Bill through and that is why I, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, have assented to the Standing Order being waived and the Third Reading being taken at once. But if we are meeting the Government so far as that, I think the right way would be for the Government to accept the noble Viscount's Amendments and insert them in this Bill at the present time, even with the reservation, that the wording may have to be altered when they are looked at again in another place. I should like to see the principle inserted here and now in the Bill, so that it is not a new insertion of the principle in another place but only a question of the re-wording of the Amendments. I think we should insert the Amendments here, subject to the qualification which the noble Earl is quite right to give—that there may have to be an alteration in the wording because there has not been time to consult the draftsman. I hope it will be done in that way, otherwise I should suggest that we insist on the Amendments going in here and now, as part of the compromise which I am glad to think has been arrived at in this difficult matter.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I hope I shall be forgiven for being rather persistent in this matter, but it seems to me, that if the Government could see their way to accept these Amendments moved by the noble Viscount and so ably supported by the noble Lord opposite, the position would be much more satisfactory, because when it comes to, another place it will imply mean a verbal alteration. The principle is accepted by the Government, and your Lordships are entitled to have this protection in the Bill before it leaves this House, especially when, as the noble Lord has said, we are in the difficulty of having to take the Third Reading immediately after the Report stage. Therefore, I urge the Government to concede this point to the noble Viscount.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I cannot believe that noble Lords who have been criticising this Bill, having settled all their differences in regard to matters of substance in the most amicable way, could possibly quarrel over a matter of form. However, I cannot allow the Government to be defeated in a competition between the sweet reasonableness of these Benches and the sweet reasonableness of the noble Lords who have been criticising the Bill. I am therefore perfectly willing to do this the other way round, to allow these Amendments to be accepted and then altered in form when they reach another place.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I understand that the alterations he is proposing are quite technical matters, and I understand that the Amendments can now stand as being agreed to.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
  "( ) The council of a county borough in England or Wales or the council of a burgh in Scotland, not being a coast protection authority or a constituent authority of a coast protection board, may if they think fit defray, or contribute towards, the cost of carrying out any coast protection work which appears to the council to be necessary or expedient for the protection of any land in their area."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is a very small Amendment, to carry out an undertaking which was given during the Committee stage. We said that we would enable a non-maritime county borough, or in Scotland a burgh, to contribute to the cost of coast protection works which would benefit it. If the Amendment had not been inserted the county authorities enabled to contribute in this way would have been limited to those which border the sea. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 46, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, if I remember rightly, this was an Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Kennet on Committee stage. I am quite certain that he will be grateful that his point has been met, and that these people are allowed to come in. I think that these Scottish burghs ought also to be grateful to Lord Kennet.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to add to the clause:
  "( ) The council of a county in Scotland shall pay towards the expenses incurred under this Act by the council of a small burgh in the county in respect of coast protection work carried out, in whole or in part, for the protection of a road for the maintenance and management of which the council of the county are responsible such contributions as may be agreed between the two councils or as, in default of agreement, may be determined by the Minister."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a Scottish Amendment, which, I hope, carries the same point a little further, as is usual with Scottish business. Where a coast protection work in a small burgh protects a classified road, and the small burgh undertakes the work as coast protection authority, it seems to us reasonable that the county council as highway authority should make a contribution in respect of that portion of the cost of the work attributable to the protection of the road. It is desirable to make it clear that such contributions can be made, and to provide for the amount of the contribution being determined by the Secretary of State if the two councils fail to agree upon it. May I add that the lines of the proposed Amendment have been discussed with the Association of County Councils and the Convention of Royal Burghs, and no objections have been raised. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, at first glance it might seem that this Amendment was similar to the one to which the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, objected at an earlier stage, and I do not think anyone (or at least the great body of people in Scotland) would differ in any way from the argument which Lord Gage has advanced against that type of Amendment—namely, an Amendment by which the Minister is able to tell the local authority precisely what its contribution should be. But in this case there are certain material differences between the Amendment which affected the English districts and that dealing with Scottish small burghs. In the first place, it is an open question, to my mind, whether the small burghs should be in or not, but by putting them in, something of this character is absolutely necessary. Secondly, it is

  793
  already a duty of the counties to maintain roads; there is no doubt about that. Thirdly, they are already assured of a grant towards the maintenance of those roads. All these points make this Amendment materially different. In this case, the local authorities, if the matter has to go to arbitration, would as soon as not that it went to arbitration by the Secretary of State. In these circumstances, I do not propose to offer any objection to this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21:
  Power to use for incidental purposes land acquired for coast protection.
  21. It is hereby declared that any power of the council of a county borough or county district in England or Wales, or the council of a burgh or county in Scotland, under any other enactment to provide concert halls, entertainment rooms, reading rooms, pavilions, restaurants or other places for the provision of meals or refreshments, bandstands, public conveniences or other buildings on land belonging or let to them, to lay out public parks, pleasure grounds or recreation grounds on such land, or to adapt or use land for any other public purpose, shall be exercisable in relation to any land acquired by them under this Part of this Act, notwithstanding that the land continues to be required for some other purpose for which it was so acquired; but the said power shall not be exercised so as to interfere with the use of the land for that other purpose so long as it is required therefor.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, at the commencement of the clause to insert:
  ".—(1) The provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, as to the disposal and appropriation of land by a local authority, and those provisions as applied by order under Sec-two of this Act, shall have effect in relation to land acquired by a coast protection authority, whether by agreement or compulsorily, being land falling within paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section four of this Act, as the said provisions have effect in relation to land of a local authority which is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired or is being used.
  (2)."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I ought to apologise in the first place for rushing the Bill at too rapid a pace. But that, I feel, would be unwise on my part, for your Lordships have done remarkably well already during the course of this Sitting. When the new Clause 21 came up on Committee stage it met with a good reception, on the whole. The noble Lord opposite had some comments to make about its word-
  794
  ing. We agreed very largely with his comments thereon, and we gave an undertaking to modify the wording. But in considering the clause again after the Committee stage, we came to the conclusion that there ought to be a new subsection. This new subsection has been introduced in order to make clear that the coast protection authority can appropriate or dispose of land which they acquire as land for the protection of which works are carried out. The provisions of the Local Government Act, 1933, are not quite apt unless they are applied in this way. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 32, at beginning insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, so far as I am concerned I have no objection to this Amendment. The others which follow, I think, are consequential upon it. I rise merely to congratulate the noble Lord on having completed his second "innings" upon this Amendment. I think that he get slightly "stumped" during the first "innings."
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may, I will move en bloc the Amendments which follow.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 25, line 42, after ("Act") insert ("for the purpose of carrying out thereon any coast protection work")
  Page 25, line 43, leave out from the first ("for") to end and insert ("that purpose or for works constructed in the course of carrying out the work")
  Page 25, line 45, leave out ("that other purpose") and insert ("the said purpose, or with the maintenance or repair of such works")
  Page 25, line 46, leave out ("therefor") and insert ("for the said purpose or so long as such works are required to be maintained").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 46, at end insert—
  ("( ) In the application of this section to Scotland, subsection (1) shall have effect as if for the reference to the Local Government Act, 1933, there were substituted a reference to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947,

  795
  and as if the words 'and those provisions as applied by order under Section two of this Act' were omitted.")—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  4.45 p.m.
  Clause 22:
  Power of coast protection authority to sell materials
  22.—(1) A coast protection authority may sell any materials which have been severed by them from any land when carrying out work in the exercise of powers conferred by this Part of this Act and which are not before the expiration of three days from the date of their severance claimed by the person to whom they belong.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (1) to substitute "seven" for "three." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very small Amendment, but many of those for whom I speak feel that three days is such a short period that the owner would have to be "sitting" almost permanently on the job, particularly if these materials were such that he did not wish them to be sold, either by himself or by the authority. It might be material such as chalk which he might wish to use on adjacent land. We feel that seven days would be a more convenient period, and I therefore beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 4, leave out ("three") and insert ("seven").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords I agree with the noble Earl's suggestion that this Amendment does not appear to ask for a great deal. That seems to be true superficially. But in fact, the owner would have much longer notice than three days, because during the whole period in which the work is making progress it would be open to the owner to make arrangements for taking up the materials mentioned in the clause. Three days, therefore, is only the period of final notice; it is not the full notice. It is merely an intimation that the materials must be removed three days after the work has been completed. We would desire that the three days should be retained for another reason. The retention would bring this into line with Section 276 of the Public Health Act, 1836, on which there has never been any difficulty, and it is preferable that the position should remain uniform. I, therefore, hope that the noble Earl will not find it necessary to press his Amendment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, it is always extremely pleasing to us when noble Lords on that Bench opposite rest on precedents of a hundred odd years or so ago. When they do that we are always glad to give them such credit as we can.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I am sorry, but the date of the Act I mentioned is 1936.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord said 1836, and that was what got me on my feet. However if 1936 is correct, it is a very respectable Act, for it had the respectable parentage of a Government of which some of us here were members. So perhaps a 1936 precedent is more impressive to some of us on these Benches than one of the date on which I originally understood the noble Lord to say he rested his argument.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I feel that his assurance of the prior notice does, partially at any rate, cover our point, and in the circumstances I have no wish to press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 25 [Power of coast protection authorities to require information as to ownership of land]:
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, this Amendment is merely consequential upon one accepted during the Committee stage. It was intended, I believe, to include all kinds of ownership in Scotland but this was missed at the time. I beg to move that "feuar" be inserted.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 44, at end insert ("feuar").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Marquess has seen the next Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper. That Amendment is intended to meet exactly the same point as is met by the noble Marquess's Amendment. My Amendment has been put down to make assurance doubly sure. It is to insert after "mortgagee" the words "owner, creditor in a heritable security." I am advised that this will include not only the feuar but also the Scottish equivalent of the mortgagee. If, therefore, that is satisfactory—as I hope it will be—and the

  797
  words which I am proposing are more appropriate to Scottish legal phraseology than the word "feuar," perhaps the noble Marquess will withdraw his Amendment in favour of mine.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Will the noble Lord explain whether the "feuar" is the man who makes the feu or the man who takes the feu?
  LORD MORRISON: Perhaps the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, can explain that better than I can.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I must say that "heritable security" is not very different from a "feu." I do not quite understand why the words proposed by Lord Morrison should not have been included in the previous clause, when he accepted the word "feuar." I see no harm in putting his words, instead of "feuar," though I feel the same words ought to be used in both clauses.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Marquess is that it was felt that the words "or otherwise," in line 45, were wide enough to cover any case that might arise, but in order to make assurance doubly sure the Government put down the Amendment which I will move if the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, as I have already explained, this is a drafting Amendment which covers the noble Marquess's Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 45, after ("mortgagee") insert ("owner, creditor in a heritable security").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 26:
  Power of Minister to facilitate coast protection work
  (5) At any time after the Minister is satisfied that the time for serving notice of objection to an application under this section has expired and that every objector has had an opportunity of being heard as aforesaid, he may, after considering the report of any person appointed by him to hear objections, make an order authorising the applicant to carry out
  798
  the work or enter on the land, as the case may be, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order; and any such order may require the applicant to pay to any person affected such compensation as may be provided for in the order.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in subsection (5) after "order" (where that word first occurs) to insert:
  "debarring the applicant from carrying out the work or entering on the land, as the case may be, or."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, among those to whom I have been speaking this afternoon, an impression has been created that subsection (5) of this clause makes the Minister in every case decide in favour of the applicant. Of course, that does not follow. As the noble Lord will be aware, there seems to be a precedent for this Amendment in the Amendment to subsection (5) of Clause 13. The three clauses standing in my noble friend's name all hang together, the two latter being consequential on the first. I raise this matter to get an explanation from the noble Lord in regard to the position.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 29, line 1, after ("order") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am advised that this Amendment is not necessary. If the Amendment were adopted, the Minister would be given power to make an order to debar a person from carrying out work or entering on land in order to comply with a works scheme or a repairs notice. The only reason why this person need apply to the Minister for an order, as subsection (1) shows, is that he is already prevented by a restrictive covenant or for other reasons from carrying out work or entering on the land. If the Minister does not think his entry should be facilitated, he simply does not make an order and therefore this Amendment appears to be unnecessary. I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I will not press my Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 28:
  Transfer and compensation of officers, and superannuation rights.
  28.—(1) An order constituting or dissolving a coast protection board, an order under the

  799
  last foregoing section transferring or retransferring functions of a coast protection authority, and an agreement setting up or dissolving a joint committee under section three of this Act, if made with the approval of the Minister, may make provision as to the transfer, compensation and pension rights of officers and servants of the authorities concerned.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (1), to omit "if made with the approval of the Minister may make provision" and to insert
  "shall make such provision (if any) as the Minister may require."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is to cover a small and simple point. If the Minister makes an order setting up or dissolving a coast protection board, presumably he inserts in that order a clause giving compensation and pension rights to anybody who is displaced by that change. But under Clause 3 there are a number of agreements which can be made without the approval of the Minister and which, therefore, do not need his consent. No doubt the authorities who come to those agreements wish to make arrangements for pension rights for people displaced by the agreements, but if they do so, the agreements will immediately require the consent of the Minister. This no doubt will be a certain discouragement to authorities and will prevent them inserting compensation clauses in their agreements. The Amendment is simply to make certain that, whatever the agreement made, whether requiring the consent of the Minister or not, compensation clauses shall be included. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line 42, leave out from ("Act") to ("as") in line 43 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount is largely of a drafting character. I think it states most clearly the condition that agreements for joint action should provide for compensation to officers suffering loss. In view of that, I have great pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, is that quite so? My noble friend, Lord Gage, is not at the moment in the House, but we had considerable discussion on the original wording of the Bill, as to whether the authorities themselves should
  800
  make the provision necessary for the remuneration and pension rights of their officers and servants. The noble Lord will remember that at Clause 2, subsection (5), after some discussion, he accepted an Amendment which laid down that the employers—the local authority—and not the Minister, were to make this provision. A Government Amendment was moved to-day to that effect. In these words of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, "shall make such provision (if any) as the Minister may require," we are back to the fact that the local authorities can be dictated to by the Minister in regard to these pension rights. That is the effect of the Amendment. Whether it was meant to have that effect or not I do not know, but with responsible authorities who have had long years of friendly relations with their staff, I think it ought to be left to them to agree with the staff what pension rights they are to get.
  I rather regret that this matter could not have come up at an earlier stage in the Bill, when we could have given it a little more thought. Perhaps for that reason I have been wrong in agreeing that we should take the Third Reading so quickly, because maybe we ought to have had a look at this point again before Third Reading. It practically replaces the position which we had decided should be deleted at the beginning of Clause 2 (5). I am surprised to see the Government going back on an alteration they proposed so recently as this afternoon. I was under the impression that, in consequence, this Amendment was not going to be accepted, at any rate in its present form. That is why I rise to ask whether it is the intention, by accepting this Amendment, to go back on the Amendment the Government have proposed this afternoon, and leave it in the power of the Minister to tell a local authority what they have to do in regard to pension rights. I certainly want to put in that caveat in regard to this Amendment, although I wish it could be done by somebody who knows more of the practice of local government work than I do myself.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is not here at the moment. I would earnestly urge the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, to withdraw his Amendment, because it seems to me that we are stultifying ourselves. If he will adopt that

  801
  course, the matter can be given careful consideration in another place.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may have permission to speak again, I would say that I am much impressed by the remarks of the noble Lords who have spoken. Notwithstanding the fact that I have already agreed, on behalf of the Government, to accept this Amendment, I would appeal to my noble friend to withdraw it at this stage so that it can be dealt with in another place, if that meets the wishes of noble Lords.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I must first thank the noble Lord for his somewhat abortive acceptance of my Amendment, and, secondly, for promising to look at the matter again. I hope the noble Lord will see that something is done to amend this clause because, as it stands, there is a strong disincentive to authorities to introduce a compensation clause into their agreements. However, in view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 30 [Application to the Crown]:
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
  "( ) An order under section eighteen of this Act shall not bind the Crown if the order has effect without being confirmed by the Minister."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 30 applies to Crown land, in so far as the prohibition of excavation for materials on or under the seashore is concerned. It has seemed right, on reflection, to limit this application to substantive orders under the clause, and not, for instance, to interim orders. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 32, line 8, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I would like to ask whether that is the full purport of this Amendment. I must say, with great respect to the noble Lord, that his words in introducing the Amendment did not seem to bear on this particular Amendment. It means really that the Crown is contracting out of Clause 18 of this Bill unless it is an order which has been confirmed by the Minister. Am I right, or has it some other effect that I have not seen?
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am advised that all the orders bind the Crown except the interim orders.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 33:
  Operations excepted from s. 32.
  33.—(1) The following operations shall be excepted from the restriction imposed by subsection (1) of the last foregoing section, that is to say—
  (e) any work to which the consent of the Admiralty, either alone or jointly with any other goverment department, is required by virtue of any local Act, or by virtue of such Act and any notice given and published by the Admiralty under section nine of the Harbours Transfer Act, 1862;
  (f) any work which a conservancy authority or a harbour authority or a navigation authority is empowered to carry out for the removal of any vessel sunk or stranded or of anything causing or likely to cause an obstruction or impediment to any navigation.
  LORD ROCHESTERhad given Notice to move in subsection (1) (e), after the first "Admiralty" to insert "or the Minister of Transport." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in some difficulty here. To be quite frank, I put down the next two Amendments, and also the Amendment at page 34, line 38, to meet the same point. They are alternative ways of meeting a difficulty and I rather favour the second. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has an Amendment down on the Marshalled List of Amendments at page 34, line 38, which I think is almost as good as mine, if he will forgive my saying so. When we discussed this matter on Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, seemed to suggest (I do not want to cross swords with the noble Lord, because he has clearly forgotten more than I ever knew of this problem; I am lost in admiration for the way in which he has dealt with this Bill, and my indebtedness to him is only second to my indebtedness to the Government) that this Bill applies only to the seaward side. That is not my understanding of it, because subsection (2) of the Interpretation Clause says distinctly:
  "For the purposes of Part I of this Act the expression 'sea'".
  and so on. The Fourth Schedule, therefore, to which the noble Lord referred, deals only with Part I, and this clause

  803
  refers to Part II. Therefore, I suggest, with great diffidence, that it is not affected by that at all. The jurisdiction, as I said on the Committee stage, extends much further. Our jurisdiction of the Port of London extends from the Nore to Teddington, and I feel it is essential that we should be protected. I think the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will meet the whole situation. In the circumstances, I may be well advised not to move the next two Amendments. If the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is accepted, I shall content myself with thanking him for meeting us so generously.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to assimilate the wording in lines 25 and 26 on page 33. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 34, line 37, leave out from ("cause") to ("navigation") in line 38 and insert ("obstruction or danger to").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.10 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to subsection (1):
  "(g) any work carried out by, or in accordance with a licence or permission granted by, such an authority in pursuance of any Act, where—

  (i) the Act requires that if the approval of the Minister of Transport is not previously obtained to the work other conditions must be complied with and

  (ii) the said approval has been so obtained or the said conditions are complied with."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister of Transport has considered the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, withdrew after discussion during the Committee stage of the Bill, and which now appears as the next Amendment in the Marshalled List. I do not think that Amendment has the effect which the noble Lord has in mind. Section 244 of the Port of London Act, 1920, provides that works licensed by the Port Authority shall not be commenced without the approval of the Minister of Transport or, if such approval has not been previously obtained, without proper conditions being made to provide for the immediate removal of the works if required by the Minister of Transport. It
  804
  will be noted that the Act does not require the Minister to approve works when they have been commenced. He can then only signify disapproval. However, the Minister agrees in principle with the intention of the noble Lord's Amendment, and he has ventured to offer this Amendment, which he hopes will enable this point to be concluded to the noble Lord's satisfaction to-day. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 34, line 38, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, subject to anything the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, may say, this Amendment seems to meet the position almost entirely, except that whereas previously permission could be given for the works, subject to their removal if the Minister did not give his consent, under this Bill it will be a penal offence not to obtain permission first. That was not so previously, but I will not argue the point again. I content myself with thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for so generously meeting us in this matter.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to add to subsection (1):
  "(g) any act properly carried out in the ordinary navigation of any vessel or for the protection of any vessel."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage I pointed out that this clause seemed to be drawn so tightly that there was a danger that the master of a vessel could not drop anchor below high-water mark without the written consent of the Minister of Transport, which, of course, would be absurd. The purpose of my Amendment is to elicit the Government's intention with regard to mariners in general who are seeking the protection of our coasts. I presume the Government do not mean to prejudice the interests of mariners to that extent. The Amendment which I am moving would exempt any act carried out in the ordinary navigation of a vessel or for the protection of a vessel. I have in mind anchoring and jettisoning. I would like a statement as to that from the noble Lord. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 34, line 38, at end, insert the said paragraph —(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, his Amendment deals with two separate matters, and much to my regret I am unable to accept it. His Amendment deals first with acts carried out in the ordinary navigation of a vessel and, secondly, with acts carried out for the protection of vessels. The inclusion of the first part, I am advised, would imply that any act which is not carried out in ordinary navigation would require the consent of the Minister of Transport, whether or not it would otherwise come within the ambit of Clause 33. I need hardly point out to the noble Lord that in an emergency, such as when a vessel is in distress, many acts may be carried out and it would be clearly impossible and impracticable for the consent in writing of the Minister of Transport to be obtained before action is taken.
  I am also advised that acts properly carried out in the ordinary navigation of a vessel (such as the type of case mentioned by the noble Lord on the previous stage, the dropping of an anchor) would not come within Clause 33. I hesitate to use a legal argument, but I have taken some trouble to inform myself, and I am satisfied by people with more legal knowledge than I possess that to describe dropping an anchor as "depositing any object or any material" would be regarded in the Scottish courts as an abuse of words which no court would accept, particularly when it would produce an obvious absurdity. The second part of the Amendment is not acceptable because it would permit the construction, without the consent of the Minister, of extensive works, such as breakwaters and piers, which are required for the protection of shipping. I hope that explanation will be satisfactory to the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I do not quite understand the noble Lord. This Amendment appears to extend the function of Clause 33. Clause 33 is merely an exception to Clause 32: "Operations excepted from Clause 32." Whether the two references to Clause 33 should have been to Clause 32 I do not know.
  LORD MORRISON: Yes, Clause 32 and Clause 33.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not see how it can be argued that by extending
  806
  those exceptions we are actually limiting the sphere in which they operate. The noble Lord says that the words, "not carried out in ordinary navigation" would imply that things which were carried out in ordinary navigation might themselves constitute an obstruction. If that is the argument, it seems rather a curious one. The noble Lord confined his remarks to Scottish courts but, of course, this applies to all courts in the United Kingdom. Can the noble Lord give an assurance that he considers that no obstruction of this character can possibly come within the limits of Clause 32 (1)? We are informed by my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir that those responsible for dealing with those matters consider it perfectly reasonable that to "deposit any object or materials on any such part of the seashore as aforesaid" might include dropping an anchor or anything else which might have to be discharged by way of jettisoning, or for any other purpose, from a ship. If the noble Lord can give the assurance that that is not likely to be the case, I think those concerned will be grateful for it.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am very happy to give that assurance.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. No doubt if there is anxiety the matter will be raised again in another place.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 40 [Accounts of councils of boroughs]:
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment and the two which follow hang together. In Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, strongly urged that the accounts of the coast protection authorities should be subject to public audit. These Amendments have been drafted to make sure that is done. In the case of a borough council, where the council is spending money on this matter, the accounts should be kept separate in order to facilitate the audit. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 12, after ("Act") insert ("and every coast protection board in England or Wales").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not know if I spoke very strongly about

  807
  this, but it seemed reasonable that these accounts should be audited in the same way as the accounts of other local authorities. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having given effect to this.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 13, leave out ("those") and insert ("such").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 37, line 17, after ("and") insert ("in the case of a borough council").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 48 [Short title and extent]:
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to the clause:
  "(4) Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on the public revenue or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a privilege Amendment, and I beg formally to move it.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 42, line 30, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, even if this is a privilege Amendment, I think we are entitled to know what it means. Personally, I read it through with wonder why it should be put in here at all. It says:
  "Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people …"—
  but many people cannot work unless the Act does impose a charge—
  "… or on the public revenue …"
  If funds are not to be provided out of public revenue, I do not know where they are coming from. Unless some funds come from Exchequer sources, this Bill will be a complete dead letter. The Amendment goes on:
  "… or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner,
  808
  or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge."
  It would impose no charge and it could not alter any such charge! Even if this is a privilege Amendment, surely if it is moved in this House we are entitled to know what it means.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I did not receive my Papers until this morning, before I came down to the House, and I obtained my copy of the new Marshalled List of Amendments as I entered your Lordships' Chamber. I therefore had no opportunity of discussing the points with my advisers, but I am advised, not only in the usual way but by the Table, that all I need do in a case of this description is formally to move the Amendment; as a privilege Amendment so I am somewhat "between the devil and the deep blue sea." Perhaps I may be allowed to read the statement which has come from my normal advisers: that the Amendment is moved to avoid raising a question of infringing the privileges of the House of Commons. The subsection will be left out by Amendment in the House of Commons after the necessary Financial Resolution has been carried there. This is the usual practice.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.23 p.m.
  First Schedule [Procedure for making Orders and Provisions as to the validity of Orders]:
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there are a number of Amendments tabled in my name to the First Schedule of this Bill. I mentioned them at an earlier stage in to-day's proceedings. Their aim and purpose is to ensure that where an appeal has been made, or an objection has been entered into the case of a coast protection board, then the appeal or the objection should be made, not to the Minister but to the Ministers concerned. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 43, line 26, at end insert—
  ("( ) In the case of an order which subsection (4) of section two of this Act requires to be made jointly by, the Ministers concerned, references in the foregoing sub-paragraph to the Minister shall be construed as references to the Ministers concerned.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we have no objection to this. The Amendment and those which follow fulfil the undertaking given on the Committee stage. As we agreed earlier, this is the right place to do it. We are much obliged for these Amendments.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 43, line 30, at end insert—
  "( ) Where any such objection as aforesaid is made by a body mentioned in paragraphs (b) to (d) of sub-paragraph (1) of the last foregoing paragraph, the reference in the last foregoing sub-paragraph to the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the Ministers concerned.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 43, line 44, at end insert ("and the expression 'the Ministers concerned' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (8) of section two of this Act and the power of determination conferred on the Treasury by that subsection shall apply accordingly").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the last. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 45, line 8, after ("burgh") insert—
  (" (c) for sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
  '(2) Where any such objection as aforesaid is made by a conservancy authority or a navigation authority or by a harbour authority, other than the authority for a harbour principally used by the fishing industry, or by a body mentioned in paragraph (c) or (d) of sub-paragraph (1) of the foregoing paragraph, any reference in the foregoing sub-paragraph to the Minister shall be construed as a reference to the Minister and the Minister of Transport.'")—(Lord Morrison)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Second Schedule [Provisions as to Orders restricting excavation of materials from the seashore]:
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this and the following Amendments are drafting Amendments, arising from the same cause as brought the Amendment
  810
  to the First Schedule. With your Lordships' permission, I will move them en bloc.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 45, line 28, leave out ("sub-paragraph") and insert ("paragraph").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 45, line 40, leave out ("confirming the order") and insert ("the order is confirmed").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 45, line 43, at end insert:
  ("( ) Where the objection is made by any such body as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of this Schedule, references in the last foregoing sub-paragraph to the Minister shall be construed—

  (a) in the case of an objection made by a catchment board, external drainage board or river board, or by the harbour authority for a harbour to which the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, applies, as references to the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and

  (b) in the case of an objection made by any other harbour authority, or by a conservancy authority or navigation authority, as references to the Minister and the Minister of Transport.")—(Lord Shepherd.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move this drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 45, line 45, after ("Minister") insert ("or Ministers concerned").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. The Amendment should read after ("him") insert ("or them").
  Amendment moved—
  Page 45, line 47, after ("him") insert ("or them").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, line 1, leave out from ("Minister") to ("may") in line 3.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is also a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, line 4, at end insert ("as he may think fit, having regard to the determination of any objections and to the report of any person appointed to hold an inquiry or to hear objections").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 46, line 11, leave out from ("by") to the second ("of") and insert ("paragraph 2").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lord, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to the Second Schedule at page 45, line 43. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 24, after ("Gazette") insert—
  ("(b) for sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5 there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
  '(2) Where the objection is made by a conservancy authority or a navigation authority or by a harbour authority, other than the authority for a harbour principally used by the fishing industry, any reference in the foregoing sub-paragraph to the Minister shall be construed as references to the Minister and the Minister of Transport.'")—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I ask whether, when the Minister refers to "the Minister," he means the Secretary of State? Secondly, the first line of the Amendment refers to subparagraph (2) of paragraph 5, but I am unable to find that. Perhaps he could tell me where it is.
  LORD MORRISON: I could not tell you. The only information that I have on this Amendment is that it is a consequential Amendment to that on the Second Schedule, page 45, line 43.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: I understand that it refers to a new paragraph that has been added on Report stage. I understand that that is so. If so, the mystery is explained.
  LORD MORRISON: I said it was an Amendment consequential on that to the Second Schedule, page 45, line 43, where your Lordships have just inserted an Amendment—namely,
  "Where the objection is made by any such body as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of this
  812
  Schedule, references in the last foregoing subparagraph to the Minister shall be construed—
  (a) in the case of an objection made by a catchment board, external drainage board or river board, or by the harbour authority for a harbour to which the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, applies, as references to the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries."
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule:
  Waters excluded for purposes of definitions of "sea" and "seashore."
  111.—(1) The Minister may by order vary the foregoing provisions of this Schedule either by the inclusion of any waters not for the time being specified therein or by the exclusion of any waters for the time being so specified.
  (2) The power to make orders conferred by this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the first two Amendments standing in my name are put down in order to make a clearer line in the cases involved. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 28, leave out ("points") and insert ("point").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is a slight adjustment which secures a more convenient line in the light of local circumstances. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 30, leave out from ("Lindsey") to ("high") in line 31 and insert ("crosses").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment also seeks to make a slight clearing of the situation in these cases. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 48, line 32, at end insert ("and the north corner of Beach House in the parish of Snetter-sham in the rural district of Docking").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the definition of the waters excluded by paragraph 60 has been adjusted to give a more convenient definition in the light of local circumstances. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 50, line 22, leave out from ("above") to end of line 22 and insert ("longitude 4° 54′ West").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the definition of waters excluded by paragraph 89 has been slightly adjusted to fit in better with local circumstances. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 51, line 21, leave out from ("above") to end of line 22 and insert ("Talycafn Bridge").—(Lord Shepherd.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after paragraph 109, to insert:
  "110. The River Clyde, above a line drawn between Newark Castle on the south bank and the mouth of Cardross Burn on the north bank.
  111. The River Forth, above a line drawn between Hound Point on the south bank and Hopeward Point on the north bank."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, as there is still some business before the House, perhaps it would be better to discuss the next Amendment and the one which follows together. They deal with the same point. The purpose of the Amendment is to exclude the waters of these rivers, the River Clyde and the River Forth, from the operations of Part I of the Bill. It is not anticipated that any coast protection problems are likely to arise further upstream than the limits proposed to be scheduled. The Forth Conservancy Board and the Trustees of the Clyde Navigation have been consulted and have agreed that the proposed limits of exclusion are satisfactory. No objections have been received from the local authority associations to whom the proposals were communicated immediately after the debate on January 27. No doubt noble Lords will remember that, in the course of my statement on January 27, I said that consideration was also being given to including the waters of the River Tay and the River Dee in the Fourth Schedule. Those proposals are still being examined by the navigation and local authorities concerned, and Amendments will, if necessary, be proposed in another place. No decision has been come to. Therefore, we are unable to put them in here. Does the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, desire me to deal with the lighthouses question at the same time?
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: Yes.
  LORD MORRISON: With regard to the noble Lord's next Amendment, I am advised that representations from the Clyde Lighthouses Trust were received
  814
  only a day or two ago, and there has been no sufficient opportunity of considering the effect of the proposed Amendment in regard to the coast protection problems of the Clyde. So far as the Department are aware, it is unlikely that an extension of the limit in the sense of the Amendment would exclude front the Bill coast protection works which might otherwise be assisted. It is, however, desirable that the local authorities concerned should have an opportunity of considering the point. Accordingly, I have to suggest that if the Amendment is now withdrawn, the Department will consult with the local authority associations and, if no objections are received, steps will be taken to propose the necessary Amendments at a later stage in the Bill's progress. As the noble Lord probably knows, the Clyde Lighthouses Trust have agreed to this proposal. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 52, line 17, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, your Lordships have allowed both the Amendments to be discussed together, so perhaps I may reply on them now. As regards the first Amendment, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for meeting the point which I raised at an earlier stage of the Bill. The Amendment which he is now proposing satisfactorily covers that point. As regards the other two rivers, the Tay and the Dee, I appreciate the situation which he has described. I shall be content to leave the question there, as I understand it is being discussed with the authorities concerned. That disposes of the first Amendment. We now proceed to the second. The Clyde Lighthouses Trust, a different authority from the Clyde Navigation Trust, have certain responsibilities for dredging the channel west of the channel for which the Clyde Navigation Trust are responsible. I shall be glad to withdraw this Amendment on the understanding, as stated by the noble Lord, that this authority and other authorities concerned are being consulted with a view to finding a definition which will satisfactorily safeguard their interests and rights in the area in which they are responsible for dredging. I will, therefore, not move that Amendment when we come to it, and I thank the noble Lord for meeting me.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in paragraph 111, to substitute "regulation" for "order." The noble Earl said: My Lord, this Amendment refers to the manner in which the Fourth Schedule can be altered. At the present time, your Lordships will see that the Minister may vary the Fourth Schedule at any time by order. If your Lordships will look at Clause 42, you will notice that, in these circumstances, an order does not need to be brought before Parliament at all. So far as I am aware, a statutory order can be completed by ministerial and executive action without reference at all. I am suggesting in my Amendment that the word "order" should be replaced by the word "regulation." Under Section 42 (1) the word "regulation" means a statutory instrument which "shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament." Accordingly, by my Amendment, alterations in the Fourth Schedule would in each case be subject to annulment by Parliamentary action. Your Lordships will observe that some careful analyses of the Fourth Schedule were given in the previous Amendments moved by Lord Shepherd, in which he went in certain cases into minutes and seconds, in order to specify precisely the areas to which this Act does or does not apply. All these details can be wiped away to-morrow morning, or the day after the Act receives the Royal Assent, by executive action in the Department.
  Your Lordships are probably aware that, from a Scottish point of view, we have been trying for two months to get some definitions from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. He has now, after two months, supplied two of the four that are required. It seems to me that, these facts having been put into the Schedule of this Bill, it should not be possible for the Minister overnight to remove them completely or to change them exactly as he wishes. I submit that the proper and, after all, the normal method, is that of the use of regulations which are required to be put before Parliament and can, if necessary, be annulled by Parliament; otherwise any alteration can be made to this Schedule, and in neither House of Parliament would we have a chance to express our concurrence or disapproval. The alteration would go through by virtue of this Statute; there would be no means by which Parliamentary action could be
  816
  taken to prevent an alteration of any sort or character being made in this Schedule. For those reasons I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 52, line 20, leave out ("order") and insert ("regulation").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry to say that we cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment. The effect of the Amendment would be to require any proposal to amend the Fourth Schedule to be made by regulations which, by clause, are subject to annulment. The main purpose of the Schedule is to take out of the jurisdiction of coast protection authorities those parts of tidal waters which are not subject to direct sea action. Those parts which are left out of the scope of the Bill by the Schedule are within the jurisdiction of other statutory bodies (catchment boards in England and Wales) who already have the responsibility of seeing that the banks are properly protected. The inclusion or exclusion of tidal waters is not of very great moment—it is an administrative convenience rather than anything else, because if they were left in the scope of the Bill any action proposed by a coast protection authority would be subject to the Minister's approval, and if proposals were made by other authorities who already had the statutory responsibility the proposals would not be approved by the Minister. No natural questions of policy can arise on proposals for adjustments of the Schedule, and it seems quite unnecessary to trouble Parliament with them whenever alterations are required. I am therefore sorry indeed that we cannot accept the Amendment moved by the noble Earl.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, there is a little more in this point than I think would appear from the remarks of the noble Lord who has just sat down. What happened is that, for better or for worse—and the Government has chosen it as the better course—a number of boundaries are put into this Fourth Schedule, showing the parts of the coast or estuaries of this country to which this Bill shall apply. As the noble Earl who moved the Amendment said, a long time may have been spent in negotiations between the different authorities, but in the end Parliament has agreed that a certain

  817
  definition shall be put in the Fourth Schedule. If this Bill as it is at present drawn becomes an Act, there is nothing to prevent an Order in Council being made the day after it has received the Royal Assent, altering any or every one of the boundaries in the Fourth Schedule, and there is no possible way of objecting to it. In the course of me of the debates in Committee—I think it was in connection with a point that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, was raising—I said that the Bill did not apply above those parts of the rivers set out in this Schedule, and, therefore, many harbour or river authorities and catchment boards could be quite happy in knowing how they were affected.
  The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, knows that the catchment boards have been showing considerable anxiety in regard to this Bill. We have secured something for them in this House by way of Amendments, but, as will be seen from the Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Braintree, which unfortunately he was not able to be present to move to-day, those bodies are not wholly satisfied. If they now know that the whole of these boundaries can be altered in a single day by order of the Minister of Health—and that order can be made by the Minister of Health alone, and not in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture, which was a provision we have been at pains to make in regard to another Schedule of the Bill—they will say, "Of what value is this to us?"; and they will be quite right in saying that. All this Amendment means is, not that any administrative order that is made under this measure will have to come before Parliament, but that any regulation which is made by the Minister to alter the terms of the Act of Parliament itself shall come before us. I believe in principle that either House of Parliament is entitled, where a Minister has power to alter the words of an Act of Parliament, to ask that the regulation shall be tabled and that either a Member of another place or any noble Lord here may pray against the alteration of the Act of Parliament by the administrative order of the Minister.
  If we do not accept this Amendment it means that the Minister, behind the backs of those who may have spent half-an-hour or so in arguing the definition
  818
  of a river (as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, have done in this House to our knowledge on this particular Bill), will be able completely to alter what they have done. I hold that this is a matter of principle on which we ought to insist that there should be a regulation, and that we should be able to pray against it if any alteration is made by the Minister in the actual wording of the Act of Parliament. I trust we may get a more satisfactory answer from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel; otherwise I hope we shall insist on saying that if we put words and boundaries into an Act of Parliament we shall be consulted when those words and boundaries are altered. I believe that the decision whether we insist on this Amendment or leave it as it is will make a considerable difference to the anxieties of all the catchment boards. For that reason I hope that we on this side of the House shall insist upon the Amendment which has now been moved.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, as my name appears also on this Amendment perhaps I should add a word. I would only say that this is a matter which is of considerable anxiety to important authorities affected by this Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord will not lightly turn the Amendment down. Further, this is a point of principle on which we feel strongly. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will be able, even at this stage, to indicate to us that he will accept the Amendment.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I do not wish to delay your Lordships at this late hour, but I would urge the Government to make this concession to delete "order" and insert "regulation." It seems to me that the value of the Fourth Schedule will be altogether vitiated unless this alteration is made. Much as I would dislike voting against the Government, I feel that if this is not accepted I shall be compelled to do so. The Port of London Authority are directly interested in this. It affects the whole protection which they have as regards the upper reaches of the river. If an alteration can be made just by action of the Minister, without reference to Parliament, it seems to me that it may raise the whole question afresh. I urge the Government to concede this point.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this is a very short point, and I do not wish to cover ground which has already been covered. I rise merely in order to say that in view of the pressure which has been brought to bear on the Government to reconsider their attitude on this matter, I hope that they will see their way to reconsider it.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of what has been said, the Government will not resist the Amendment. I think perhaps I ought to point out that this Bill goes from here to another place and, whilst we who sit on this side of the House are giving way on this occasion, we have nothing whatever to do with what transpires in another place. We cannot well commit the Government. When this question arises in another place, as it undoubtedly will, the Government will not be committed by our action. But, as I say, so far as this House is concerned, we give way.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the very reasonable statement which he has just made?
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move the next Manuscript Amendment, which is consequential.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 52, line 24, leave out ("order") and insert ("regulation").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Then, Standing Order XXXIX having been dispensed with:
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. I have to inform the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, has been pleased to give his consent, so far as His Majesty's interest on behalf of the Crown, of the Duchy of Lancaster and of the Duchy of Cornwall is concerned, that their Lordships may proceed therein as they shall think fit.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  SOLICITORS, PUBLIC NOTARIES, &c., BILL
  5.56 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a small and, I believe, non-contentious Bill, the Second Reading of which I now move. It is not a Bill which ushers in a new epoch. It is rather, on the other hand, a Bill which closes an epoch. In the year 1785, some ten years after the American Declaration of Independence, this country was in financial difficulties, and the gloomy prophets of those days vied with others who have been equally gloomy on several occasions since. It was a time when William Pitt the Younger was Prime Minister, and it was decided to raise a special levy on the lawyers or some of them—they were a most deserving class of the community, who were singled out for very harsh treatment in those days. The treatment was extended to solicitors, special pleaders, draftsmen in equity, conveyancers and notaries. Your Lordships all know what solicitors are, but you may not know what special pleaders, draftsmen in equity or conveyancers were. They were gentlemen who practised, in the phrase of the day, "under the Bar." They obtained licences from the various Inns of Court, and they flourished in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the nineteenth century they rather fell into disuse because, owing to the reforms of the law and the sweet simplicity which was then introduced, their services were no longer required.
  Your Lordships will notice that barristers were never included in this special impost. Perhaps if they had been, the impost would have been repealed many years ago! The duty was originally £5 in the year 1785. Until 1947 it was £9 in London and Edinburgh, and £6 in the other parts of the country, and every solicitor had to pay it on taking out his practising certificate. Special pleaders, draftsmen in equity and conveyancers, had to pay the same, but there are now no special pleaders, draftsmen in equity or conveyancers left, so they will not trouble us any further. In 1947 it was considered wrong that this special impost should continue to prevail, and, in consequence, in the Finance Act of that year, the special impost was

  821
  reduced to a small fraction of what it had been—shillings instead of pounds. The reason that it was not abolished altogether was that abolition of the duty would have involved something which is not proper to a Money Bill, and if the Finance Act of 1947 had contained this provision it would not have been solely a Money Bill. Consequently, it was thought better to bring it in as a separate piece of legislation.
  Up to the present time, I have said nothing about notaries. Notaries are a most ancient institution, one of the few institutions which, together with that of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor, date back to a period before the Norman Conquest. There are few institutions which go back farther in history than notaries. They started, it may interest your Lordships to know, from the word notae, the shorthand notes current in Rome in Cicero's day. The Notarii were the shorthand writers of those days in Rome. Up till the Reformation they were appointed by the Pope, they being always concerned largely with ecclesiastical matters. They are now appointed by the Court of Faculties, and that Court sits under the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have found an ancient Statute which gives an appeal to the Lord Chancellor from the refusal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to institute a notary and gives the Lord Chancellor power to fine the Archbishop whatever he thinks proper. I shall be sorry to see any such law abolished!
  There are 523 notaries, of whom all save 23 are solicitors. What do notaries do? They perform notarial functions. Those functions are very important ones in the laws of some foreign countries. In nearly all the Latin countries a certificate signed by a notary proves itself, and one is not called upon to give any other evidence beyond the certificate with the notary's signature. In various commercial matters they perform their work. It is proposed to exempt solicitors from this special impost because, by the Solicitors Act, 1941, there was imposed upon them the obligation to pay a year to a compensation fund which the Law Society might have at their disposal to allow the payment of compensation to clients who had been defrauded by solicitors, and also an obligation to have their accounts audited by properly qualified auditors.
  822
  That being so, we think it unnecessary that this special impost should continue any longer.
  Practising certificates, however, will continue. In the case of solicitors, they will be obtained as before from the Law Society. In the case of notaries, there will be an alteration. Previously, notaries have obtained them from the Inland Revenue Department on paying the duty, but as the Inland Revenue will now receive no duty, they will lose all interest in the matter. The Bill provides that the Court of Faculties will issue the necessary practising certificates for notaries. The Bill extends to Scotland. In Scotland, ever since 1897, notaries have had to be solicitors, and there are no notaries left in Scotland who are not solicitors. In regard to the proviso dealing with Scotland, the object is simply to preserve the position until the passing of the Legal Aid Bill, which makes a special provision for the registration of solicitors in Scotland. This Bill meets with the approval of the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Court of Faculties, who all urge your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  6.3 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, the noble Lords on these Benches take no exception at all to this Bill. It is rather extraordinary to hear from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that in the days after the American War of Independence our country could get out of its financial difficulties by putting a small impost on solicitors and notaries public. I wish our financial difficulties were of that dimension to-day. It is clear that nobody wants this small tax imposed on notaries public. I think the noble and learned Viscount was not quite right about the case of barristers. As I remember, we had to pay a considerable stamp fee when called to the Bar. It is true that we did not have to pay a fee each year, but the initial payment was a much larger one than that of a solicitor. I do not think barristers were completely exempt, as the noble and learned Viscount seemed to suggest. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount has given them a good hint that by a little endeavour on their part, stamp duty

  823
  might be lessened and gradually annulled. This Bill has the complete backing of all the professional associations, and we on these Benches will do everything we can to facilitate its becoming law as soon as possible.
  6.5 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, as we listened to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I am sure we all must have appreciated the full use to which he has put the short time he was absent from the Woolsack. His classical researches seem to have been varied and somewhat esoteric. However, we accept freely all the statements which he made, except one. I am not prepared to accept the statement that special pleading has entirely vanished. Even in this House I have heard dissertations which might be thought to partake of that character. With that one reservation, we desire to support the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the cordial support which you have given to this important measure. I did not say that special pleading had come to an end: I said that special pleaders had come to an end—but their work lives after them!
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order).

  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE AND EDUCATION GRANTS IN SCOTLAND.
  6.7 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR rose to call attention to the provisions of Section 48 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, and of Sections 8 and 12 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, and to ask whether His Majesty's Government will give guidance to education authorities in Scotland when the parent of the pupil is in receipt of assistance from the National Assistance Board. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Ouestion now standing
  824
  in my name in order that we in Scotland might have some guidance on the administration of two Acts of Parliament.
  In order that your Lordships may understand what the actual point is, perhaps I may make a short statement. Under Section 48 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, educational authorities have a duty to provide clothing to a child who is found to require clothing in order to take full advantage of the education provided. If the authority consider that the parent is able without hardship to pay for the clothing, they may successfully recover the cost. But parents in receipt of National Assistance receive from the National Assistance Board a sum which, in the opinion of the Government, is adequate for those needs. The parents should therefore be able to provide clothing for the child. If, in fact, they do not provide clothing and the educational authority have to do so, should the education authority take action to recover their costs from the parent? If they do not do so, the National Assistance becomes, in effect, an addition to the National Assistance Board's scale, and this is unfair to the more provident recipient of National Assistance. Yet recovery may be difficult.
  An alternative method of dealing with the situation would be for the National Assistance Board to give part of their assistance in kind, as they have power to do, under Section 12 of the National Assistance Act, 1948. Apparently, the Board are willing to do so only in the case of persistent neglect, and this appears to be the intention of the 1948 Act, since Section 8 of that Act states that:
  "subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board shall discharge their duty to give assistance by the making of grants in money."
  The Board may provide the clothing as a supplementary grant, where circumstances justify it, and in other cases deduct the cost by instalments from the allowances paid in subsequent weeks. There is need for a clear limitation of the spheres of the National Assistance Board, on the one hand, and the education authorities on the other. It would be of great assistance to both parties if the Secretary of State could see his way to issue a Memorandum on the situation, so that there may not be confusion of action between the Board and the education authorities, and different decisions in

  825
  different parts of the country. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to satisfy the authorities in Scotland that there will be some guidance on this particular subject.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am glad to give the noble Marquess such information as I have in reply to his Question, and I hope it may be of sonic value to himself and to the education authorities in Scotland. The purpose of Section 48 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, is to ensure that no child is prevented, by reason of the inadequacy or unsuitability of his clothing, including boots and other footwear, from taking full advantage of the education provided for him. The section applies equally to the children of persons in receipt of National Assistance and to other children, and the education authority would be failing in their duty if, because of the question of the recovery of the cost, they did not ensure that the children of persons in receipt of National Assistance were sufficiently and suitably clad to take full advantage of their education. Where the parent of a child to whom clothing is supplied is in receipt of National Assistance, the education authority may, if they wish, consult the local officer of the National Assistance Board as to whether financial hardship would result if the education authority exercised their right under Section 48 (2) to recover the whole or part of the expense from the parent. These officers will always be ready to give all possible advice.
  THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

  GOLD COAST IMMIGRATION PROCEDURE
  6.13 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL rose to call attention to the Gold Coast Gazette Extraordinary, Number 11 of February 1, 1949, on immigration procedure; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the paper to which the Motion standing in my name refers is the Gold Coast Gazette Extraordinary, Number 11, of February 1, 1949. It came into my hands last week. I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I have no financial or business interests in the Gold Coast whatsoever.
  826
  I think the only part of this document with which your Lordships will find yourselves in agreement is the description of it as "Extraordinary." Before going into its contents, I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to a few, to my mind, very extraordinary peculiarities. The document itself is called a general notice. It is known as "Gazette Notice 192," and it is entitled "Statement on Immigration Procedure." It then outlines what the Gazette or the statement describes as "a directive," issued to the principal immigration officer by some unknown person. The notice is not signed, and there is no indication of the authority—if it has authority—under which it is issued.
  I do not know the word "directive" in legislative documents; I do not know what it means. During the war we heard a great deal about directives, which were very sharply distinguished from operation orders. They appeared to be general statements of intention which had not the force of orders. "Directive" is a word which we have borrowed in modern times, I believe from the French, because on looking it up in the dictionary I find that there are three meanings given to it; that two of them are to the word "directive" as an adjective, and only one of them to the word as a substantive. The meaning under the heading "substantive" is described as "obsolete." Here we have what purports to be a legislative document which is called "a directive." I would like to know from the noble Earl who I understand is going to reply what this document is intended to be or to mean; under what authority it is issued; what he understands "a directive" is; whether any person who does not comply with a directive is liable to pains and penalties and, if so, under what ordinance.
  From investigations I have made, I imagine that this directive—whatever that may mean—has been issued by somebody under the Gold Coast Immigration Ordinance, 194i, as amended by the Gold Coast Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1948. I have taken the trouble to turn up and read the Gold Coast Immigration Ordinance Number 7 of 1947, and I find that the major part of that Immigration Ordinance deals with the prohibition of the arrival in the Gold Coast of prostitutes and procurers.

  827
  Roughly, the first three pages of the Ordinance deal with definitions of those professions, and the Ordinance generally tries, very properly, to seek to prohibit the arrival of those people. Lest anything, however, shall have escaped the net of the definitions in that Ordinance, the then Governor in Council had inserted in the Ordinance a clause, Number 12, the first section of which reads:
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Ordinance contained, the Governor in Council, or in an emergency the Governor himself, may prohibit the entry into the Gold Coast itself of any person or any class of persons."
  I do not know whether it is under that clause of that Ordinance, or Clause 18 (1), that the so-called directives or statements have been issued. I should have thought it would have been a matter of good order to have quoted the Ordinance under which provisions such as those I am going to read out to your Lordships in a minute were issued. In my opinion, this method of making unsigned announcements in the Gazette, without reference to the powers under which they are made, can properly be termed sloppy legislation—if it is legislation—which I much regret should have been undertaken or given publicity to by any part of His Majesty's Government in any part of His Majesty's Dominions.
  I now come to the contents of the directive. The directive—from which I am afraid, with your Lordships' permission, I shall have to read a number of extracts—is a remarkable document. I begin with the second paragraph. The part of that paragraph which I want to read says:
  "This statement, which summarises the directive"—
  therefore, the statement which has been published is not even a full statement, but a summary of something else which nobody has been allowed to see—
  "issued to the Principal Immigration Officer, sets out the present position including the recent procedural modifications."
  Those modifications, so far as I know, have not been published. I will deal with paragraph 3 a little later. The second paragraph, to which I have referred, concerns the arrival of persons from overseas, either by air or by sea and, I think in certain circumstances also, overland, because overland arrival is also covered
  828
  by the Immigration Ordinance No. 7 to which I have referred. In paragraph 4 we find that temporary visitors will be given three months' visitors' permits. They may be required, in the discretion of the Immigration Officer, to make a deposit or enter into a bond, and they will not be allowed to undertake any employment locally—I will let that pass.
  We then come to a section which is devoted to owners or partners in businesses or professions, other than temporary visitors. It says—and this is an extremely interesting point, and a very surprising one to me:
  "such persons who are already resident in the Gold Coast should obtain re-entry permits before they leave."
  The best is yet to come. It goes on:
  "New partners in a reputable established business"—
  no attempt is made to define what "a reputable business" is, and it is a very slack use of English to insert it here—
  "or profession, above the number normally engaged in that business, will be required to show that the expansion of the firm is in the economic interests of the Gold Coast, before a long-term permit is issued to them."
  Continuing, the same paragraph, dealing with an owner or a partner, says that he will be required to show that he has the capital to establish his business, which is no doubt quite reasonable. It goes on:
  "If he is able to prove this, he will be granted a long-term permit endorsed with the condition that he may not take up any other business, employment or practice without the authority of the Principal Immigration Officer."
  We come a little later on to more functions of the Immigration Officer. Who is he? Is he the Labour Officer or the Governor of the Colony? Who is this person who is going to decide whether anybody may change his employment and whether his business requires the addition of other personnel in the interests of the Gold Coast? This is attributing to the Immigration Officer functions that I believe have never before been attributed to him in any country.
  We now come to another paragraph which deals with employees:
  "The Gold Coast offices of all firms or mines should ascertain, before allowing their employees to embark, that new employees intending to work in the Gold Coast will be allowed to enter the Gold Coast. Each firm or mine is to be allotted a quota for its expatriate staff."

  829
  I do not know what "expatriate staff" means, unless it means staff which was in the Gold Coast and has gone on leave. But such staff are to be included in a quota based on the number of expatriate staff employed on one of two dates, on whichever it was the greater. It goes on:
  "such quotas may not be exceeded without the permission of the Gold Coast Government. A condition of entry under a quota will be that the person does not change his employment without the permission of the Government."
  I will examine that in a minute, because I want to read only one other short extract and that is about wives. Incidentally, it also deals with children who may have been brought up there and who, after the age of sixteen, are to be pushed out, because they have to keep the immigration quota, whether they are living with their parents or not. But let that go.
  We now come on to wives:
  "Wives accompanying or joining their husbands will normally be treated similarly to their husbands but a condition of entry that they do not undertake any employment without the permission of the Government may be imposed."
  Incidentally, that prohibition of wives undertaking employment without the permission of the Government might exclude the wife of any person living out there from undertaking nursing, welfare work or secretarial work, either in her husband's business or in any other business. Furthermore, that restriction about wives does not apply to Government servants, and a discrimination here is clearly being made against the wives of persons engaged in business.
  May I come back for a moment to the question of quotas? Here we have a quota imposed on one of two dates—whichever date gives the larger quota—under which a concern operating out there is not to increase its staff, and the staff which it has can graciously he allowed to go back, on permission from the Immigration Officer to complete the work which they began to do there, but are not allowed to change their employment. Let us examine what that means. It means that, supposing the underground manager of a mine is to be promoted to take on some other function in the mine (which is a change of employment), the mining concern is not to be allowed to do that without the permission of the immigration officer. Furthermore, an accountant in a commercial firm is not to
  830
  be sent out to become a produce buyer without the permission of the immigration officer. Does this not seem to your Lordships to be attributing to an immigration officer in the Gold Coast not only managerial functions, but a knowledge of each business superior to that of the local managers and of the boards of directors of the companies themselves? A condition of that sort is absolutely preposterous. As I say, we shall no doubt hear from the noble Earl that it is not intended to apply this directive in this way. Then why put it in? It is an absolutely unheard-of restriction on the activities of any commercial business, and one, in my view, which would effectively preclude any new business from going to establish itself there.
  Secondly, let us consider the effects of the quota, perhaps on a business which is expanding. Whoever issued this directive said there is no intention of restricting commercial development, but here we have a statement of policy from somebody that a quota will be imposed whereby expatriate employees, including people who are on leave, have to get permission to come back, or have to get permission to add to their number, and may have it refused. Suppose there is a mine which wants to develop or sink a new shaft. That means that another engineer or another technician has to go out from here, and has to obtain the permission of the immigration officer to do so. In other words, the immigration officer is placed in the position of deciding what mining development there is to be.
  That is not the end of this sad story, because I go back to the second paragraph of this extraordinary Gazette, and I read:
  "The procedure set out below will apply irrespective of nationality or race to British subjects and to aliens."
  That is a pretty severe statement to appear in any Government publication. It means that a British subject is to be assimilated to, and treated in the same way as, an alien in one of His Majesty's territories overseas. I do not believe that that has been done before. I am aware that there are restrictions on the immigration of British subjects in various territories, and for very good reasons. None of us would object to that. What I think all your Lordships will join me in objecting to is that subjects of His

  831
  Majesty should be treated in a British Colony overseas in the same category as aliens. I should like to know from the noble Earl what is the reason for this extraordinary provision. Not only is the provision extraordinary in itself, it contains what I believe to be that same sloppy legislation to which I referred in the early part of my speech.
  At the end of last Session your Lordships will remember that we had before us the British Nationality Bill, which has since become the British Nationality Act. In the first section of that Act it is stated that every person who:
  "under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies … shall, by virtue of that citizenship, be a British subject."
  A great deal of discussion took place in your Lordships' House and in another place about the distinction, in the first place, between a British citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and British subjects or British nationals; and, for better or for worse, that distinction was made in the Act. There is no reference in this directive to a "British citizen" as apart from a "British subject."
  Your Lordships will also remember that it was pointed out in this House that His Majesty's subjects in overseas Colonial territories came under the definition of "British citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies." Not only is there no reference to that in this extraordinary document, but it seems to me that, had there been a reference to it, it might have provided the solution to what the authorities of the Gold Coast are trying to achieve. The early part of this statement says that it is not intended to prevent people going to the Gold Coast—but they obviously want to keep certain people out. It is commonly accepted that there are two kinds of immigrants into the Gold Coast whose entry the authorities want to restrict, and they are Indians and Syrians. Syrians, for the purpose of this and other such legislation, are aliens—now to be treated in the same way as British subjects. If it had been desired to keep Indians out of the Gold Coast, it would have been simple to restrict their immigration as "British subjects" by allowing greater latitude to the immigration of those persons who are described in the British Nationality Act as "British citizens of
  832
  the United Kingdom and Colonies." I should like to know whether this document has yet received any attention in the Gold Coast, and, if not, why not?
  My Lords, I hope that this form of document will never again see official daylight. I hope that statements by which British subjects are to be treated in the same way as aliens will not again appear in a document issued by any of His Majesty's Governments anywhere. Finally, I hope that the whole document will receive further attention, and that it will be withdrawn until it has received that further attention. I beg to move for Papers.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Surely we are to have a statement from the Minister. I thought that was understood.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am entirely willing to oblige the noble Viscount by making a statement which I think will throw some light on the situation at this stage in the debate. I am sure he will be equally willing, if it proves desirable for me to comment on any subsequent speeches, to allow me to intervene a second time.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Certainly.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has raised this question this afternoon, because I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the restrictions on immigration to the Gold Coast; and not only about the nature of the restrictions, but about the reasons for them. In fact, I am not sure that I did not detect one or two misunderstandings in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. What I shall try to do now is to explain the reasons for these restrictions, the policy behind them, and the actual nature of the procedural regulations set out in the Gold Coast Gazette, to which the noble Lord has drawn attention.
  May I, first, answer one or two minor points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, in his speech? He asked who had issued this directive. The directive was issued by the Government of the Gold Coast. I agree that there is nothing on the document to show that its authority is derived from the Government of the Gold Coast. The noble Lord did not like the word "directive," and I myself am not wedded to any special term. I do

  833
  not think that that is a term which need be used, because the document contains, in fact, a number of procedural regulations. Lord Rennell also asked what was the legal force of these regulations, whence they derived their legal force, and from what source their authority came. Their binding force derives from the amended immigration Ordinance of September, 1948. This Ordinance gives the Government of the Gold Coast authority to make the necessary administrative arrangements to restrict immigration into the Gold Coast. I will read the relevant passage amending the earlier Ordinance, because I think that sets out the legal source of authority in this matter. It may be of interest to the noble Lord, and to other noble Lords, to know exactly what the wording of the amendment is. The amendment defines the persons who will be restricted, or who will be added to the persons already restricted, and the grounds on which they can be restricted. The Ordinance now includes:
  "any person or class of persons whose intended occupation may, in the opinion of the Governor-in-Council, prove detrimental to the economic life of the inhabitants of the Gold Coast."
  I am trying to keep this a kind of factual story, because I think that that will enable noble Lords to arrive at their own conclusions with the greatest likelihood of making the conclusions just and fair.
  I can also assure noble Lords that this idea that an immigration officer has power to decide about applications for employment is not correct. That is entirely a matter for the Gold Coast Government, and cannot be decided by an immigration officer. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, took the view that children will be turned out after they reach the age of sixteen. I am glad the noble Lord limited his statement because the great majority of children, after they reach the age of sixteen—that is, the children of Government officials and business men—will continue to stay, if they and their parents wish to stay. These restrictions are applicable only in those cases which would obviously be exceptional—cases, perhaps, in which children who reach the age of sixteen would wish to go into busyness and remain in the Gold Coast. These matters will come under consideration. It may be that in certain cases permission will be given to those who wish to stay in the profession or do something else they
  834
  desire. Does the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, also suggest that wives are likely to be refused employment in the ordinary way; and that a wife would not be allowed to be her husband's secretary?
  LORD RENNELL: I was trying to show the distinction, that wives of public officials were not subject to these restrictions.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, I agree, but I would not like the impression to get about—and I am sure the noble Lord did not intend it to get about—that in the ordinary case the wife who wants to do work with her husband, or take up voluntary work, will be refused permission to do these things. Obviously, unless the employment was paid employment, no application would have to be made. Let me pass on to the more general question. In this, of course, we go back a long way before the present Administration there. It has always been a fundamental principle of British policy in the Gold Coast, as in other West African Territories, that non-African settlement should be discouraged, so that the African peoples may progress economically and politic ally without the complications which would be created by the establishment of settled non-African interests. In the last year or two, since the war, arrivals of non-Africans seeking a home in the Gold Coast have increased. In particular, a class of immigrant has been seeking admission whose intended occupation is in trade and commerce, generally on a small scale, and in a few cases in farming, and who will buy up property for the purpose.
  With the growth of education and general social development in Africa, the African is advancing into new fields, not only in the Administration but in trade and commerce and in the professions. The Governments of the West African territories have a duty, therefore, to see that African ambitions are not frustrated by an overcrowding of these fields by immigrants of other races. In so acting, they are backed by a strong public feeling in the territories, which grows ever more powerful as the African fits himself for these new enterprises. In September of last year, the immigration law in the Gold Coast was amended in the way I have already shown, by providing another cate-

  835
  gory of prohibited immigrant. It was clearly necessary that this amendment to the immigration law in the Gold Coast should be followed by some notice to the public and by some directive or procedural regulation on which the immigration authorities were to act. They must be shown how to operate this ordinance. The Gazette notice, to which the noble Lord has drawn attention this afternoon, contains these procedural regulations.
  LORD RENNELL: They are regulations; they are not a directive? They are orders?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I was merely using the other phrase because the noble Lord did not seem to like the word "directive."
  LORD RENNELL: I asked the noble Earl what they were.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: They have the same legal force, whether you call them a "directive" or a "procedural regulation." I would not like any mistake to be made about the meaning of the word "regulation," which has a technical sense in this country. I do not wish it to be confused. I am prepared to adopt the term "directive" if the noble Lord prefers it. When I comment, as I was doing just now, on the policy which the Gold Coast Government have adopted, I should like at the outset to make two points absolutely clear, because I think they are the outstanding points relating to these restrictions. In the first place—and I think there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this—it is no novelty for the Government of a British colony to impose control over the immigration of British subjects; such control exists in East as well as West Africa, in some of the West Indies and in other Colonial territories. Indeed, I have here a document with which I was furnished to-day, dated December 22, 1945, headed "A Law to impose Restrictions on Immigration by British Subjects." That document is published under the name of the Acting Governor of Jamaica.
  LORD RENNELL: Does that contain the same assimilation of British subjects to aliens, which was the point of my remark?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot say whether it applies in the same way
  836
  as the Ordinance, but I shall come on to that a little later, if I may, because I shall be dealing with this document again. The immigration laws in several other territories besides the Gold Coast provide also, in the way of this Ordinance, for the examination of the economic background of a prospective immigrant, and for his rejection if it is not thought desirable in the interests of the local inhabitants that he should be allowed to come in and settle in the occupation which he proposes to take up. In Uganda and other East African territories, for instance, the immigration authority has to certify of an immigrant that his engaging in his particular trade, business or profession will not be to the prejudice of the inhabitants generally. In Jamaica, the Governor-in-Council may prescribe as prohibited immigrants any class of persons deemed on economic grounds, or on account of habit or standard of life, to be undesirable immigrants. That is the passage to which I wanted to come. The restrictions apply to any class of persons. Therefore, it would include aliens as well as British subjects, which I think answers that point.
  LORD RENNELL: And puts them in the same category?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Precisely, from the point of view of preventing them from coming into Jamaica if they are going to take up employment which can be done by the local Jamaicans. As your Lordships know, there is a great problem of over-population in the West Indies, which makes it all the more necessary that the jobs which are available should go to the local people. Therefore, if the Gold Coast Government have decided to take similar powers of control in the interests of the economic status and development of their people, as they have done, their action cannot be questioned on the ground that it is without precedent. I am inclined to think that that is another misunderstanding because, if I did not fail to grasp the significance of one passage from the noble Lord's speech, I am inclined to think that he thought it was without precedent for this restriction to be imposed on British subjects and aliens.
  LORD RENNELL: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. The noble Earl keeps on confusing the issue so far as I am concerned. My objection was that British

  837
  subjects were being treated as being in the same category as aliens. I did not express myself clearly perhaps; if I did not, I wish unhesitatingly to withdraw what I said. I did not say that restrictions were not being imposed on British subjects going into other Colonies, but I did take grave exception to their being treated in the same category as aliens.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, I quite understand the noble Lord's objection. I am merely pointing out that this procedure is not a novelty. It has been done before, even though it has not attracted the noble Lord's attention. I believe it is also true that the Uganda Ordinance, to which I have just referred, applies to aliens as well as to British subjects. I should like to correct what I said about Jamaica. The Jamaica Ordinance applies only to British subjects. I apologise for what I said before.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Aliens are free?
  LORD ALTRINCHAM: Are aliens free?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I should like notice to inquire.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I here and now give the Minister of State notice, and I hope that, with every encouragement to him to speak again, the House will be informed whether the new form of "Imperial Preference" in Jamaica is to give a preference to aliens.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I shall certainly find out before the end of the discussion what is the position in Jamaica, although I am quite sure that aliens are not given preference over British subjects. The reason—and it is a simple and an understandable one—why the Gold Coast Government have decided to take these powers, is to control the immigration of persons, wherever they may come from, who would be doing work for which Africans are suited and available, or which they can be trained to do, so keeping local people from the jobs they are qualified to do in the Gold Coast. The only absolute ban, as the noble Lord will have noticed in the course of his study of this copy of the Gazette, is upon new retail traders. They are the only class of business people who are to be kept out of the Gold Coast.
  838
  I would like to explain as fully as I can this question of procedure for limiting immigration. The Gold Coast procedure lays down that in regard to established private or partnership businesses or professions, the expansion of the firm which necessitates the entry of new partners is in the economic interests of the Gold Coast. If an immigrant wishes to establish a new business or profession, he must show that his occupation will be in the economic interests of the Gold Coast, and that he has the necessary capital. In the case of employees of firms and mines, however, the Gold Coast Government have decided to proceed by a quota system. Every firm or mine is to be allotted a quota for its expatriate staff, based on the numbers of expatriate staff employed on September 1, 1939 or on February 1, 1949, whichever is the greater. Such quotas may not be exceeded without the permission of the Government, but an excess over the quota for a period of three months will normally be allowed for handing over to reliefs.
  Of course, it must not for a moment be thought that permission will be refused to any firm which asks for an engineer or an administrative man to come in over and above its quota. It merely means that permission must be sought, and that a decision will be taken in the light of economic circumstances in the Gold Coast. I hope that it is not thought this will prevent business enterprises in the Gold Coast from expanding. The thing that we sincerely desire is the increasing of their activities, because clearly they will be able to get the staff they want, either European or from local sources, and no man will be refused unless his place can equally well be filled by somebody on the spot. I can and I do assure the noble Lord and other noble Lords, that the last thing we want to do is to check a private enterprise on the Gold Coast which has already done good service to the Colony. The last thing this quota system is designed to do is to put any obstacle in the way of its functioning satisfactorily. Indeed, the Gazette notice states specifically that
  "it is not intended to apply this procedure"—
  that is to say the quota procedure—
  "in such a manner as to prevent private enterprise from playing a useful part in the development of the Gold Coast in spheres which the indigenous population is at present unwilling or unqualified to enter."

  839
  My Lords, I hope I have been able to provide your Lordships with some useful information about this matter, in order that you may be able to make up your minds as to the desirability or otherwise of what has been done. I would sincerely hope that your Lordships will, perhaps on a later occasion, study in Hansard what has been said, because this is a complicated, delicate and difficult matter, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is most undesirable to arrive at a hasty decision.
  6.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think all your Lordships will be grateful to the Minister of State for having intervened at once in order to throw such light as he has upon this matter, but I do not think we can agree with his statement that this directive, which has the full force of a regulation and which is being applied now, is not a fit subject for immediate debate in this House. We may wish to return to it upon a later occasion, but there are things which should be said at once, here and now, in Parliament.
  This is an amazing document. I have listened with great care to all that the Minister has said, and I feel sure that those of your Lordships who take part in this debate will come into it adequately informed, not only by the statement of the noble Earl, but with your own experience and with knowledge of this document. After all, it is this document which has been published and broadcast in the Gold Coast which the Government have to defend. The noble Earl said that the regulations, as we should now call them—they have been called procedural directives, but normally they are the regulations—
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I said "procedural regulations" in order to make certain that they could not be confused with any other type of regulation of a legally binding force.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am much obliged. It does not become clearer. They are binding, or they are not; things are happening, or they are not. As I understand it (and the noble Earl said the directives were in full force), this policy is now being carried out, and it
  840
  affects every British subject who seeks to go into the Gold Coast, even though he may have been there before. Therefore, we are discussing what is being done. Whether or not this was legally done I am not going to argue, but at any rate it is what is being forcibly done in the Gold Coast.
  The Minister said that it was being done under the Ordinance of September, 1948, which gave the Governor-in-Council power to include in this class—which, as the noble Lord has said, has previously been confined to prostitutes, brothel keepers, convicted criminals and idiots:
  "any persons or classes of persons whose intended occupation may, in the opinion of the Governor-in-Council prove detrimental to the economic development of the inhabitants of the Gold Coast."
  That was only an enabling power, and one would imagine that before this extraordinary directive or decree was issued some information would be given to Parliament—assuming, that is, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Minister of State knew what the Gold Coast Government were doing. Because the words of this document are very important, categorically I ask the Minister of State: Was this directive submitted to the Secretary of State before it was issued?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can answer that immediately. The answer is "No," because this is a piece of administrative machinery which would not normally be submitted to the responsible Minister in this country.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is a most extraordinary thing. Generally, when it comes to the maintenance of law and order, no discretion is left to the executive officer, the Governor on the spot; but when there is concerned a vitally important piece of policy controlling the entry of every British subject, white or coloured, into one of His Majesty's Colonies for which the Secretary of State is responsible, then the Minister says "Of course that would not come before the Secretary of State. It is a matter for the Governor of the Gold Coast to deal with." I should have thought that if a Commission of Inquiry were sent out to investigate everything in the Gold Coast and everything was referred to the Secretary of State, it is surprising that this was not. Now we have learned that

  841
  the Secretary of State for the Colonies did not know that this document was being issued, although it affects every firm in this country and in America which may be thinking of developing in the Gold Coast. It affects the whole social and economic life of the country in the future.
  While, of course, I accept the statement that the Secretary of State did not know about this, in my view he ought to have known about it. Now that he does, I hope most sincerely that he will take some very definite steps. Why was a Gazette Extraordinary rushed through except that it was an extraordinary directive? Assuming that a directive was required, could anything be more unfortunate than the terms and language of this document? And it is the language that matters. This is going to be read by the people. It will be read by everyone who can read in the Gold Coast—you may be sure of that. It has received, and rightly received, great publicity. It will be read on both sides of the Atlantic and it has become a document of great importance.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment, because I think there has been some misunderstanding? I understood the noble Viscount to ask me whether this issue of the Gazette had been seen and approved by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State. My answer was: "No, it had not." But my right honourable friend had already been notified of the regulations which were going to be made under the Ordinance and subsequently included in the Gazette, so he was fully cognizant of the contents of the Gazette to which the noble Viscount is taking exception.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am still not very clear. Do I understand—because this is the peccant document—that the Secretary of State knew of the wording of this document and approved?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: He knew of the wording of the regulations contained in this document. I will not read them. The noble Viscount will see them with his own eyes if he glances at the document. They give, for example, under paragraph 4, the procedure with regard to temporary visitors, and so on.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: What the Secretary of State did see, apparently, and approve, is paragraph 4. What he did not see—I am not sure whether he approves or not; I sincerely hope that he does not, for reasons to which I will come later—is the preamble and paragraphs 2 and 3. It seems odd that the Secretary of State should be consulted as to the precise detail of the language to be applied in respect of wives and employees, but should not be consulted as to the statement of policy and intention which precede it, which, of course, is of paramount importance, and which governs the way in which the other paragraphs are to be carried out. I say at once that this document, whoever was responsible for it, whether it was the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, the Governor or the Immigration Officer, is a bad document.
  The whole emphasis and outlook is wrong. What does it do? It covers everyone—anybody and everybody who is not now in the Gold Coast, including, of course, all Africans in adjacent territories. I say that the emphasis and the outlook are both wrong. I understood that it was our policy—indeed I thought I heard the Secretary of State say it was our policy—to encourage the development of our Colonial territories and, what is more, to invite new capital, not only British but American, to engage in that enterprise. I would ask your Lordships what chance there is of getting new capital, British or American, into the enterprise if it is to be wholly at the mercy of a local Government with a right of veto upon any man going out as an employee, senior or junior, to engage in the business. There is not even a right of appeal. There is an Ordinance in Kenya—I know, of course, what that was directed against—and under that Kenya Ordinance the immigration officer or the Governor is not the judge. There is a right of appeal to an independent tribunal presided over by a High Court Judge or other appropriate person, with three independent unofficial members, and their decision is final. No such appeal is provided for here. There is no appeal from this regulation.
  With whom does the policy of development rest? Is it a case of half and half? Is it with the Secretary of State or is it with the local Government? The Minister of State spoke of the Government of

  843
  the Gold Coast wanting to do something or other or thinking it right. Perhaps it is a divided responsibility. Perhaps the Government of the Gold Coast are responsible for the first half of the policy and the Secretary of State for the second half, as apparently was the case with these regulations. I should have thought that essentially it was a matter for the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that it ought to be so, because the whole of his planning policy depends on it. As we have said so often, policy issues in action; and this is the kind of action in which the policy has issued! The emphasis is all wrong. It is an emphasis not to encourage but to deter and to inculcate the erroneous idea of a conflict of interests between the European and the African.
  Look at paragraph 2 of this document:
  "It should be understood that it is not intended to apply this procedure in such a manner as to prevent private enterprise from playing a useful part in the development of the Gold Coast in spheres in which the indigenous population is at present unwilling or unqualified to enter."
  This suggests a false divorce between the interests of the European and the African. It means that if the African enters, the European should be kept out. That is not the way in which Africa can be developed, either economically or socially. And this will be lapped up; it will be read with interest; it will be promulgated by persons who, as we know already, have been engaged in the Gold Coast in trying to undermine good order and all the measures which the Government are trying to carry in the very interests of the Africans. How different is this deterrent directive from the wise words of the greatest African teacher there ever was in Africa—Aggrey, the founder of Achimota. His policy and his watchword was "The harmony of the black and white keys." That was the watchword of the greatest African teacher, a most practical visionary. It is a very different conception from that contained in this document.
  When we turn from the general to the particular, could anything be more obstructive and unreasonable? No established firm is to be allowed, without a local permit, to send out a single extra man. How can the immigration officer judge? The Minister said that it was
  844
  not the immigration officer who judged. So far as I can see, all applications go to him. If there is some industrial department, the regulation ought to say so. It does not. Let me take a concrete example, because after all I am talking about something I know. For two years during the war I was in West Africa, when we had co-operation very different from this. Take the great manganese mines in the Gold Coast—they are admirably managed, very efficiently run, and they are excellent employers of labour. And take the development of bauxite, on which my noble friend Lord Llewellin worked together with me. Is a firm which has hundreds of thousands of pounds sunk in such a concern, and which is being invited by the Government to go deeper with its investments in these ventures, not to have the right to decide whether they should send out an extra engineer? The Minister says probably they would get leave, if the Gold Coast Government thought it right, and at any rate the job should first be offered to an African.
  Nobody would accuse me of not being an advocate of the greatest possible African employment. I am aware that they did things during the war—things which people hitherto said they could not do—but if you want to advance the African in commercial and industrial employment, in engineering and technical work, you will do it in only one way—by giving him work alongside the best European people who can be found. If the local Government take the view that an engineer whom a big firm think necessary is not to be sent, who is to take the financial risk? Is that to be borne by the firm or by the immigration officer? There should be some sense of responsibility in this. Just look at the quota—an arbitrary quota taken on two arbitrarily fixed dates, a date in 1939 and another date in 1948. As my noble friend said, some businesses are receding and others advancing; some may be efficient and others less efficient. Do we not want to encourage the more efficient? I thought that in this country the President of the Board of Trade was trying to get rid of controls of materials particularly because nothing would be more unfair, and a greater deterrent to efficiency, than the retention of arbitrary controls of materials fixed by what some firm was using so many years ago. If that is true of material, it is equally true of personnel.

  845
  Even in this country, with all our controls, we do not try to say what is to be the supervisory staff of every firm.
  Then there are the missions. It is very comprehensive, this document. Your Lordships will be surprised to see that it is directed not only against British and American firms but also, I will not say against, but strictly to regulate missionary enterprise. It says in paragraph 3—I do not think this is the one approved by the noble Earl; it is the one before to which he gave his definite verbal approval:
  "The Gold Coast offices of all firms, mines and missions should make the appropriate inquiries regarding their expatriate employees."
  So the immigration officer is to be head of the Church as well as head of the State! There is the provision about wives. The noble Earl did not think that this was unreasonable. They might do a job, so long as they did not get paid for it; sweated labour is all right! The paragraph says:
  "Wives accompanying or joining their husbands will normally be treated similarly to their husbands."
  I think that "normally" is good. I suppose the immigration officer is to "vet" a wife to see whether she falls into the category of a lady who is to be treated as normal or as not normal, or into the category of a lady to be normally or not normally treated. At any rate, they will normally be treated similarly to their husbands, but one of the conditions of entry will be that they do not undertake any employment—unless she is the wife of a civil servant—without the permission of the Government. Suppose that someone goes sick—and people often go sick in West Africa. Suppose there is a seasonal rush, which everybody who knows West Africa knows about—a rush at the cables and a rush at the banks. The normal thing has been that the wives come in to help. I know that when I was in West Africa it was the wives of business men and civil servants, working to all hours in my typing office and in my cypher office, who enabled me to do my job. Now, without a special permit from the Government or from the immigration officer, a wife is not to be permitted to take a job.
  No new person is to be allowed into the Gold Coast, or to engage in any personal trade or business. Does this apply to an African coming from Nigeria or Sierra Leone? Is this exclusion the first
  846
  step in closer union? These directives have been called "procedural regulations." That appears to me to be a euphemism for a change of policy and a change of law—the first fruit, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has pointed out (and the first fruit which I am sure the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor never expected when he commended the measure to the House) of the new British Nationality Act. It is the imposition of unheard-of, unprecedented restrictions by which the British subject is to be assimilated to the alien. I have no hesitation in engaging in this debate from the information the Minister has given the House and from what has been published. I say that this document should be withdrawn. It must already have done much harm. It is bad in form and bad in substance, and still worse in spirit.
  7.19 p.m.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, for asking for some clarification of the reference to missions in this curious document. I share the noble Viscount's hope that the document may be withdrawn, but if it is not to be withdrawn, it is evidently extremely important that the status of missionaries on the Gold Coast should be clarified. The general expectation is that a directive should make the law clearer. In this important respect the directive does nothing to clarify the intentions of the Government with regard to missionaries. I trust that this subject is one on which the noble Earl will be able to enlighten the House.
  7.20 p.m.
  LORD ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, it is late and I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes. The reply given by the noble Earl was so inadequate, and I was so surprised by some of the parallels which he offered to us as precedents for this legislation, that I wish to put certain questions to him, which I hope he will endeavour to answer at some time. This at least must be clear to us. If his defence of this Ordinance is all that he is able to offer us, and if he is unable to say that the Ordinance will be withdrawn, then I hope my noble friend who raised the question will at a later date put down a further Motion which

  847
  we can support. It is intolerable that Ordinances of this kind, couched in language such as this, should be issued in a British Colony. I hope the noble Earl will make a note of the questions I desire to ask; they may require some research, and I do not expect an answer now.
  The first is: Is there any precedent in the British Colonial Empire for established residents being required to obtain re-entry permits before leaving the Colony? I have not heard of it anywhere. Secondly, is there any parallel or precedent for a differentiation of this kind between the wives of officials and all other wives in any part of the Colonial Empire? We understand that under this directive wives of officials are entitled to enter into remunerative employment, whether it clashes with the interests of the native population or not, and require no permit to do so. Thirdly—and the noble Earl has not answered this question, although it was put by my noble friend Lord Rennell: Of what status or rank is this Principal Immigration Officer? Who is it that has these enormous powers over the industry, the development and the population of the Colony? Is there—and this is most pertinent—any parallel or precedent in the Colonial Empire for these powers being given to an immigration officer without a right of appeal of any kind? I feel certain that if other Statutes are investigated it will be found that there is always an appeal to the Governor-in-Council, and frequently either to the High Court or to a special tribunal. There is certainly an appeal in the Kenya Act, and in Uganda. I very much doubt whether there is any precedent for powers of this sort being exercised by a subordinate official without appeal.
  Finally, I would ask the noble Earl another question which he has not answered, but which is very pertinent. In the language of this astonishing Ordinance we are told that it is only a summary of the directive which has been issued. What are the other regulations, and why are they not published? If there are regulations, even more grotesque than these, let us have them. I hope that before we discuss this matter again—as we shall certainly have to do—the complete regulations will be made known to us.
  7.24 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, has asked me a number of questions about matters of Colonial administration in which he is so well versed. I am glad that he did not presuppose that I had the same knowledge of comparative Colonial administration as he has. I will gladly look into his questions and give him a reply at the earliest possible moment. The last question I think I can answer now. It is clear that the Gazette contains only a summary for the purpose of setting out the regulations in the most concise manner, for the benefit of those who have to administer them and of the public, who can purchase copies of the Gazette. I am convinced that the longer edition will not contain anything new in any matter of substance which would be of interest to members of this House.
  LORD ALTRINCHAM: Before the noble Earl passes from that, may I ask, if there are fuller regulations, that we may be given copies of them?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: If there is anything fuller than this I shall certainly see that the noble Lord and any other noble Lord who wants a copy has one.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Put one in the Library.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I thank the noble Viscount for that suggestion. If there is anything further I shall be pleased to have a copy laid in the Library. I would like to answer a question of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. He asked whether these restrictions would apply to neighbouring Africans—Sierra Leone, Nigeria or possibly Gambia, and other parts of West Africa. From reading these regulations, I imagine that they apply equally to any one coming from outside the Colony, from a foreign country or from another Continent. I share the conviction, which I think is shared by everyone who has spoken in the debate, that it is most important that British subjects should be able to circulate as freely as possible throughout the Commonwealth; that they should be able to take up whatever vocations may be congenial to them, and in that way benefit both themselves and the part of the Commonwealth in which they do their work. I am entirely at one with every

  849
  thing that noble Lords have said, either explicitly or by implication, as to the importance of keeping to an absolute minimum any restrictions of movement or restrictions on settlement anywhere in the Commonwealth and Empire. That, I believe, is a general principle which all those who are believers in the Commonwealth would like to apply; but, of course, its application depends on the circumstances.
  I should like to remind your Lordships—although I have no doubt that in the case of several noble Lords it is unnecessary—that the Gold Coast has a very highly advanced political Constitution; it probably has the most advanced political Constitution of any of our West African territories. There is an African majority on the Legislative Council, and there are several Africans on the Executive Council. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, the more advanced the type of Colonial Constitution with which one is dealing, the more undesirable and difficult it is to exercise wide control of the internal affairs of the Colony. We have to be extremely careful in our dealings with these Colonies which are well on the road to self-government; we do not want to interfere unnecessarily with them, or to deprive them of any functions which they ought to be able to carry out if they are to be responsible and stand on their own feet. Again, we have to be very careful of local opinion. In such matters as immigration, which affects the local population very closely, we have to study carefully the repercussions of any decisions that may be taken on local public opinion. That, of course, is a matter of very great importance in the Gold Coast, as your Lordships are well aware.
  I have listened with great interest and concern to what noble Lords have said, because it is obvious that they take strong exception to what has been done. I can assure noble Lords that their views will be submitted to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and also forwarded to the Governor of the Gold Coast for his observations. I am delighted that noble Lords feel that this matter should be given serious and prolonged consideration, and I much hope that the pros and cons in this very difficult issue will be weighed most carefully before a decision is taken. It is one of those questions of balancing different in-
  850
  terests, in which the task of striking a balance is exceedingly difficult and in which very serious mistakes can be made, with serious repercussions in the Colonies if the balance is wrongly struck.
  7.30 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, the noble Earl has not stated whether he accepted my Motion or not—
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I reply now? I have no Papers to lay at the moment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Except the full order.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot at the moment say what the other relevant documents are, what form they are in or anything of the kind. I do not feel in a position to accept a Motion for Papers without the capacity for producing the Papers.
  LORD ALTRINCHAM: The noble Earl has forgotten that this extraordinary statement in the Gazette says:
  "This statement, which summarises the directive issued to the Principal Immigration Officer.…"
  May we have the directive?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Certainly.
  LORD RENNELL: I raised the point only because I thought the noble Earl might have accepted my Motion and offered to lay Papers.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I did offer to put this Paper in the Library, which I think would be the proper thing to do.
  LORD RENNELL: I am glad to hear it. What has been said by other speakers has been a matter of great satisfaction to me, because I see that the conclusions I have reached over this extraordinary document are felt by other members of the House to be at least as serious as I myself believe them to be. Your Lordships have elicited from the noble Earl one or two very surprising statements: that the authorship of this document is in serious doubt, and that the front part appears to have been done by one person and the hinder part by another, rather like the pantomime horse. I do not quite know what the relation is between the two ends of the horse, but perhaps that will come out when the documents to which the noble

  851
  Earl referred have been laid. We do not, in fact, know whether the Governor of the Gold Coast has taken the initiative in the matter and has had the agreement of the Secretary of State, or whether the Secretary of State has taken the initiative and the Governor has willingly or unwillingly agreed.
  We are agreed, at any rate on this side of the House, that the document itself is slipshod beyond words. Even the noble Earl in his reply, I think felt a little uncomfortable about the fact that the document had not been signed. He has told us that it is not a directive but it is procedural regulations. That is not entirely correct, because it is a summary of them. We were told verbally by him the Ordinance from which the powers were derived—namely, the Gold Coast (Amending) Ordinance—and from that we elicited the information that the Governor of the Gold Coast had agreed upon "another category" (the words used by the noble Earl) of persons whose immigration is prohibited into the Gold Coast, the first category being prostitutes and procurers; and in the Amending Order all British subjects and citizens have been dealt with. I think it is an unfortunate association.
  I had hoped to hear from the noble Earl that some further consideration would be given to these procedural regulations (which are not "a directive"), and that they might be held in abeyance until such time as further consideration was given to them. I should have thought it wise to do that, even if not wiser to withdraw them altogether until a little more thought was given to the matter. At this late hour I do not wish to press my Motion, but I wish to give notice to the noble Earl at this stage that I will set down a Motion drawing attention to the policy which governs the administration of the Gold Coast, of which this last example is only one of several of a very unsatisfactory nature. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  ROCHDALE CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

  CERTIFICATE FROM EXAMINERS
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
  ROCHDALE CANAL. [H.L.]
  HURST PARK RACE COURSE. [H.L.]
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  BOLTON GAS ORDER, 1949
    TOTTENHAM AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1949
    Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
  STAFFORD AND DERBY AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) AMENDMENT ORDER, 1949.
  Special Procedure Order (together with a certificate from the Minister of Health): Laid before the House, pursuant to the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and ordered to lie on the Table.