Lords Sitting of 17 March 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayer

  WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
  2.35 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1 [Levy of rates in respect of expenditure on water supply]:
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): This Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 5, leave out ("purposes") and insert ("purpose").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 5, leave out ("said").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Provisions as to liability for domestic water rate
  (2) The domestic water rate shall not be leviable in respect of any premises, being lands and heritages situated within the district of a local authority, unless—
  (c) in the case of any other premises a supply of water provided by a local water authority is used for any purpose for or in connection with which the premises are used or by or for persons employed or otherwise engaged on or about the premises in connection with such purpose.
  LORD MORRISONhad four Amendments down to Clause 2, of which the
  450
  first was, in subsection (2) (a) after "water" (where the word first occurs) to insert, "provided by a local water authority." The noble Lord said: This Amendment can be taken with the next three. They are drafting Amendments which meet a point raised by the County Clerk of Selkirk and also by the Town Clerk of Greenock. The object is to make it clear that the local authority have the right to levy a domestic water rate on any premises if water provided by a local water authority is provided in pipes within the premises. It is not necessary, for the domestic water rate to be leviable, for the authority that supply the water themselves to take the water in pipes within the premises. Under Section 54 of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, the duty of bringing water within the premises remains that of the owner. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 20, after ("water") insert ("provided by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD POLWARTH: I should like, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, to thank the noble Lord for having met this point, which I know considerably exercised certain county clerks and others I hope that this concession, so early in the passage of the Bill, will augur well for the rest of its progress.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: These are the drafting Amendments of which I have spoken. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 20, leave out ("by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 24, after ("water") insert ("provided by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 25, leave out ("by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved, in subsection (2) (c), after "provided" to insert "within the premises." The noble Earl said: Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) applies to premises which are neither dwelling houses nor agricultural heritages,

  451
  and provides that in the case of persons occupying premises who use water provided by local authority, whether inside or outside the premises, domestic water rate becomes payable on those premises. Some of us feel that in certain cases this will be an unreasonable and onerous requirement. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Imagine that there are a dwelling house and a shop next door to each other, with what is called a standpipe—that is, a private fountain on the end of a tube. The dwelling house would pay no rates in such a case, whereas the shop would—even though the shop used the water only for consumption by the people who were on their premises. Or take the case of a tenement having a water pipe, and one next door to it not having a pipe. One pays water rate and the other does not, even though he may use the water. We do not consider that to be a very sound principle. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 29, after ("provided") insert ("within the premises").—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  LORD MORRISON: I am sorry that at this early stage in the proceedings I must disagree at once with my noble friend—though I do not suppose he is surprised at that. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) is intended to cover the levy of domestic water rate on all premises other than dwelling houses and agricultural land and heritages. It was drafted with the particular intention to cover circumstances that arise in the area of the Airdrie, Coatbridge and District Water Board (I do not know whether that is the area which the noble Earl has in mind) and no doubt in other areas also, where certain shops, instead of being connected to the main, draw their water as they require it from a neighbouring shop that is so connected. There is no statutory duty on the owner of an existing shop to bring the piped water within it. Therefore, if paragraph (c) were amended as the noble Earl proposes, the shops that draw their water from their neighbours would escape payment of the domestic water rate—and I am sure that that is not what the noble Earl desires. Nevertheless, that would be the effect of his Amendment. The Amendment would, in fact, defeat one of the objects for which the paragraph has been framed.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: The example I gave was of a dwelling house and a shop being adjacent, where the shop has to draw its supply from the dwelling house.
  LORD POLWARTH: If a shop has a public drinking fountain in the street outside, and the occupants of the shop go out from time to time to get a drink, will they be liable to pay a domestic water rate?
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: Is it not correct to say that paragraph (a) was amended in another place and that that Amendment requires local authorities to provide a piped supply into houses? It seems logical that the same requirement should be included in this paragraph (c).
  LORD SALTOUN: I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is considering the case where local authorities cannot connect premises for lack of materials. It is not fair to make a man who wants to bring the water into his premises pay rates for something he has not got.
  LORD MORRISON: I am afraid that I cannot add to what I have already said, that in the event, which often happens, of two shops adjoining each other, one of which has a water supply and the other of which has not, if the noble Lord's proposed Amendment were carried it would be possible for one shop entirely to escape paying the due amount of the water rate. As it is accepted that it is impossible for any shop to conduct its business without the use of water in some form or another, for drinking, for washing the windows, washing the floors or for any purpose like that, I feel it is only fair that they should pay.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: Before the next stage, will the noble Lord look into this matter to see whether there is any discrepancy between paragraphs (a) and (c)?
  LORD MORRISON: I will gladly do so.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: In view of that undertaking, I do not propose to press this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Levy of domestic water rate on agricultural subjects]:
  LORD MORRISON: This, again, is a drafting Amendment to ensure that Clause 3, which relates to the levy of domestic water rate on agricultural subjects, follows Clause 2 in providing that the domestic water rate will be leviable only if water is provided by a local water authority within a dwelling house comprised in the premises. The present wording of the clause seems to suggest that a dwelling house provided with a supply of water from a private source would be liable for domestic water rate. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 3, at end insert ("by a local water authority").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This also is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 21.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Levy of domestic water rate on certain public utility undertakings, mines, parks, etc.
  5. Where the domestic water rate is leviable in respect of lands and heritages occupied as waterworks, gas works or sewage works, or as a mine or a quarry, or as a public park or recreation ground, it shall be levied according to one-quarter of the gross annual value thereof.
  LORD MORRISON: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 12, after ("of") insert ("premises being").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to omit all words from "ground" to the end of the clause and to insert:
  "the last foregoing section shall apply to those lands and heritages as it applies to the premises specified in subsection (4) of the said section with the substitution of 'one-quarter' for 'one-half' and of 'one-eighth' for 'one-quarter', wherever these words occur."
  The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will look at Clause 4, which we have just passed, you will observe that that clause, Which applies to shops, offices, factories,
  454
  theatres and such premises, renders those premises liable to one-half only of the domestic water rate, and it gives the local authority discretion further to reduce it to a minimum of one-quarter. In addition, where the gross annual value of such premises is particularly high, the occupier can take his supply by meter and pay a still further reduced domestic water rate. I recapitulate that because I am not quite clear—and I move this Amendment in order to obtain clarification—why the same flexibility and possibility of accommodation is not extended to the premises to which Clause 5 applies. Those premises are set out in the clause. It seems to me that some of them, such as public parks or sewage works, may use only a small quantity of water for domestic purposes. If that were the case, it might well be that a rate of one-quarter of the domestic water rate would be unduly high. I move this Amendment in order to find out the reason why the measure of flexibility given in Clause 4 was not accorded to a local authority in dealing with these premises also. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 15, leave out from ("ground") to end of clause, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD POLWARTH: Before the noble Lord replies, I have two points to make. The first is a question: what exactly are considered "domestic purposes" in the case of premises of this kind? For instance, in the case of a mine, water is used for pithead baths. Pithead baths would appear to me to be a domestic purpose, in the interests of health and cleanliness, and they might consume a very large quantity of water. That is only one example to show the great disparity that there might be between the water consumption at the different types of premises dealt with by this clause. My other point is this. In the Report of the Bryce Walker Committee, the recommendation on this point was more or less on the lines of this clause, with the exception that, where a local authority had their own Act and under that Act could charge a lower proportion than one-quarter, they could apply to the Secretary of State to have that lower proportion continued. That was one of the recommendations of the Committee. I am not quite clear whether or not such an arrangement could continue under the Bill as it now stands.
  LORD MORRISON: I am not able to give the noble Lord an authoritative reply in regard to the exact definition of "domestic water supply" in this connection, but I think I can be reasonably sure that the instance he has given is correct—that water used in pithead baths would be regarded as domestic water, as would water used in lavatories, for washing purposes, for cooking purposes and in connection with canteens in the works. The object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to give local authorities a power to reduce to one-eighth the fraction of gross annual value on which the domestic water rate is leviable on water works, gas works and various other subjects specified in the clause. The view was taken, after due consideration, that the fraction of one-quarter suggested by the Bryce Walker Committee, to which the noble Lord has referred, for this group of subjects would operate fairly if no power were given to the local authority to vary it.
  The principal argument that I have to urge to my noble friend is this. During the whole of the consultations that took place between the Secretary of State and the local authority associations in the preparation of this Bill—and with his experience he knows how prolonged and exhaustive those consultations are—neither in the consultations nor in the detailed observations which were submitted to the local authority associations was there any suggestion from any local authority that they should be empowered under the clause to levy the domestic water rate at a lower fraction than one-quarter of the gross annual value of the various premises concerned. It might also be mentioned that no suggestion that the fraction is too high has been received from any bodies concerned as ratepayers under the clause. The noble Lord will realise my difficulty. As no responsible body in Scotland, during the long time that this Bill has been under consideration and while it was passing through another place has apparently thought of this Amendment, it makes it rather difficult for me to give any encouragement to him at this late hour of the day.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: Possibly people do not always realise what is good for them! But I do not wish to try to be
  456
  more royal than the King or to press this Amendment further. I should have thought there would have been advantage in giving some flexibility to the local authority to deal with cases such as my noble friend Lord Polwarth has instanced—that of the pithead bath. But it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has said, that nobody else has raised this matter. I still think that the last word of wisdom has not been said, but I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment, having, given it an airing.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Levy of domestic water rate on shootings and fishing]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 17, after ("of") insert ("premises being").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  2.54 p.m.
  Clause 8:
  Contributions by county council in aid of domestic water rate
  8.—(1) If in any year it appears to a local authority being the council of a county that by reason of the cost of works undertaken or to be undertaken in connection with the provision or improvement of a supply of water in their district or by reason of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act requiring a major portion of the rate-borne expenditure of the authority in providing a supply of water to be defrayed out of a domestic water rate payable by occupiers only, the financial burden imposed or to be imposed on occupiers in their district is greater than they can reasonably be expected to bear unaided, the authority may with the approval of the Secretary of State in that year defray such part of the cost of providing or improving the supply of water in their district in such manner as appears to them equitable, and where part of such cost is defrayed out of rates it shall be defrayed out of the county rate.
  (2) Subsection (2) of section two hundred and thirty-seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which subsection relates to the information required to be contained in demand notes for payment of rates) shall have effect as if expenditure under this section were a branch of expenditure prescribed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of paragraph (f) of that subsection.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to leave out Clause 8. The noble Earl said: I

  457
  am moving to delete this clause because I consider it is a very dangerous one. Under the Bryce Walker Report a recommendation was made that the public water rate should not exceed one-quarter of the total burden, or a rate of 6d. in the £, whichever was higher. I do not know why, but the powers-that-be thought it would be better not to follow this recommendation of the Committee which had been set up, and in Clause 1 they have not only raised the maximum to one-third in place of one-quarter, but by this clause they render an unlimited increase possible. In other words, if the local authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, come to the conclusion that the burden imposed upon occupants in a district will be too heavy for them to bear unaided, an unspecified additional burden can be transferred to the public water rate. This is more likely to happen, as we understand it, in the parts of Scotland where, for geographical reasons, the public rate will be paid by a great many people who do not now receive Public water supply, and who are not likely to in the future, either because they are too high up or they are too far away.
  As I said on Second Reading, I am not against a system of a flat rate, because I believe that in time that will be inevitable with everything. The urban population of this country have had two lessons, in the 1914–1918 war and in the last war, and surely they realise that they are dependent upon the rural communities. We shall be unable to keep the rural communities in these far-flung districts and the urban population next time will be well on the way to being starved. Therefore the rural population must be given as many as possible of the amenities which their brethren have in the towns. And that means accepting the principle of a flat rate whereby, possibly, the urban people will have to pay more order to subsidise those that do not get these amenities. It is the same with electricity, and so on. What I do feel is wrong is that His Majesty's Government should not have some limit to the burden which they or the local authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State (which is the same thing), can place upon the domestic rate.
  I am not suggesting that local authorities are all unreasonable people, but of course some are. I am not even
  458
  going to suggest that all Secretaries of State are unreasonable, but sometimes we find one who is not so reasonable as others. Sometimes, for instance, he is a man who is a little weighed down with party politics, or is perhaps not so well able to stand up to the Sassenachs here by whom we are ruled so centrally and steadfastly. Some of them do not go far enough for us in protecting our interests in Scotland—I except in present company, any Secretaries of State of the past. However, for the safety of the people in Scotland I think we should insist that His Majesty's Government give a clear indication of the circumstances in which they propose to invoke this clause and, what is even more important, should also give some idea of what the maximum burden on the public rate might be. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 8.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
  LORD POLWARTH: I would like strongly to support what my noble friend has said. It would be a great help to us if we could have some idea, in the first place, of what the anticipated public water rate is liable to amount to. We have heard that it will be a fraction varying between one-fifth and one-third, but it is a fact that we have no indication of how much, in pence or shillings in the pound, this will represent in any particular area in Scotland. If we are to allow this clause to pass, I think we should have some idea of what the public water rate is likely to be before we start considering increasing it under the provisions of this clause. I do not know whither the noble Lord can give us any figures by way of example.
  LORD MORRISON: When the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, decides to put down an Amendment, he does it properly; where other noble Lords put down an Amendment to delete one word, he moves to delete a whole clause! From his position of splendid and glorious independence in this House he is able to do things that, if he were sitting on the Front Bench opposite, he would perhaps hesitate to do. However, I will give him an explanation of what is the position, as I understand it, in regard to this clause, in the hope that he may consider the reasons for retaining the clause in the Bill stronger than those for deleting it.

  459
  I suggest to the noble Earl that to delete this clause altogether would be a retrograde step. Under the special district procedure, a county council have had power, since the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, was passed, to contribute towards the expenses of a special district where the burden on the special district ratepayers would otherwise have been greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear. The words: "reasonably be expected to bear" have been carried forward to the present Bill, and as county councils have apparently had no difficulty in the past in assigning an appropriate meaning to the expression, it is not thought that any difficulty should be experienced in future in deciding at what point the domestic water rate leviable on the consumer would prove too onerous a burden.
  May I say here, in parenthesis, that the Bryce Walker Committee, to which reference has been made more than once this afternoon, proposed that a county council should have power to help from the county funds where the 25 per cent. public water rate was insufficient? That was in paragraph 19 of the Report. All this clause does is to translate, in relation to contribution from general county funds, the existing special district procedure, to which reference has already been made, into terms of the new system of a county public water rate and a county domestic water rate. In any case, the county councils must be trusted to use responsibly the power given to them by the clause. Moreover, they cannot exercise it without the authority of the Secretary of State—though I doubt whether that will bring much feeling of confidence to the mind of my noble friend. Without the power which the clause gives to the county council to come to the assistance of the domestic water rate out of the county rate, the domestic water rate on the limited number of ratepayers liable for it in some counties might be so heavy that schemes would never be carried out at all.
  The maximum for the public water rate, as such, is determined by Clause 1 and, as the noble Earl well knows, will thus depend on the amount of water expenditure and on the fraction—varying from one-fifth to one-third—which the local authority decide should be de
  460
  frayed from the public water rate. In deciding whether approval should be given under Clause 8 to a contribution from general county funds, additional to that provided by the public water rate, the Secretary of State will have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the general level of rates, the magnitude of the proposed expenditure and the extent to which further public supplies of water are essential in the public interest.
  In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, I can say only that, so far as I know, no attempt has been made to forecast the future level of the public water rate since, in addition to the amount of expenditure and the fraction of that expenditure to be allocated to the public water rate, the rate will be affected by the special rating provisions dealing with shops, factories, and so on, as dealt with in Clauses 4 to 6 of this Bill. I hope that with that explanation of the real object of this clause, the noble Earl will be satisfied, and will feel disposed to allow the clause to remain in the Bill.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: Before my noble friend Lord Airlie speaks again I would like to make one or two observations on this matter. I am bound to say that I feel rather unhappy about this clause. Sir Robert Bryce Walker, who conducted a very careful review of this whole question, came to the conclusion that it was wise to strike a limit and to say that the public water rate should not exceed one-quarter of the total or a rate of 6d. I think that in doing so, he must have had in mind those very large and sparsely-populated counties in Scotland in which many people do not receive the benefit of a piped water supply. It is with regard to such counties with a low rateable value, where capital works may be necessary and may be very expensive, that this problem will arise. I find it difficult to see why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. What the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said suggests that he regards the removal of the whole clause as too sweeping. Perhaps between now and the Report stage we might apply our minds to this problem (which Sir Robert Bryce Walker obviously regarded as serious) and see whether we can hit upon something which can be done to meet the point. If so, I

  461
  hope the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will consider it. I do not know if my noble friend would be agreeable in those circumstances to withdraw his Amendment now. Certainly, some of us do not feel happy at the idea of leaving things as they are in the Bill.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I thought I had made it plain that I am not disagreeing with the principle of a flat rate, or with the idea of one district helping another. What I wanted to see was that there should be some limit to which the rate could be raised. In Clause I the maximum to which the public rate can be raised is one-third of the burden, and I understand that if one district has laid upon it a burden which is more than it can reasonably be expected to bear, the contribution to the public rate can be increased, provided that the Secretary of State agrees, to lessen the burden of the domestic rate. I want to see some safeguard, so that the contribution cannot be increased out of all proportion or in unusual ways.
  LORD MORRISON: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, I can only say that I have no control over Amendments which noble Lords put down at any stage of this Bill. If any noble Lord thinks that there is a further point to be made on this Amendment, I have no power to prevent him putting it down for consideration at a later stage—and, indeed, if had the power, I would not desire to exercise it. At the same time, I can make no promise that any more sympathetic reception will be given to it. This is a free country and if, when the Report stage is reached, the noble Earl still desires to delete Clause 8 then he must try to do so.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I am not going to enter into any debate with the noble Lord as to whether this is a free country or not. He knows exactly what my views are about that, and whether or not I think there are shackles upon his neck and upon mine. We all know what the position is in that respect. If the noble Lord will agree to give further consideration, between now and the Report stage, to the points which have been raised, I am willing to withdraw.
  LORD MORRISON: I certainly assent to that, but the noble Earl must clearly understand that I am not entering into any commitment.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Then I will release the shackles!
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  3.7 p.m.
  Clause 9:
  Dissolution of special water supply districts
  (6) Where immediately before the appointed day a local water authority are entitled under any enactment or agreement to take a supply of water from any stream or other source for the purpose specified in the enactment or agreement being a purpose relating to the functions of the authority with respect to water supply, then, notwithstanding anything contained in the said enactment or agreement or in this Act, the authority shall continue to be entitled to take that supply for that purpose, so, however, that they shall not be entitled to take in any year thereafter an amount of water greater than the amount they were entitled to take in the year immediately preceding the appointed day.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (6), to leave out the words "continue to." The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee this Amendment and the next one will go together. The purpose of subsection (6) of Clause 9, in which these Amendments are to be made, is to guard against a possible consequence of the dissolution of special water supply districts. In some cases, a county council, when acquiring rights to take water for use in providing a supply to a special water supply district, agreed that the waver should not be used to supply premises outside the special district. With the dissolution of special districts, water supplies previously earmarked for them will be required as part of the county water supply system, and the purpose of the subsection is to enable the authority to use for county purposes a supply previously limited to a special district. The Amendments now to be moved are to meet an observation made by the county clerk of Nairn (at whose suggestion subsection (6) was originally included in the Bill) that the subsection as worded might not enable a local water authority to make use, for the general purposes of their undertaking, of water which they originally acquired for use in one particular special district. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 19, leave out ("continue to").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 20, leave out ("that purpose") and insert ("any purpose relating to their functions with respect to water supply").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11:
  Expenses of local authority supplying water in district of another authority
  (3) If in any particular case the authorities concerned are satisfied that the allocation in manner provided by the last foregoing subsection of the expenses of a supplying authority among the local authorities concerned would impose on any of those authorities (including the supplying authority) a financial burden greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear they may enter into an agreement for the purpose of regulating the manner in which the expenses of the supplying authority in that case are to be defrayed, and if the Secretary of State, being satisfied as aforesaid, makes an order approving the agreement the terms of the agreement shall during such period as may be specified in the agreement come in place of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "could reasonably" and to insert "would otherwise." The noble Lord said: This is rather an involved clause. I will try not to take too long but I must endeavour to explain what the clause in effect means. Under it there are to be new arrangements for the charging of water where a local authority supplies water outside its own area to premises in the district of another authority. The practice at present is very often that the supplying authority can levy a water rate on the premises outside its own area. I think the classic example, cited many times in this connection, is that of Glasgow supplying water to Rutherglen. Usually, the area outside the district of the supplying authority has paid a higher rate for its water. I do not think there has been much complaint about that. In general it would be to the advantage of the people outside, because they have still a supply cheaper than they would have if they had to install their own waterworks. In general, I think there has not been any injustice on that score.
  464
  Under the clause, however, such arrangements will not be able to continue. The cost of the water supply will be levelled out and will be borne equally by the people supplied inside and outside the supplier's district. Instead of rating directly on the people outside, there will be a requisition on their council, who will then collect the amount.
  There are two loopholes to this process. The first is that if the authorities agree that an unreasonable financial burden is placed on the people in either area, they may come to some other agreement about the cost of the supply of water. Secondly, failing agreement, either party may go to the Secretary of State for Scotland and say they are being hardly treated and ask him to alter the rate; and he may do so if he thinks "a financial burden greater than they could reasonably be expected to bear" would otherwise be imposed on the authority. Incidentally, I wonder whether there is any significance in the fact that on page 7 the words are "they could reasonably" and, on page 8, "they should reasonably." Or is that merely one of those coincidences which may be ascribed to the fact that to-day is St. Patrick's Day, and that has affected the sense of propriety of the authorities who want these things? The Second Reading of this Bill was given on St. David's Day, and perhaps we shall have to wait until St. Andrew's Day to see the Bill through!
  I should like to ask how this will affect cases where water is supplied to a district outside, not on a system of rating but in bulk. I know that the Burgh of Montrose is concerned about that. They supply water to villages in the County of Angus, and the county pay for it in bulk and then distribute it to the villages in the county. They would like to know whether that sort of arrangement will be able to continue, and whether it will not be superseded by the arrangements under this clause. While it is right and proper that different parties should pay fair rates for their water, we feel it would have been better to let existing arrangements continue on their present basis. I do not think there are any cases of hardship. There is a somewhat competitive spirit among local authorities in Scotland. They are rightly very jealous of their rights, and I think that any arrangements at present existing have been struck as a fair bargain. I should have thought it

  465
  better to let the present arrangements continue, while still providing these two loopholes—namely, that either the parties could agree on a new rate or, having failed to make an agreement, could go to the Secretary of State and ask him to alter the present arrangement. I think that would give much more latitude in coming to agreement than having to go to St. Andrew's House. That is the reason why I move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 41, leave out ("could reasonably") and insert ("would otherwise").—(Lord Polwarth.)
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: The point in regard to Montrose is not confined to Montrose. It also affects Dundee, which delivers water in bulk to an estate in the County of Angus.
  LORD MORRISON: The point about Dundee will arise later in the proceedings, where the question of a change in the Bill may affect the special position in Dundee.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: That point is only in regard to time. The question now is whether Dundee will be allowed to continue to deliver in bulk to estates.
  LORD MORRISON: In regard to the last argument of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, I think the convincing answer is that, so far as the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware, the clause as it stands at present is entirely acceptable to the local authority associations. That does not seem to encourage the noble Lord in his plea that they should be left alone to continue as they have been doing and make the best of it. So far as the Secretary of State is aware, they are all agreeable to accepting the proposals in the Bill. The point as to why the word "should" is used in one place and "could" in another, I confess is too difficult for me. I can only think that the natural desire of the Scot to introduce in Acts of Parliament as much variety of language as he possibly can has led to that variation. There may be a better explanation, but if there is, I do not know it. Generally speaking, this clause does not disturb the existing arrangements whereby one authority sell water in bulk to another for distribution by the latter through their own water supply system. That meets the points of both the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie.
  466
  Montrose's arrangements will not be disturbed by the Bill at all. The terms on which water is supplied bulk are a matter for agreement between the authorities concerned and, failing agreement, may be referred by the authorities for determination by the Secretary of State.
  The clause in its present form, which I may say is the result of Amendments made in another place to meet the representations of the local authority associations, is designed to give the maximum elasticity in the procedure for the allocation of expenses where one local authority are supplying water in the district of another. As I was saying, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, the clause as it stands is entirely acceptable to the local authority associations. It may be asked what rates are likely to result from the operation of the clause. It is difficult to give any precise information on this point, but I think it can be said that where the whole of the district of one authority is supplied with water by another, the water rates in the two districts should be approximately the same. At present the common practice is for the supplying authority to levy a higher rate outside their own district. With that explanation, I hope the fears of the noble Lord may be lessened, and that he may see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Arising out of what the noble Lord has Said, I want to make the position clear. My point is a different one. My point is that Dundee delivers water in bulk through the meter to an estate, not to an authority at all. I was asking whether under this clause that system will disappear, and whether it will come under a new system.
  LORD MORRISON: I cannot answer that point off-hand, but I will make inquiries and let the noble Earl know.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: I have listened with care to what the noble Lord has said, and recognise that this clause, as amended in another place, has not met with objection from the local authority associations. But surely we cannot always go on the principle that Parliament can do anything wisely so long as no one objects. None the less, I see that there are advantages in the flexibility secured by this arrangement. I would, however, say that I think the

  467
  Secretary of State and his advisers will require the wisdom of Solomon in deciding what is a reasonable rate to pay.
  LORD POLWARTH: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. In particular, we are grateful for his assurance about the case of Montrose. I know they will be relieved to have that assurance. I certainly do not intend to press this Amendment, as there appears to be general agreement on the principles. However, I think it will add considerably to the work involved after the passing of this Bill, and I hope that St. Andrew's House will not find they have a great many knotty problems on this point to solve.
  LORD MORRISON: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I may say that I have obtained further information on the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. I understand that Dundee will be allowed to continue to supply other authorities in bulk, but not estates. Subjects on those estates will have to be rated.
  LORD POLWARTH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Provisions supplementary to ss. 10 and 11]:
  LORD MORRISON: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments, to make clear that the duty of the clerk of the local authority to whom the requisition falls to be issued is merely to provide the clerk of the joint water board or supplying authority with a copy of the valuation roll for the district of his authority; that is to say, to make available the necessary information regarding the valuation of premises within that district. It is not his duty, but that of the supplying authority, to state in detail which premises are in fact supplied with water. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 47, leave out ("or any part of that district").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 2, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 3, and insert ("that roll").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15:
  Provisions as to valuation roll
  (5) If in any year the apportionment mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (3) of this section has not been completed on or before the fifteenth day of August as respects any premises to which subsection (1) of section three or, as the case may be, subsection (3) of section four of this Act relates, the domestic water rate, in so far as it is leviable in respect of those premises, shall be levied in that year according to the value according to which any water rate payable in respect of those premises was levied immediately before the appointed day.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, at end of subsection (5), to insert:
  "or, in a case where no water rate was so levied, according to the rateable value (as defined in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947) of those premises."
  The noble Lord said: The Committee will remember that on the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, raised a point concerning a particular difficulty which would affect the County of Angus if this Bill were passed into law. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for raising this point and giving the Government the opportunity of dealing with it, and also to thank the County Clerk of Angus for his help in trying to deal with this special difficulty. As a result of the provisions of Clauses 3 and 15, many county assessors will have a large amount of work to do in apportioning the value of agricultural lands and heritages as between the value of the dwelling houses and that of the remainder of the premises. It was therefore necessary to make some provision for the value on which the domestic water rate should be levied temporarily until such time as the work of apportioning could be completed. Farms in Angus County supplied by Dundee—and also farms in some other areas—are, however, metered, not rated. In such cases the phrase,
  "the value according to which any water rate payable in respect of those premises was levied immediately before the appointed day,"
  which is used in Clause 15 (5), has no meaning and does not serve to provide an interim arrangement. The Amendment which I now move will enable the

  469
  domestic water rate to be levied on the rateable value of agricultural lands and heritages—where no water rate has hitherto been paid—until the assessor can complete the necessary work of apportionment.
  The noble Earl, Lord Airlie, will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that this Amendment has been accepted by the County Clerk of Angus as meeting the particular difficulty of that County Council. I am not claiming, however, that it will meet the difficulty confronting the supplying authority in that case—namely, Dundee Corporation—whose circumstances are somewhat exceptional. But the difficulty in relation to Angus has been resolved and I am authorised by the Secretary of State to say that he has the difficulty of Dundee Corporation under active consideration. I hope at a later stage of the Bill—either on Report or on Third Reading—to be able to move an appropriate Amendment which will perhaps solve the problem of the Dundee Corporation. I hope what I have said will be satisfactory to the noble Earl, Lord Airlie. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page l0, line 43, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I am informed by the County Clerk and others that their point has been entirely met. I would like to take the opportunity of offering my gratitude to the noble Lord on behalf of Angus and Dundee for the trouble he has taken to deal with this matter. I feel rather like the man who comes out of the ring shaking hands with himself.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16:
  Transport and electricity hereditaments
  (2) Where a water rate was in the year 1947–48 levied in respect of premises being a railway or canal hereditament or a hereditament occupied by the British Electricity Authority, an Area Electricity Board or the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, on the fifteenth day of May nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and no charge calculated by reference to the amount of water consumed was made, no charge by way of meter or otherwise shall be made in the year 1948–49 or in any subsequent year during which the premises are occupied as such a hereditament as aforesaid in respect of a supply of water
  470
  (whether for domestic purposes or otherwise) to those premises by a local water authority.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (2) after "aforesaid" to insert:
  "and used for substantially the same purpose or purposes as in the year 1947–48".
  The noble Lord said: While I dare not think that I am going to come out of the ring in quite the same manner as the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, I do want to draw attention to this point, which I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. This is the clause concerned with the supply of water to certain nationalised undertakings—what are described in the Bill as "a railway or canal hereditament"—or "a hereditament occupied by the British Electricity Authority," and so on. I will not enter into discussion with the noble Lord about the use of that particular word, however much we may feel on the point. It is not a word that is in common usage in Scottish law.
  However, the point is that these undertakings are rated by the Local Government Act, 1948, on a global sum; that is to say, each local authority, instead of getting the rates on these subjects according to the length of railway line or the number of power stations in the county, gets a share of the whole rating of the undertakings in the whole of Scotland, divided up according to the county or burgh's rateable value. Under this clause, any premises belonging to these authorities in 1947–48, or earlier, which were being supplied with water by a local authority, cannot from now on have any charge levied on them for the supply of water. All they bear is their share of this global sum of rating. The point I am concerned about is where there is a large increase in consumption of water on one of these premises.
  I know it is said that it is not very likely to happen, but I can think of a number of cases, particularly as I understand that the word "premises" includes land and not only buildings. For example, water might be laid on at a small wayside railway station and it might be decided, in the interests of expansion, to build a junction or a larger station and put in facilities for large supplies of water to railway engines, and so on. It might even be, decided to lay water troughs for picking up the water,

  471
  and in that way there might be a large increase in the amount of water taken by that undertaking.
  Under the present arrangement, the local authority supplying the water will not be able to recoup itself directly for the increased supply. The only way in which it will do so is by a very indirect share of any increase made in the total rating of the railway system or electricity authority. I believe there is provision that this total rating can be increased. I believe that it can be increased on an electricity undertaking in accordance with the number of units of electricity produced. I do not know whether, in the case of a railway, the rating is based upon the number of tickets sold. We would like to see some arrangement by which the local authority who are supplying the water can get some increased sum in return for having to give a greatly increased supply. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 27, after ("aforesaid") insert the said words.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD MORRISON: Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I am sorry that we are unable to continue in the note of exaltation raised by the noble Earl on the previous Amendment. But, alas, we must come back again to hard facts, and all that I can say with regard to the noble Lord's Amendment is to draw his attention to what is provided in Clause 16.
  Clause 16 provides that premises occupied by a railway or canal or electricity undertaking, in respect of which a water rate was payable and no charge was made on the basis of water consumed in 1947–48, shall be exempt from further charges for water because a sum in respect of water is included in the standard amount payable under Part V of the Local Government Act, 1948, by the occupying bodies. The noble Lord's Amendment would enable a local water authority to impose a charge for water in a case where there is merely a change of use in premises—for instance, a change from use as a warehouse to use as a repair shop—even though there is no change of occupation. This would have the effect of requiring the occupying bodies to make a double payment in respect of water, as there would be no compensating adjustment of the standard
  472
  amount and, clearly, that would be inequitable.
  A change of use may increase or decrease the amount of water used, but in cases where a supply of water was normally covered by a rate charge, that charge would not have been varied according to the amount of water used, and there is a provision in the 1948 Act which allows for an annual variation in the standard amount which will take account of any changes which would in the past have resulted in a higher valuation of premises for rating purposes. One of the objects of Clause 16 is to ensure that the British Transport Commission, the British Electricity Authority and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board do not pay twice for water in respect of the same premises. With that explanation of the real purpose of the clause, I hope the noble Lord may not feel disposed to press his Amendment.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: This illustrates one of the difficulties we shall encounter with nationalisation. As the noble Lord said, we must come down to hard facts, and he has put them before us. But it is surely a very hard fact for the local authority which are supplying water in an area where there is a greatly increased consumption on the part of some nationalised industry, not to receive any benefit in increased rates. I agree that there is the standard amount, but it is a long shot before that helps the local authority. I can see the difficulties in the way of accepting the noble Lord's Amendment, but I would draw your Lordships' attention to the consideration that this is the type of trouble which is going to grow in this country; and we shall have difficulties affecting many local authorities unless we can find some means of adjusting them.
  LORD POLWARTH: I must admit that I am not entirely satisfied with the noble Lord's answer. I appreciate that this particular Amendment would probably not meet the case, but I feel that we shall have to see whether we can find some solution to this. Of course, any increase in general consumption will be reflected in the general increase in the total amount of rates payable by these authorities, and I can only assume from the noble Lord's answer that if justice is to be done perhaps he is

  473
  considering the day when all the water supply authorities may be under the same control. In that case, fairness might be achieved; but we have not quite reached that stage yet. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Provisions as to orders under section 16 of the principal Act]:
  LORD MORRISON: The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the same order that provides for a combination of local water authorities to empower the combination to borrow money. If the order gives the combination this power, they will then have available to them the borrowing powers of Part XII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 26, leave out ("(other than the power to borrow money)").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: Although this appears to be a very long Amendment, I can assure your Lordships that it is merely drafting. The new clause consists of subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 3, which are moved from Part I of the Bill, which deals with rating, to Part III, where provisions relating to the supply of water for non-domestic purposes are more appropriate. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 24, page 18, line 21, insert the following new Clause—
  Provisions as to supply of water to agricultural subjects
  "25.—(1) Where a supply of water for purposes other than domestic purposes is provided for premises being agricultural lands and heritages, the local water authority shall require the supply to be taken either by meter or on other specified terms as they may from time to time in their discretion determine.
  (2) Where a local water authority supply water by meter for purposes other than domestic purposes to any premises being agricultural lands and heritages and also supply water for domestic purposes to any dwelling house comprised in such premises, the authority shall, if it is reasonably practicable so to do, provide the whole supply of water to such premises and dwelling house through a single meter.
  (3) The duty imposed by subsection (1) of this Section upon a local water authority shall, in relation to premises being agricultural lands and heritages on the appointed day, be exercised by them as soon as may be after the appointed day and in any case not later than the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.")—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26:
  Termination of right to supply of water on special terns
  (8) No local water authority shall after the appointed day by agreement or otherwise incur any obligation of the kind to which this Section applies.
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to omit subsection (8).
  The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I would like to draw your Lordships.' attention to what seems to me to be something of an anomaly, and the noble Lord, in his reply, may be able to clear it up. Clause 24 (3) directs every local water authority to keep a register into which they shall enter particulars of agreements for supplying non-domestic water on special terms and conditions. On the other hand, Clause 26 prohibits local authorities from entering into agreements to supply water, domestic or otherwise, on preferential terms. There is an apparent contradiction between those two clauses, with the result that local authorities would appear to be able in future to conclude only disadvantageous agreements. I am sure that that cannot be the intention of the Government, and possibly the noble Lord may be able to explain.
  Then, going further, it seems to us desirable that local authorities should not be precluded from entering into special arrangements with large users of water which may result in their ratepayers benefiting. It might be very advantageous on wide grounds for a local authority to grant special terms to a factory or paper mill, or something of the kind coming into the district. I hope there is no intention in the Bill of prohibiting local authorities from making such an agreement. Perhaps the noble Lord could advise us on this matter.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 20, line 4, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: I think I can give the noble Lord a fairly satisfactory assurance. Take the case of a number of large organisations requiring a considerable quantity of water and seeking to take water out of one of the Scottish lochs, say; they make a bargain with the water authority that, in return for their laying the pipes and carrying a certain amount of capital expenditure, they should be allowed advantageous terms. It is intended that that kind of bargain should be allowed to continue—and there is no reason why it should not, because one of the parties would be bearing part of the capital expenditure. But the kind of deal which it is proposed to prohibit in future is the case where an owner of land might say "Unless you agree to give me a certain amount of water, entirely free, I will not allow you to put your pipes across this field." That is an entirely different matter.
  Subsection (8) of Clause 26, which the Amendment seeks to leave out, is the logical consequence of the remainder of the clause. If local authorities are to be empowered to bring to an end, on payment of compensation, obligations undertaken by them to supply water free or on special terms—and I draw the noble Lord's attention to the word "obligation"—then it is clearly undesirable that they should still be able to incur fresh obligations of the same kind. Obligations to supply water free or on special terms were commonly incurred in the past in return for the granting of wayleaves, or of rights to take water. As a result of the passing of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, a local authority need no longer obtain way-leaves for their mains, and the procedure under which they can obtain rights to take water is all laid down in Section 21 of that Act. The main reasons for undertaking these obligations in the past, therefore, no longer apply.
  The obligations to which the subsection refers are those defined in subsection (4) of the clause—that is, obligations to supply water free of charge, or on terms more favourable than those that would otherwise apply. For that reason, subsection (8) does not strike at the power of a local water authority under Section 11 of the principal Act to enter into agreements to supply water for non-domestic purposes on other than the normal terms and conditions. It is these special agree
  476
  ments (which are not obligations to supply water) that the local water authority are required by Clause 24 to record in a register. I hope that this makes the position clear.
  LORD POLWARTH: There is evidently nothing between us on this point. It is clear that we both have the same intention; we all feel that, after all, if the authority enter into an agreement to supply a certain consumer on more favourable terms and conditions, which are not within the terms of Clause 24, they are then giving an undertaking to supply on those terms. It is just a question of words. I hope the Government will make it absolutely clear from the legal point of view and that the matter will be made water-tight. But there is obviously nothing between us on the point.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: The noble Lord has given us a clear explanation. So far as I have been able to follow it, I think he has cleared away the doubt I had in my own mind about helping local authorities to offer advantageous terms in the special case I have mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clauses 27 to 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on an Amendment made in the Report stage in another place. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 46, leave out from ("mains") to ("exceeds") in line 2, on page 23.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 25, line 4, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and schedules, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  3.45 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Provision for renewal of tenancies of shops
  (3) Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing subsection, the sheriff may, if in all the circumstances he thinks it reasonable to do so, dismiss any application under this section, and shall not determine that a tenancy shall be renewed, if he is satisfied—
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved, in subsection (3) after paragraph (e) to insert:
  "(f) that the premises are reasonably required for the purpose of a scheme of redevelopment or reconstruction which will be carried out immediately after the determination of the tenancy and which cannot in the opinion of the sheriff be carried out whilst the tenant is in occupation of the premises, or"
  The noble Lord said: On the Second Reading of this Bill I drew attention to two points in which the Government had departed from the recommendations of the Guthrie and Taylor Committees, on which this Bill is founded, and this Amendment arises on the first of these points. It is surely desirable to encourage improvements in property, and my fear is that the Bill as it now stands may discourage the landlord from striving to make such improvements. Possibly he suffers enough discouragement already under the Town and Country Planning Act, and this seems to be an added burden. I understand that the Secretary of State felt difficulty in incorporating this provision in the Bill, because it would be difficult to define reconstruction and redevelopment, and perhaps the noble Lord in his reply could deal with that point. It seems desirable that we should give every encouragement to the improvement of property, and that was also apparently the view of the Committees. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 25, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: It is true, as the noble Lord says, that his Amendment
  478
  follows a recommendation of the Taylor and Guthrie Committees. The provision has been omitted from the Bill as it stands because the sheriff already has power to take all relevant factors into consideration and to decline a renewal of tenancy if greater hardship would be caused by granting renewal than by refusing it. Apart from the general objection—and I emphasise this—it seems to me to be wrong continually to say (as was said in another place, and as has been said in this House) that we have every confidence in the impartiality of the sheriff, and then, by drawing attention to all the relevant circumstances of the case, to try to restrict him and prevent him using his discretion. This Amendment is unacceptable because it would be extremely difficult to interpret. As the noble Lord himself has said, the Amendment does not attempt to define "redevelopment" or "reconstruction," and the vagueness of these terms might render the condition proposed open to abuse.
  The noble Lord will recollect that, in his interesting Second Reading speech on this Bill, he pointed out that the public should not be misled by thinking that a large number of people were doing these wicked things in Scotland—that is to say, that only a small minority were taking advantage of their ownership of property to act unfairly towards small shopkeepers. The noble Lord may remember that my reply was that, if only everybody would play the game, we should not need so many Acts of Parliament passed, for many of our Acts of Parliament are concerned merely with a small number of people who are not prepared to act decently towards their fellows. Therefore, the terms "redevelopment" and "reconstruction" used by the noble Lord are, I fear, open to abuse by that small minority.
  If the Amendment were accepted, it would be open to a landlord to say that he required a shop at present used as a chemist's in order to reconstruct it for use as an ice-cream shop, with a view to disposing of the premises at a profit later. In such cases, the Amendment would require the sheriff to refuse a renewal of tenancy and would take no account of hardship that would be inflicted on the tenant. It seems that the main object of the Bill would be endangered if under this Amendment, the

  479
  landlord could evict a tenant in order to alter and sell the premises at a profit. The Amendment says that the premises must be "reasonably required," that the redevelopment or reconstruction must be carried out immediately after eviction, and that in the opinion of the sheriff, the alteration cannot be carried out while the tenant remains in occupation. But I suggest that each of these conditions might easily be evaded. For instance, the landlord could claim that his reason for requiring the premises was simply to alter them and that the alterations were so substantial as to be incapable of execution unless the premises were empty. That could easily be pleaded. In general, before he comes to a decision the sheriff will no doubt consider any bona fide reason which the owner may have for resuming occupation. During the Second Reading, the noble Lord expressed the greatest confidence in the wisdom of the sheriff's decisions. I suggest that the Amendment would impose unnecessary rigidity upon the sheriff. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to leave the sheriff unhampered in making a decision after he has given full weight to all the relevant circumstances.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I wish to support this Amendment, or an Amendment having the same intent, because I noticed that at the commencement of his reply the noble Lord referred to the fact of hardship. There is hardship both ways. There is a hardship upon the tenant and there is a hardship upon the landlord; but, from what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said, the hardship to which he referred was that on the tenant; he omitted altogether to refer to the hardship on the owner. I cannot see how the sheriff would be limited in his direction if it were pointed out to him, not as a direction but as something of which he has to take note, and if he is informed in the Bill that he must take notice not only of the hardship on the tenant but also of the hardship on the owner. From what Lord Morrison has said, the sheriff has a direction as regards the hardship on the tenant, but no direction as regards the hardship on the owner. At the end of his speech, the noble Lord informed us that the sheriff would have to take all these facts into account, but he did not say so at the beginning of his speech. He said some
  480
  thing quite different. I suggest to the noble Lord that my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir has made out a good case. I do not suppose for a moment that he will press this Amendment to-day, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will find a phraseology which will express what my noble friend has asked for, and what I asked for, too, on the Second Reading debate.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has explained the point of view of the Government here. I cannot claim that I am entirely satisfied but, I recognise the difficulties which the Secretary of State would have over a mandatory provision. I shall be content to rest on the assurance that the noble Lord has given that the proposals for reconstruction would undoubtedly be relevant to place before the sheriff in a case like this, and I can trust only that, if the Bill passes as it now stands, it will not hold back reasonable improvement of property.
  LORD MORRISON: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I reply that I appreciate perfectly that there are likely to be hardships both ways but, if the noble Lord will look at Clause 1 (3) (f) of the Bill, he will see that this is the instruction to the sheriff:
  "that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by determining that the tenancy shall be renewed than by refusing so to do."
  So that the sheriff is definitely called upon, and the Amendment that I was resisting would have said to the sheriff: "But you must take special priority for one particular reason, which is that the landlord wishes to bring about alterations to his premises." If it is left there, the sheriff has either the power to give the landlord possession, or to refuse the landlord possession. But the sheriff is required to take into consideration all the relevant circumstances of the case, from the point of view of hardship either to the owner or to the tenant.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved, after subsection (3), to add as a new subsection:
  "( ) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of paragraph (f) of the last foregoing subsection the sheriff shall have particular regard where the landlord is an individual who has purchased the premises before

  481
  the commencement of this Act to the circumstance that the premises are required for occupation by himself or by a son or daughter of his who is over eighteen years of age either for opening up a new business or extending an existing business by bum or by such son or daughter."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment differs from the last in this essential: the former was mandatory and this is not. The noble Lord's main objection to the last Amendment was that it would be mandatory for the sheriff to allow entry to the premises if the provisions of the clause were in order, and that that would be an impossible state of affairs for the Secretary of State to deal with. When this question was discussed in Committee in another place, it was pointed out that the proposal of the Guthrie Committee—which was that a landlord, if he required the premises for himself or his son or his daughter for the extension of his business, should obtain occupation—would to a large extent defeat the intention of the Bill, because an unscrupulous landlord might gain possession and then sell the premises again, and the "racket" which we are endeavouring to put down by this Bill would be continued. It was not pressed in another place, and I accept that view, but I have attempted to meet the Government's difficulty by proposing a direction to the sheriff to have particular regard to the case I have mentioned.
  The hardship that would fall on an owner of property who was unable to resume possession for a reasonable extension of his business, was recognised in both the Committees which examined this problem in Scotland—the Taylor Committee and the Guthrie Committee. Perhaps there is no need for me to make that argument again, because both Committees (which were certainly not biased) made it one of their recommendations; and I should have thought that if the noble Lord has not the views on property that certain very advanced sections of his supporters may have, he would admit that there were some rights in ownership, and that there was fairness in a proposal which urged that the fact that a landlord reasonably desired to occupy his own property for the purpose of the expansion of his own business should be a major consideration. As the noble Lord admits, this Bill is designed to deal with an evil which has been abroad in certain
  482
  parts of Scotland in the last year or so, but it is a relatively small number of owners of property who have stooped to the practices which we are endeavouring to eradicate here, and the vast majority of property owners have behaved and are behaving reasonably towards their tenants. I expect that is the same on both sides of the Border. Is it not then a proper thing to assume that if a landlord does require the property for the extension of his business, that should be an important consideration in the mind of the sheriff?
  I have not pressed the point that Lord Guthrie would have insisted on—namely, that this should be a mandatory provision—but instead have proposed only that the sheriff should be enjoined to consider this circumstance. The noble Lord may reply that it is unwise to fetter the sheriff in his examination of the problem. But there have been precedents before, such as in the Rent Restrictions Acts and elsewhere, where similar directions have been given. I submit to your Lordships that this is an important factor which might well be brought specially to the notice of the sheriff. Clause I contains a proviso which would appear to give some protection to the owner of the property, and perhaps the noble Lord in his reply could elaborate that—I refer to subsection (3) of Clause 1, which recites:
  "Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing subsection, the sheriff may, if in all the circumstances he thinks it reasonable to do so, dismiss any application."
  The noble Lord will, no doubt, seek to convince me that under that safeguard the interest of the landlord who requires occupation for the purpose I have mentioned is cared for. Perhaps he will succeed in convincing me that that is so. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: I am sorry I am unable to accept this Amendment, and it is not because I personally have any prejudices against ownership of property. My ambition since my early days was to be the owner of my own house, and I am glad I have been able to achieve that ambition. Being the owner of a house, I do not think that anybody is more entitled to live in it than the

  483
  owner of a house. He is the person most likely to take an interest in it, because it is his own. Therefore I have no prejudices in that direction. But when you suggest that in a case like this, where the sheriff has to decide, he shall take special cognizance of the fact that the landlord is asking for possession of the property for his son or daughter, that, to use a Scottish expression, is "a different kettle of fish." After all, only the other day we had a debate in this House in which noble Lords opposite most eloquently expressed concern at the rough time that the little shopkeeper is having. In taking into consideration the relative hardships, the sheriff is asked to have regard to the hardships that will accrue to the owner and his family if possession is not granted.
  He is also asked to take into consideration the hardships which may accrue to the tenant. The tenant may be a person who has throughout his lifetime built up a business in that shop. What is he going to do, and what hardship would be caused if he were to be turned out? The hardship of the tenant might be extreme. He might lose his entire livelihood and the results of a lifetime of effort in building up the business. The hardship to the landlord, if he fails to evict the tenant, might in many cases (I do not say in all) merely be that he would be unable to effect an extension of an already substantial business, or to secure by taking in a neighbouring shop an improvement in his existing accommodation. I do not say there would not be cases in which the landlord would have the stronger and the greater case of hardship, but the Government's decision is that this is a matter which the sheriff ought to be allowed to decide. We have all expressed our confidence that the sheriff will be absolutely fair, and I am perfectly sure that noble Lords in all parts of the House will agree that there will be varying circumstances in every case. There will be a variety of circumstances which will be almost entirely different in every case. That is why we prefer to give a free hand to the sheriff to decide upon all the circumstances of the case.
  Under Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, the sheriff is empowered to dismiss an application for an extension of tenancy if,
  484
  in all the circumstances, he thinks it reasonable to do so; and, in exercising this discretion, there is no doubt that he will take account of the reasons for which a landlord wishes to recover possession of the premises. Further, the sheriff is expressly required to refuse to extend a tenancy if he is satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by determining that the tenancy shall be renewed than by refusing to do so. The relative measure of hardship to landlord and tenant is, therefore, left to the impartial assessment of the court, and the sheriff can be relied upon to see that justice is done. As I see this Amendment, it is intended, to some extent, at any rate, to load the dice against the tenant, and we prefer to allow the sheriff to make his decision entirely freely. This was accepted as a fair settlement by the Scottish Grand Committee in the House of Commons, and by that House itself in passing the Bill.
  May I add that it is not in dispute that a court may have regard, and there is no doubt that under the Bill as it stands it will have regard to it, to the circumstance of the landlord being the individual who wishes to take over for himself or for a son or daughter a shop he brought before the commencement of the Act? There is no doubt that that is a very important matter. But the sheriff will also be required to take into consideration many other circumstances, equally important, to which the court must have regard—for example, the loss of the tenant's livelihood—and to single out for special mention one circumstance affecting a small number of landlords would seem to imply that the court must give greater weight to that circumstance than to others not less important. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to do as the Government wish to do—leave this matter to the unfettered decision of the sheriff.
  LORD POLWARTH: There is one point to which the noble Lord has referred and to which I wish to draw attention, and that concerns the question of giving, directions to the sheriff. He has said that the sheriff is assumed to be reasonable and that he will take all the circumstances into account. I have no doubt that that is the case, but I want to draw attention to the precedent of the

  485
  Agriculture (Scotland) Act which we passed last year. Unfortunately, I have not a copy of the Act before me, so anything that I say about it now is said with a measure of caution. But I do believe it is the case that, under that Act, if a landlord lets his farm and inserts in the lease a provision that at the end of the lease he will wish to resume it for occupation, either by himself or a member of his family, the fact that that is in the lease has to be taken into consideration when any question arises of whether or not the landlord is to be allowed to take possession of the farm. As I say, I have not the Act before me so I would not attempt to quote it word by word; but I think the case is as I have stated. The only difference between it and this Bill in this connection, I believe, is that an appeal under the Agriculture Act is not to the sheriff but to the Secretary of State. The only inference I can draw from that is that while we must assume that the sheriff is a reasonable man who will take all circumstances into consideration, we are not to assume that the Secretary of State is equally reasonable.
  LORD MORRISON: I am in the same position as the noble Lord, in that I am unable to recall all the circumstances of the Agriculture Act. I would point out that the sheriff would naturally take into account the consideration to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. The other point which I would like to bring to the noble Lord's notice—and it seems to me a reasonable point—is that this matter has given rise to a very acute position in Scotland. A Committee were appointed, and they have considered and reported to the effect that the circumstances were not very serious but that if there were an alarming increase in the trouble they would become serious. In a period of a few months, if I am correctly informed, there has been an alarming increase, and members of all political Parties have made strong representations to the Government to take special steps to endeavour to get this Bill on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. What I fear is that if we at this stage insert an Amendment of this kind in the Bill, the effect would be that while we close one door (and that is the intention of the Bill) we shall at the same time be opening another. I will not say that this has happened in Scotland, but I know
  486
  that it has happened in England, and I fear that what has happened here may happen in Scotland if safeguards are not speedily provided.
  There have been cases in which county court judges generally have decided that, if a landlord wanted possession of his own house, since it was his own house he ought to have it if possible. Orders for possession have been made when the landlord has pleaded that he needs the house for a son or a daughter about to be married. A short time after the order has been made, in a number of instances, the property has been put up for sale at a much higher price than was put upon it before, and in those circumstances the court has not been able to do anything. This sort of thing has become almost a scandal, and I am glad to say that county court judges are now taking much greater precautions to see that applications for possession are genuine. In the case of Scotland, perhaps this evil has not been so great, but undoubtedly there are people about of the "get-rich-quick" type who try to make money by these methods in as short a space of time as possible. These, of course, are but a few among the multitude of honest and decent landlords and tenants.
  All that is desired and is provided for in this Bill is that the case shall be presented fairly and properly to the sheriff so that he will be able to make up his mind on all the facts as to the party on which the greater hardship is likely to fall and as to whom the tenancy should be given. I ask the noble Lord to consider whether it is worth while taking the risk that, while closing a door on a scandal which has caused a great deal of distress to many innocent people in Scotland (by reason of the attempts of unscrupulous people to make a great deal of money), we may well at the same time be opening another door. The result of such action might necessitate the introduction of another emergency measure before a further twelve months have passed.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: I welcome the noble Lord's frank avowal, as a property owner himself, that he has no prejudice against property owners. He has also stated, quite categorically, that the circumstances which I mentioned would be for the consideration of the sheriff, both

  487
  in relation to paragraph (f), in regard to hardship, and also to the first lines of subsection (3)—all the circumstances concerned in the case. Frankly, I think it would not have been unreasonable to press this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has rested his arguments for the Bill on the importance of the Committee's Report, but has disregarded some of its important provisions, of which this is one. When it was pointed out that a mandatory clause would be embarrassing, I changed my ground, and proposed a direction to take the circumstances into account. I do not think that such a direction would have been embarrassing.
  The noble Lord speaks of something which he has seen in England—I cannot, of course, say what he has seen there—and he seems concerned as to what would happen in Scotland if such a provision as this were included in the Bill. For my own part, I think that a hard-headed Scottish sheriff would not fall into any such trap. I think this would have been a proper condition to apply, but we are united in both Houses in wishing to facilitate the passage of this Bill. If we vote on this and insert the Amendment, and there should be disagreement subsequently in another place, the result would undoubtedly be delay, and this would make it difficult to start the new arrangement speedily. In my opening speech on the Second Reading I agreed to do my best to see this measure on the Statute Book by the May term. Therefore, I will not press my Amendment and, with the assurance which the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  LORD MORRISON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Citation, extent, interpretation and duration]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment designed to ensure that the terms of the Bill will apply to a shop within the meaning of the Shops Acts of 1912, 1934 and 1936. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved.
  Page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) In this Act the expression 'shop' includes any shop within the meaning of the Shops Acts, 1912 to 1936, or any of those Acts.")—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  SOCIAL SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL
  4.19 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill, I wish to make a brief statement, because as this is an agreed measure and there are no Amendments to be considered, this will be the last opportunity which I shall have of making this statement. In Column 298 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, there appears a report of my speech on the Second Reading, from which it will be seen that I dealt very fully with the means to be adopted to enable the cost of social insurance in Northern Ireland to be met out of taxation raised in that country. I mentioned that the figure, although not a firm figure but a figure which had to be taken into consideration, amounted to 2½ per cent. of the total expenditure on social insurance for the United Kingdom. I then concluded my remarks upon those points with these words:
  "The Agreement with which this Bill deals will run for three years, as provided in Paragraph 2 (iii) of the Schedule. At the end of that period it will be reviewed, and this figure of 2½ per cent. may, if necessary, be changed to meet the circumstances of the time."
  Unfortunately the Editor of Debates, in paragraphing my speech, parted the paragraph at the commencement of the passage I have just read instead of at the end, the consequence being that the words quoted have gone into the succeeding paragraph and have become involved with the arguments of that paragraph, and now some doubt has been raised as to whether the 2½ per cent. that I have mentioned can be altered administratively, as the Agreement provides. However, I have gone into the matter and I propose

  489
  to ask the Editor of Debates, as I think I am entitled to do in this case, to include the words that I have quoted in their proper paragraph, so as not to occasion any doubt whatever on the powers which are included in the Agreement.
  I should perhaps add that the question of whether the share to be covered by the Northern Ireland Government shall be 2½ per cent., more or less, is determined after discussion between the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury and the Minister of Finance in Northern Ireland. When agreement has been reached, that agreement will be referred to the Joint Exchequer Board, which was established by the Government of Northern Ireland Act, 1920, and the Exchequer Board will decide to approve or not to approve. I mention that because it must be clear in this matter that the Agreement gives elasticity and powers of variation.
  Looking at the paragraph which succeeds the one with which I have dealt, I find it desirable to make a further explanation, because under Paragraph 5 of the Agreement further powers to make adjustments in working arrangements can be made in the way I have mentioned. Bills will, therefore, not be submitted to this Parliament at such frequent intervals as they have been during the past. Indeed, it is only when proposals are made which will change the Agreement in principle or in character, requiring a new Agreement for that purpose, that the matter will be brought back to the Parliaments of the two countries for decision. With that statement, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, while sympathising with the noble Lord in the explanation he has just given the House, may I ask when he first discovered this? Would it not have been a good thing to have had a look through the report and to check it over, to see whether he had been accurately reported?
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, after I have made a speech of some length, I usually take the course of going down to the Editorial room to examine it, but
  490
  it will be remembered that my speech now referred to was made at a late hour and I omitted to do so on this occasion. I regret that very much.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, which clears up any misconception which may have arisen through the report of his speech.
  On Question, Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  House resumed.

  PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL
  4.24 p.m.
  Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Saving as respects Belvedere Road, Upper Ground and Jenkins Street for persons having statutory powers]:
  LORD AMMON: This Amendment may be called a tidying-up Amendment. It ensures that subsection (2) covers all the apparatus of the different undertakings concerned. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 23, leave out ("or wires") and insert ("wires or other works or apparatus").—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 11 [For protection of Port of London Authority]:
  LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, after subsection (8) to insert:
  (" (9) In respect of any such landing stage which is not temporary, the Council shall make to the port authority such payments as the port authority may require, being payments of the like nature as, and not exceeding, those which the port authority could have required as consideration for the grant of a licence to erect the landing stage under Section two hundred

  491
  and forty-three of the Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920, and the amount of that consideration shall be determined in accordance with Section two hundred and fifty-four of that Act:
  Provided that in determining the amount of that consideration regard shall be had to the public purposes for which the landing stage is made.")
  The noble Lord said: Noble Lords who were present at the Second Reading may recall that I promised the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that a suitable Amendment would be set down to safeguard the position of the Port of London Authority. The powers sought by the Amendment are to ensure that the Port Authority receive a rental from the London County Council in respect of the permanent landing stage authorised in this Bill, as they would have done if the work had been carried out under a licence granted by the Port of London Authority under the 1920 Act.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD AMMON: This Amendment is consequential on the previous one. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 6, after ("section") insert ("(except subsection (9) thereof)").—(Lord Ammon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD AMMON LORD AMMON moved, after Clause 11 to insert the following new clause:
  For protection of certain water, gas and hydraulic power undertakers.
  (".—(1) In this section unless the context otherwise requires—

  (a) 'undertakers' means the Metropolitan Water Board, The North Thames Gas Board, the South Eastern Gas Board or the London Hydraulic Power Company;

  (b) 'operators' means the Commission or Council, and references to the acts or defaults of the operators include the acts or defaults of their contractors, agents, workmen or servants or any person in their employ;

  (c) 'apparatus' means any pipes, mains, siphons, plugs, wires or other works of the undertakers in or under any street;

  (d) 'the authorised works' means the works authorised by section one of this Act;

  492

  (e) 'specified work' means such part of any of the authorised works as in its execution in or under any street will or may interfere with any apparatus;

  (f) 'plans' means plans, sections or descriptions.

  (2) At least fourteen days before commencing to execute any specified work the operators shall deliver to the undertakers plans of the specified work; and if it should appear to the undertakers that the specified work will interfere with or endanger their apparatus, or impede the supply of water, gas or hydraulic power, the undertakers may within fourteen days after the receipt by them of the plans give notice to the operators to lower or otherwise alter the position of such apparatus or to support the same or to substitute other apparatus in such manner as may be necessary.
  (3) Where notice is given by the undertakers under the last foregoing subsection, the protective works required by the notice shall be done and executed by and at the expense of the operators but to the satisfaction and under the superintendence of the engineer of the undertakers (if after notice given by the operators to the undertakers of the time and place of such execution the engineer chooses to attend), and the reasonable costs, charges and expenses of such superintendence shall be paid by the operators:
  Provided that, if the undertakers by notice in writing to the operators within seven days after the receipt by the undertakers of notice of the intended commencement by the operators of the specified work so require, the undertakers may themselves do and execute such protective works, and the operators shall on the completion thereof pay to the undertakers the reasonable expenses incurred by them in the execution of such protective works.
  (4) Where no notice is given by the undertakers under subsection (2) of this section with respect to any specified work, the work may be executed, but not otherwise than in accordance with the plans delivered under that subsection.
  (5) The undertakers may if they deem fit employ watchmen or inspectors to watch and inspect any specified work during its execution, repair or renewal where any apparatus of the undertakers will be interfered with or affected thereby, and the reasonable wages of such watchmen or inspectors shall be borne by the operators and be paid by them to the undertakers.
  (6) The operators shall indemnify the undertakers against all claims, demands, proceedings, costs, damages and expenses made or taken against or recovered from or incurred by the undertakers by reason or in consequence of any interruption in the supply of water, gas or hydraulic power by the undertakers which may, without the written authority of the undertakers, be in any way occasioned either by reason of the exercise by the operators of the powers of this Act relating to the authorised works, or by the acts or defaults (in or in connection with such exercise) of the operators; and the operators shall pay to the undertakers the value of any gas or water

  493
  which the undertakers may lose by reason of the acts or defaults of the operators in the execution of any specified work.
  (7) The reasonable expense of all repairs or renewals of any apparatus of the undertakers or any works in connection therewith which may at any time hereafter be rendered necessary either by reason of the exercise by the operators of the powers of this Act relating to the authorised works or by the acts or defaults (in or in connection with such exercise) of the operators, or which may during the construction or within twelve months after the completion of any of the authorised works be rendered necessary by any subsidence resulting from that work, shall be borne and paid by the operators.
  (8) Notwithstanding the stopping up of any street under the powers of paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to this Act, the undertakers may exercise the same rights of access as they now enjoy to any apparatus of the undertakers (including apparatus not situate in or under a street):
  Provided that, in exercising the rights of access saved by this subsection, the undertakers, their engineers or workmen or others in the employ of the undertakers shall not interrupt the execution, maintenance or use of any works of the operators by this or any other Act authorised, and the undertakers shall compensate the operators for any damage to such last mentioned works occasioned by the exercise of the said rights.
  (9) The operators shall not in the execution of any specified work raise, sink or otherwise alter the position of any apparatus, or alter the level of any street in which such apparatus is situate, so as to leave over such apparatus in any part a covering of less than the existing covering or three feet, whichever may be the less (unless the operators shall in such case protect such apparatus from injury by artificial covering to the reasonable satisfaction of the undertakers) or of more than the existing covering or five feet, which may be the greater.
  (10) Any difference arising between the operators and the undertakers under this section shall be referred to and settled by a single arbitrator to be appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
  (11) In settling any question under this section an arbitrator shall have regard to any duties or obligations which the undertakers may be under in respect of their apparatus and to any duties or obligations which the operators may be under in respect of the specified work, and may if he thinks fit require the operators to execute any works so as to avoid so far as may be practicable interference with any purpose for which the apparatus of the undertakers is used."
  The noble Lord said: This new clause is not so formidable as the length of it might seem to indicate. The general lines of the clause were agreed upon between the agents of the Metropolitan Water Board, the North Thames Gas Board, the South Eastern Gas Board and
  494
  the London Hydraulic Power Company. The matters in respect of which protection is given are all of the kind normally found in such a clause, and are based to a considerable extent on Section 89, of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1934, as amended by Section 71 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1935. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 11, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ammon.)
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: This is a somewhat substantial after-thought. The clause starts on page 1, covers page 2, covers page 3 and overlaps on page 4 of the list of Amendments. Generally, when a substantial addendum is made to a Bill it is done for one of two reasons: either circumstances have arisen since the Bill was drafted to make it necessary, or the Government have been extremely remiss in their original drafting. I agree with the noble Lord that this new clause is not so formidable as it looks, but it will form part of the solid backbone of the Bill. I only hope that there are no other omissions so substantial, because if there are this Bill will not be the bridge between the good intentions the noble Lord expressed on Second Reading and the good results that we all hope to see flow from it.
  LORD AMMON: I accept the admonition.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.

  SPEED LIMIT IN RURAL AREAS
  4.31 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR rose to call attention to the increasing number of lengths of road rural areas which are being subjected to the 30 miles per hour speed limit; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in 1934 your Lordships passed the Road Traffic Act which imposed a speed limit of 30 miles per hour in built-up areas. That Act states in Section 1:
  "For the purposes of this Act a length of road shall be deemed to be a road in a built up area—
  (a) if a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than two hundred yards apart is provided thereon."

  495
  I would ask your Lordships to note the words "street lighting," because the point I wish to make this afternoon is that these lights are now being placed, not in what one can call streets but, in many cases, in lengths of rural roads. I have no quarrel with the 1934 Act, or with the definition of what is deemed to be a built-up area, but a lot has happened since 1934. What has been happening since then, and to an ever-increasing extent since the war, is that many lengths of road, in areas which could not conceivably be described as built-up, are being restricted to a limit of 30 miles per hour simply by the operation of a completely automatic procedure under which, directly street lamps are erected on the road at the proper intervals, a speed limit is thereby imposed. Without any authority being consulted, the signs are erected. So long as they are erected in streets or in built-up or urban areas, I have no complaint. But it is increasingly noticeable that these lights, and consequently these speed limit signs, are being erected in what can be described only as open country, where there may be a few houses here and there.
  I am sure all your Lordships will be able to call to mind lengths of road such as those to which I refer. I have with me a list of some of the roads which have been restricted during the last three years. It is not a complete list—it is taken, I am informed, more or less at random—but it includes over fifty lengths of road, totalling a considerable mileage, which have been restricted to a speed limit during those three years. I have in mind particularly one of the roads on this list. It has a length of over 2,000 yards and, from my knowledge of it, may be described as open country, with only a house here and there. I think—though I am not certain—that it is in the district of a rural district council. I have in mind other lengths of road, as I know we all have, where restrictions are imposed which obviously should not be imposed under the spirit of the 1934 Act, even if they are there under the letter of that Act.
  To me there seems to be no logic or reason for this position; but I suppose I shall be told that the fact that there is no logic in it is an asset, rather than a liability! It is this automatic procedure
  496
  of which I wish to complain this afternoon. I would like to mention another road, by way of example. On the road to Brighton (A.23) there is a place called Sayers Common. In 1947 the lighting authority—which is the parish council in this case—decided to put up lights on this road, and they did so. The road authority—that is, the Minister—did not want the road to be restricted, and the county council did not want the road to be restricted. Nevertheless, the road was automatically restricted as soon as the lights were put up, and it remained restricted for over eight months. The restrictions were then removed, and it has not been restricted since. The point is that for eight months a restriction was imposed which nobody except the parish council wanted—and that on a trunk road. The fact that the restriction was eventually removed, surely, shows that it was wrong in the first place; but it was allowed to slow down the traffic on a very important road for over eight months. That is an example of what is going on, and no doubt many similar cases could be quoted.
  I do not believe that when Parliament passed the 1934 Act it was ever intended that the speed limit should apply to such roads as these. I should make it clear, perhaps, that I am not quarrelling for this purpose with the principle that roads in built-up areas should be subject to a speed limit—although there is a case against any speed limit. The case against any speed limit rests, I think, mostly upon the fact that it is extremely difficult to enforce. Having in mind only these rural roads, I suggest to your Lordships that it is a bad thing, and contrary to public policy, that these rural roads should be restricted, if for no other reason than that it is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce these speed limits.
  I suggest with confidence that any law which cannot be enforced ought not to be on the Statute Book. It is a bad thing for the country that we should have laws which are not enforced, particularly where they create a criminal offence. It is a notorious fact to-day, I think, that this particular law is not being properly enforced. If that be so, it is most unwise to create additional areas in which, equally, it will not be enforced. It is merely setting a temptation to motorists to break the law. In my respectful

  497
  opinion, that is always wrong. I feel that this is an unhealthy tendency.
  I do not want to detain the House by quoting many more exam pies. It is a short point, but one which I feel is of importance and substance. What I have in mind is to try to obtain from His Majesty's Government some indication of future policy with regard to these lengths of road. The little evil to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention is increasing daily. Each time one goes out in the country in a car one never knows where one is going to see a new speed limit sign. They suddenly appear. It may be that roads will be further restricted to an increasing extent. I have no objection whatever to the lighting of rural roads. If it makes any difference to the safety of the roads, makes them safer rather than less safe; and I certainly do not want to say a word against the lighting of these roads. If it be the wish of the local authority that they should be illuminated, let it be so; but I do protest against the automatic restriction which the lighting of the road implies. I would like the noble Lord who is to reply to give me an indication of the Government's policy; to say just when this procedure is to be ended and how it is to be done, and to give some assurance to motorists that some steps will be taken. I beg to move for Papers.
  4.41 p.m.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has put down this Motion, and I wish to support it. I would draw your Lordships' attention to Paragraph 22 of the recommendations of the Alness Committee, who I think are by far the most able Committee who have ever inquired into road accidents and road questions generally in this country. Paragraph 22 says.
  "The Committee consider that, although the speed limit should in many cases be retained, restricted areas should be reduced in number or extent. It is not possible adequately to enforce the speed limit on the roads and streets which are at present restricted and which in cumulo amount to nearly a third of the total mileage in Great Britain. The degree of danger caused by speed varies with the driver and the car. The man who is driving dangerously at 30 m.p.h. in heavy traffic is a greater menace to other road users than the man who is driving well on a clear road at a greater speed. … In some parts of industrial England to-day motorists travel over long stretches of road, all of which are restricted The driver is, as a result, inclined to become sleepy and less
  498
  alert, and he is apt to watch his speedometer rather than the road. Unnecessary restricted areas therefore become a sense of irritation and danger. Moreover, the driver is given a false impression, viz.: that he has always the right to travel at 30 m.p.h."
  The point is that if you want a law observed, it should meet with more or less general consent. I am able to state this afternoon that the motoring organisations as a whole support the principle of the 30 miles per hour speed limit where it is really necessary, but they do plead—as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has pleaded so eloquently this afternoon—that the 30 miles per hour speed limit should not be imposed in areas where it is clearly unnecessary.
  I will give the House only two instances of the type of road I mean. Those of your Lordships who play golf may know Mitcham Golf Course. The road from Mitcham to Croydon goes across Mitcham Common, with the golf course on one side and open common on the other. There is absolutely nothing, except one cross road in the middle of the Common, and the view of that is not obstructed in any way; one can see whether there is a car coming on the main road or on the subsidiary road. A stretch of about two miles of that road is a restricted road, and that is exactly where the police go out in their police cars to catch the driver who is momentarily exceeding the speed limit. Noble Lords say, "Hear, hear," but would it not be much more sensible—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: We are all with you.
  EARL HOWE: Would it not be more reasonable to de-restrict that road, and to drop more heavily upon the driver who exceeds the limit in a part of the country or town whether the limit is really required? I will give another instance for the benefit of Scottish members. Noble Lords from Scotland will know the road from Edinburgh to Queensferry. That road, as far as Cramond Bridge, is a restricted road and is about 40 ft. or 50 ft. wide. It is true that on one side there is a row of houses—a very had case of ribbon development—but on the other side there is a wall and it is quite impossible for people to dart across the road. Again, that is a road upon which a driver would not expect a speed limit. If he happens

  499
  to be momentarily distracted as he passes the sign, there is nothing at all in the character of the road to let him know that he is in a restricted area. That is where the police are extraordinarily active in that part of the world. I believe there is one member of your Lordships' House—it is not I—whom the police have tried hard to catch on that stretch of road. Whether they have been successful or not I do not know, but the whole thing is really rather absurd.
  Could this question be examined—perhaps it is already being examined—with the idea of de-restricting a road where the need for the speed limit is not obvious, and where it can be done without causing conditions of danger? None of us wants to increase danger on the road—not a single member of your Lordships' House would support that—but in order to make the speed limit more effective and to ensure that it is observed where it ought to be, we do ask that it shall be taken off the roads where it is nothing but a nuisance and provocation to people. I therefore beg to support the noble Lord's Motion.
  4.47 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long, but if my recollection serves me aright—and I was in another place at the time of the passing of the Act to which we are referring—the fact that a road had lights upon it was only a general guide as to whether that road had the 30 miles per hour restriction placed upon it. It was within the power of the Ministry of Transport, upon application from a local authority, either to restrict a piece of road which had not these lights on it, or to de-restrict a piece of road which had lights on it. This question of lights was merely a rough guide which, of course, in 90 per cent. of the cases, was a very proper guide as to what should be a restricted area. We are now dealing with the 10 per cent. of roads where there are lights, where there are no houses or danger spots and where, in consequence, the road should not be restricted. It is probably well known to more members of your Lordships' House than to my noble friend who has just sat down, that the police find it easier to get some return for their labours if they confine their
  500
  activities to one of those stretches of roads which ought not to be restricted at all, and upon which the motorist who does not watch for his lamp post quite so carefully as he should is liable to exceed the speed limit.
  What I would suggest to the noble Lord who is to reply is that, with this kind of road, the imposition of a speed limit might be reviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, raised the question of the Brighton road going over a common. What I presume happened there was that eight months elapsed between the time that representations were made by the local council, who did not want the road restricted, and the time that the Ministry of Transport agreed that it should not be a restricted road. I would suggest that that kind of procedure can well be hastened. Where it is known that lights are to be put up on a completely open piece of road, the action of the local authorities should be started before the lights are actually placed in position. Then from the word "Go" a road which nobody wants as a restricted road would not have a restriction put on it, which has only to be taken off when eventually the application has "gone through the mill," from the local authority to the Government Department and back again. It seems in this particular case to have taken that rather long period of eight months. Cannot this procedure be hastened? Cannot the Minister look into some of these things, and in particular into the case where a piece of road is restricted which ought not to be restricted? If that were done, the motorist could keep the law—which is what we all want—and the police could divert their activities to these parts of the road which ought to have a 30 miles per hour limit.
  4.50 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, it is somewhat unfortunate that, in a House which contains a good many noble Lords with expert knowledge of motoring, this debate should have to be very brief, and to a certain extent superficial, because a number of members of the House desire to get on to another subject. I should like to say at the outset, particularly with regard to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that I will see the views expressed are brought

  501
  to the notice of the Government Department concerned. Furthermore, I would suggest that any noble Lord who may have further glaring examples which ought to be looked into, and who cares to do so, should send details direct to me. I will certainly see that they are examined.
  EARL HOWE: May I ask whether, if the motor organisations send the noble Lord examples of the sort of stretches of road which are in question, he will ask the Minister of Transport to review the whole question?
  LORD MORRISON: Yes, certainly. As a matter of fact, some motoring organisations—I do not know whether they include the one in which the noble Earl., Lord Howe, is interested—are particularly vigilant in these matters, and frequently bring to the Minister's notice roads which are restricted as a result of lighting and which, in their opinion, ought to be de-restricted. Only recently, they have submitted a list of thirty such lengths of road to the Minister, and this list is receiving his attention. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said it would be wrong for us to pass laws which cannot be enforced, and I fully agree with that, as we all do. Unfortunately, this law was passed in 1934, and that is going rather a long way back. The difficulty in 1934, as some of us remember, was that the definition of what was a built-up area for the purposes of the Act, was a very difficult one to make. It was exhaustively examined, on a non-Party basis. It became clear that it would be an impracticable task to examine every road in the country, and that some general criterion would have to be adopted with a provision for exceptions in individual cases.
  The roads and areas which could be regarded as built-up have, as a rule, street lighting, and it was accordingly decided that all roads having a proper system of street lighting should prima facie be regarded as a built-up area and subject to the speed limit. That was the criterion which was embodied in Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which imposes a thirty miles per hour speed limit on roads in a built-up area which, for this purpose, are defined as "roads furnished with a system of street lighting by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart." In order to meet cases where the road, although lit, was not in a built-up
  502
  area, and other cases, where although in a built-up area the road was not lit, the Act provided for the making of orders which deem a road to be in a built-up area (and therefore subject to the 30 mile per hour speed limit) although not lit; or, conversely deem a road provided with street lighting not to be a built-up area (and therefore to free it from the speed limit).
  Except in the case of trunk roads, and roads within the London Traffic Area (where orders are made by the Minister), such orders are made by the appropriate local authority, subject to the Minister's consent. The Minister also has power to de-restrict any lighted road, subject to a local inquiry if necessary, if the local authority refuse to do so. This criterion of street lighting has, on the whole, worked well and has achieved the objects for which it was devised. Before deciding upon it, Parliament examined the numerous alternatives, and experience has not disclosed anything better. Whatever criterion is adopted, there are bound to be some borderline eases upon which opinions will differ, and if any noble Lord here has anything better as a criterion to suggest, I have no doubt the Government will be prepared to consider it. The criterion has the advantages that it is simple, and readily understood; the lamp posts provide a useful and universally recognised indication of the speed limit; it is administratively impossible to impose a speed limit by the method of examining each road individually; and the powers to deem a road with street lighting not to be in a built-up area are adequate to cover cases where street lighting would impose an unnecessary speed limit.
  It is true also that street lighting is often provided on roads in rural areas, where building is scattered and sparse, and it is in this type of case that differences in view most often arise. It is also true that in rural areas the lighting authority is often a parish council, who do not always have regard to the needs of traffic when a speed limit is imposed by the street lighting they have provided; and accordingly they do not always press the appropriate local authority to make an order de-restricting such roads when the speed limit is not required. Since the war, however, there have been stringent restrictions on the provision of new street

  503
  lighting, and, as a rule, if it is at all substantial, it cannot be carried out without a licence from the Minister. The Minister does not issue such licence unless the lighting is necessary for traffic safety or for police purposes. This means that most new street lighting has been put up in genuinely built-up areas, where a speed limit is justified. The Minister's divisional road engineers are careful to see that trunk roads are not unnecessarily restricted by the erection of street lighting.
  In general, local authorities have co-operated well in the de-restriction of lighted roads where a speed limit is not justified. During the past ten months about thirty orders have been made de-restricting roads with street lighting, and altogether there are more than 1,000 miles of lighted roads that have had the speed limit removed from them by order. The machinery for seeing that the speed limit is rightly applied for its purpose is therefore active. There are bound to be cases, however, where there is a genuine difference of view between local authorities and those who wish to see the roads as free as possible. In disputed cases the Minister has to hold the balance as fairly as he can.
  In order to secure as much uniformity as possible in the practice of local authorities, the Minister has under consideration, with the assistance of the Road Safety Committee, the question whether it would be helpful to give them further guidance for coming to a decision in doubtful cases. Some months ago, the Minister asked the Road Safety Committee to consider the general policy in relation to speed limits, in order to see what advice can usefully be given to local authorities. They submitted a report which has been referred back to them for further consideration on certain points. I am not able to say how far the Minister will be able to go in giving advice. I give that information merely to show that this matter is receiving the active attention of the Minister.
  Before I go on, I want to say that one should try to look at all sides of the question. John Stuart Mill once said that the man who knows only one side of a question does not even know that. It must be borne in mind that while the population continues to grow, and the
  504
  Government are pursuing a vigorous housing programme, the number of built-up areas must inevitably increase; and this will result automatically in an appreciable increase in the number of roads subject to the speed limit. The Minister is under constant pressure from local authorities and local residents—this was the point I wanted to make; it is not a political point—to agree to new speed limits on roads in or near housing estates and, moreover, proposals for de-restricting even the more important traffic routes, such as trunk roads, are often opposed by petitions from local residents affected by them. We may think that they are wrong in doing that, but we all know that it happens.
  While figures for new roads made subject to a speed limit during the past year are not yet available, during the year ended March 31, 1948, the total length of roads in all areas subject to the speed limit rose by 1,483 miles. It is unlikely that the increase in the mileage of roads so restricted during the past year is very different from the increase during the year ended March 31, 1948. Moreover, most restricted roads are minor roads in towns and cities, and other built-up areas which are not important for through traffic, and where, beyond question, a speed limit is necessary in the interests of safety. Only 1,367 miles of trunk road, out of a total of 8,189 miles, are subject to a speed limit. This represents just under 17 per cent. of the total mileage of trunk roads.
  I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that the Minister recognises that the application of the speed limit under the 1934 Road Traffic Act needs special attention in rural areas, because in the face of local opinion, which is usually against the removal of a speed limit, local authorities are sometimes reluctant to de-restrict roads which ought not to have a speed limit. There is no such difficulty, however, in respect of unlighted roads which are subjected to a speed limit by order. Such orders are, if the roads are trunk roads or roads in the London Traffic Area, made by the Minister; otherwise, they are made by local authorities, subject to the consent of the Minister. In every case, therefore, the Minister must be satisfied that such a speed limit is necessary before an order is made; so that speed limits are not

  505
  imposed unnecessarily on unlighted roads, either in urban or in rural areas.
  To sum up, the Minister asks me to say that he is satisfied that the general criterion of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which imposes a speed limit automatically where there is proper street lighting, together with the powers to de-restrict lighted roads or to restrict unlighted roads by order, has worked well in practice and is generally satisfactory. He does not think that it is practicable or necessary to adopt some other criterion for roads in rural areas. To attempt to do so would raise precisely the same problems which were discussed so fully before the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. Moreover, the difficulty of defining what is a rural or urban area would, for the purposes of applying a speed limit, be almost impossible to overcome satisfactorily. I can only repeat that I shall see that the Minister and the Department give consideration to the specific cases mentioned by the noble Lord, and I will have them looked into.
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that informative and full reply to my Motion. I want to say only two or three words more. The noble Lord mentioned a criterion which was applied in 1934. I agree that that was at that time the best criterion that could be devised, but I have grave doubts as to whether it is now. The reason is simply that so many country roads are now being lighted. The noble Lord said there were now stringent restrictions upon lighting. What will happen when those restrictions are removed? This problem will then be doubly acute, and I have graver doubts still whether the criterion will then be good, and whether it will be possible to apply it—but that is a matter for the future.
  I have carefully noted what the noble Lord said and I should like to finish with this remark. On the particular stretch of road which I have in mind, and which prompted me to put down this Motion, I see that lights have recently been put up, the speed limits immediately following, but—and I say this without any political motive—I have noticed no new houses. All the houses there have been there for
  506
  years and years. Again, I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  THE WEST AFRICAN COLONIES
  5.7 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL LORD RENNELL rose to call attention to certain unsatisfactory features of the present administrative and economic situation in the West African Colonies; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to the Motion that stands in my name, I should like to say how much I regret to hear that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, who, I understand, was to have replied to this debate, is indisposed. I also very much regret the inconvenience caused to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who, at very short notice, is going to reply in his stead. I would willingly have postponed the debate had it been possible, but I thought it better to get this particular Motion out of the way. At the end of the debate on February 15 on the Gold Coast Immigration Ordinance which appeared in the Extraordinary Gazette, I gave notice of my intention to raise questions regarding certain political and economic features in the Gold Coast which, in my opinion, were unsatisfactory. I gave notice of these to the noble Viscount who was to have replied. They fall into three parts. They are, first, the situation of the cocoa industry in the Gold Coast—a matter which was raised last year; secondly, the outcome and consequences of the Watson Commission and, finally, the Immigration Ordinance to which the debate of February 15 related.
  It was my contention then that this Ordinance was one of a series of events which have taken place in the Gold Coast which point to the un satisfactory state of the administration out there and of the policy which is being pursued in conducting the government of that country. Of course, it is not for me to say upon whom the responsibility for that lies, because in practice it is impossible for us to know how far the responsibility lies with the Secretary of State and how far with the local Government. We are aware that the Government of the Gold Coast, which is one of the first Governments in Africa to be liberalised since

  507
  the late war, has an unofficial majority and a local opinion which is not only very vocal but is not always easy to direct along those lines which we should all like to see it follow. Nevertheless, the situation in the Gold Coast is one which has given rise to growing anxiety over a fairly widespread field. The Gold Coast is of the utmost importance to the community of the Commonwealth as a whole, to its own inhabitants of course, and to the people of this country who have devoted so much life, capital and devotion to the development of the Colony in the last forty or fifty years. Therefore, when we see things there taking place, which I claim can be seen and which appear to us to be unsatisfactory, it is necessary not only to raise questions about them but also to express the hope that some modification may take place in a policy which seems to be leading to a worse situation.
  In the debate on cocoa in your Lordships' House in September of last year, reference was made to the scourge of swollen shoot, the number of trees infected and the unsatisfactory nature of the remedies which had been applied by the Government. If I may summarise that debate, I should say that it was common ground that attention had been drawn to this scourge in the latter years of the war and notably by, amongst others, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in the course of his duties there as Minister of State. It was nevertheless clear from the figures which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, gave, that the remedy applied—namely, the cutting out of trees—had been so unsuccessful that by September 15 the infection had spread to some 50,000,000 trees out of an estimated number of 400,000,000 in the Colony. In that period, only a limited number of trees had been cut out—the only remedy then known and now known to deal with this disastrous situation. The consequence has been a steady decline in the output of cocoa and a resultant severe diminution of dollar returns, because of the quantity of cocoa taken by the United States. It was a point of criticism then that the Government, in deference to agitators on the Gold Coast, had not taken sufficiently energetic steps to combat this scourge, and moreover that they had not even succeeded in filling the establishment of
  508
  personnel which had been approved, modest as it was, to deal with this matter. I understand that since then recruiting has improved and that the still rather small personnel establishment is now more or less complete.
  A short time ago (actually on March 1 last) I inquired of His Majesty's Government what was the position in regard to the spread of swollen shoot, and, as your Lordships will be aware, received the reply that since September 15 of last year a further 4,000,000 trees were estimated to have become infected, but that in that interval 1,134,653 trees had been cut out. It is apparent from those figures that the rate of cutting out, though still only approximately a quarter of the rate of infection, shows a substantial improvement on the amount of cutting out which had taken place before that—cutting out which had, indeed, been suspended during the period of the riots and disturbances in the Gold Coast beginning about the latter part of 1947 and continuing through the first few months of last year. It was stated at that time that the political situation in the Gold Coast did not warrant the pursuit of this cutting-out campaign with greater vigour lest the disturbances became more severe.
  It was my contention then, and a claim which I wish to repeat now, that too much attention was paid to the agitation against cutting out, which, as we all recognised, was developed entirely for political motives, and that the suspension of cutting out because rioting had taken place was in fact a surrender of government. My claim that that is an explanation of what happened is justified by the fact that since then (and I will come in a moment to one of the outcomes of the rioting, namely, the Watson Commission), since the cutting out campaign has been pursued more energetically, nearly as many trees have been cut out in four months as had been cut out in the previous two years. In other words, when the energies which ought to have been displayed two years ago were at last displayed, the effects were what might have been anticipated—a satisfactory progress in the right direction, although that progress still amounts to only about 25 per cent. of the rate of progress which one would have liked to see. In other words, in spite of the improvement that has taken place, we are, vis-à-vis the cocoa industry, attempting to swim hard

  509
  upstream and being washed steadily down. The present rate of progress—namely, the cutting out of 1,000,000 trees as against 4,000,000 infected—represents a growth of infection, not at the rate of 10,000,000 which was then anticipated, but still at the rate of something of the order of 8,000,000 trees a year. Improvement though this is, the position is still far from creditable.
  I think it can be shown that throughout the years to which I am referring, the policy of the Government in the Gold Coast has paid all too much attention to a relatively small number of agitators, and that the gloomy forecasts of the consequences which would follow an energetically developed cutting-out campaign are not borne out by facts. I believe it is the case—the noble Viscount who is going to reply will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—that the opposition to cutting out in recent months has been much less than had been anticipated, and it is due to that fact that the improvement has taken place. If that is so it shows that the fears of opposition were perhaps rather exaggerated.
  When the riots took place, we were presented with a very interesting phenomenon. If will not go now into the findings of the Watson Committee, which are known to your Lordships and to which reference has already been made in this House, but I must draw attention to the fact (and I think it is an undeniable fact) that the Watson Commission which was sent out to inquire was so sent out, not at the instance of the Secretary of State for the Colonies or of His Majesty's Government in this country, but at the request of the Governor. That emerges both from the letter of committal, as I think it is called, to the Governor by the Watson Commission of their Report, and also in the covering letter to the Commission by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, one sentence of which reads:
  "The decision of His Excellency the Governor of the Gold Coast to appoint a Corn-mission to inquire into the disturbances"—
  and so on. In other words, we have the rather curious case of a Governor or a Government who ask for a Commission to be sent out to inquire into their own actions. There was a mess; there was trouble for which that Government were responsible, and that Government asked
  510
  for their actions to be inquired into. That seems to me to be curious.
  The result of that inquiry was even more curious. The terms of reference of the Commission were drawn—perhaps rightly or perhaps wrongly; I do not know—very widely. The terms of reference were:
  "To inquire into and report on recent disturbances in the Gold Coast and their underlying causes, and to make recommendations on any matter arising from their inquiry."
  The inquiry was into disturbances—or was supposed to have been into disturbances. The Report of the Watson Commission, as your Lordships know, is a peculiar document. It does, of course, deal with the inquiry into the disturbances on the Gold Coast, and with its findings in that regard I think none of your Lordships will be in disagreement. The condemnation of the part played by the agitators is particular and severe, and rightly so. But that occupies only a comparatively small part of the Report as a whole.
  The rest of the Report, no doubt somewhat to the surprise of those noble Lords who have read it, deals with matters which are as remote as it is conceivably possible to have them from the terms of reference of the inquiry. And the effect is very unsatisfactory. The comment published on the Watson Report—it is Colonial Paper 232—went so far as to suggest, by implication, that the Colonial Office were not at all in agreement with a great many of the recommendations contained in the Report. But instead of making what may be termed a repudiation of that pm of the Report which went beyond the terms of reference, His Majesty's Government decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into or to consider the recommendations of the Watson Commission.
  The appointment of that Committee, I submit, has had very important and disturbing political consequences on the Gold Coast. The Committee, who were appointed in the latter part of last year, received a congratulatory message on the beginning of their work from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. It was couched in such terns as to suggest to the Committee—consisting almost entirely of Africans—that they were being appointed to consider constitutional changes of far-reaching dimensions, on the lines, presumably—or perhaps not—

  511
  of the recommendations of the Watson Report. This message, and the reply, which are probably known to many of your Lordships, can have done nothing else but to emphasise and fortify the belief in the Gold Coast that the consequence of the Watson Commission would be a thorough-going revision of a Constitution which had been brought in only as lately as, I think, 1945 in the direction of self-government, and undoubtedly—in the minds of some of the agitating groups in the Gold Coast—of a separation from the Commonwealth. I am afraid that messages of that sort have tended to confirm this view. That is in line with the general trend of policy pursued by the Government in the Gold Coast, a tendency to pander to agitators, to allow them to have their way.
  It is my firm belief that though there is a large element of poisonous and extremely mischievous agitation in the Gold Coast, by no means all the educated opinion of Africans in the Gold Coast follows the view of those agitators. Indeed, from all the correspondence which I have received, and which I believe a number of other members of your Lordships' House have also received, that is far from being the case. There is a large and growing group of educated Africans on the Gold Coast who regard not only the activities of these agitators but also the concessions made to them, the surrenders made to them and the policy which is being pursued, as a matter of as great anxiety to them as to us. And they, being the people on the spot, are the first to feel that they are being let down by this weak policy of a Government who are not governing, or not governing hard.
  That has seen its final outcome, as I claim, in the publication recently, in the Gold Coast Gazette Extraordinary, of the Immigration Ordinance which was recently the subject of a debate in your Lordships' House. I wish to turn now to that matter but I shall not delay your Lordships long. In referring to it, I will not repeat the various arguments and contentions which were made in the course of that debate, but one or two facts have since that time been brought to my notice—and perhaps also to the notice of many of your Lordships who are here to-night—which have a bearing on what was then
  512
  said. If I may I will attempt to summarise in a few words something of what was said.
  In the answer which was made on behalf of the Government by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, two things were obvious. The first was that it was not clear to him—as it certainly was not clear to your Lordships' House—who was responsible for this extraordinary document. If I have been able to understand what the noble Earl said (I did not understand it very well at the time, and I cannot say that I am sure that I am entirely seized of it now, in spite of reading the OFFICIAL REPORT) it does appear that the comment I made at the end of this debate remains true—namely, that this Ordinance was in the nature of a pantomime horse, the front part of which was the work of the Colonial Office and the hind part of which was the work of the local Government in the Gold Coast. If we have a particular quarrel, it is more, I regret to say, with the front part of the horse than with the hind part.
  We are all agreed that immigration restriction in one form or another, is necessary in respect of the Colonial territories in Africa. That has never been in question. It was not in question then, and it is not in question now. What was in question was the preamble to that Immigration Ordinance, the form in which that document took shape and how it was published, and certain aspects which I think are not common to Immigration Ordinances relating either to African or other British Colonies. If I may I will summarise one or two of those points. I have looked up again the summary of the regulations in the Gold Coast Gazette Extraordinary, and I have now in my possession what I believe to be the unsummarised document from which that summary was prepared and printed. In so far as the two documents do not tally (they cannot tally entirely, of course, because one is a summary of the other) the longer document is worse than the shorter.
  May I take a case in point? One of the subjects which was discussed in the debate to which I have referred was the discrimination against the wives of Europeans in the Gold Coast who were not officials, as compared with the wives

  513
  of officials. The text to which I then referred, and which was discussed, read:
  "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."
  If the document which I have in my possession, of which that was a summary, is an authentic document, the full wording of that particular provision is rather worse. It reads:
  "The wives of all Government Officers and Services personnel will be issued with Form A."
  Form A is the form prescribed in these regulations which allows a person to live in the Gold Coast for the stated number of years which the document contains. The direction goes on to say:
  "The wives of other persons unless there are special circumstances for prohibiting entry will be issued with the same form as their husbands"—
  not necessarily Form A.
  That is a very clear discrimination. It is idle to plead that no discrimination was intended when that was the original document. I am still entirely at a loss, as I think your Lordships are, to understand why a summary was published and not the original document, which is not so much longer that the Gold Coast Gazette—Extraordinary or otherwise—could not have contained the full text. If a notice is to be published which governs the lives of the whole European population in the Gold Coast, it seems only reasonable, if not courteous, that those regulations should be published and made known. We have still to learn what was the object of publishing this in the Gold Coast Gazette Extraordinary. It was headed "Directive," a word which I then said, and repeat, is not known as a legislative document in this country. It is unsigned. It bears no reference to the Ordinance or law upon which it is based. It is a sloppy, slipshod piece of legislation, and the more one looks at it, the worse it becomes.
  I am aware that since the date of the debate various discussions have taken place with interested parties to seek to persuade them, I think, that the restrictions on immigration into the Gold Coast laid down in this extraordinary document will not be either so onerous or so difficult as might have appeared. I imagine
  514
  that it was hoped by the Colonial Office that those discussions would have arrived at a conclusion which would have enabled the noble Viscount who is to reply to say, "My dear fellow, there is nothing in this. They are all happy about it. No harm has been dons. Everybody is perfectly happy. What are you worrying about?" I believe the Government will not be able to say that, because however much it may be true that some have been persuaded, the British commercial community in the Gold Coast are better British citizens and patriots than they are commercial people. They have been willing to forgo any advantages they individually might have had by coming to an agreement, rather than agree to what we on this side of the House regard as an iniquitous order.
  However, a great de al has happened since then. My attention has been drawn to the fact that these Immigration Ordinances, whether in the Gold Coast or any other Colony, are curious provisions. I do not know whether or not the definition of British citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies has a bearing on this subject, but the Secretary of State for the Colonies on June 16 last, in reply to a question on the immigration into this country of 400 unemployed West Indians, stated:
  "We recognise the need for some vetting, but obviously we cannot interfere with the movement of British subjects."
  That is precisely what the Immigration Ordinance of the Gold Coast seeks to do, and the matter is aggravated by the fact that whereas in the past all loyal subjects of His Majesty is the Commonwealth were British subjects, they have now been divided into two classes—British subjects and British citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Nevertheless, it is true that in this Ordinance British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies are no longer allowed freedom of movement between the United Kingdom and the Colonies and are subject to the same treatment as any others. That is the consequence of the new British Nationality Act and the new policy which is to govern the Colonies.
  The contention made that this Ordinance was not unique is not borne out by comparison with the Immigration Ordinances of other Colonies. I will not weary your Lordships at this hour with

  515
  some of the comparisons I have had the good fortune to be able to make, but two more modern Ordinances do not bear so heavily or so severely and they give rights of appeal which appear to be denied to people going to the Gold Coast. I have examined the Nigerian immigration law, the immigration restrictions of Jamaica (to which the noble Earl referred when he was good enough to say that there also aliens and British subjects were treated in the same way, which, however, I do not find in the law itself) and generally the Immigration Ordinances dated 1947. There is no shadow of doubt that this Gold Coast paper, directive, document—whatever it is—is far more severe, and is intended to be far more severe, than any which has hitherto been published.
  I submit that if we are to recognise that restriction on immigration into British Colonies is necessary, a distinction can, should and must be made between the immigration of British subjects and of those who are described as British citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, apart from the distinction between them and aliens. Furthermore, I submit that to achieve some form of uniformity, discussions on the subject must be held here in London, and not locally by each individual Colony which would deal with the matter on its own local merits. For instance, we cannot submit to having a totally different form of Immigration Ordinance in the Gold Coast from that which might be in force in Nigeria. In order to achieve uniformity, a conference on the subject must be held here in London.
  Before I come to my last point, I must say that I trust that this sloppy and slipshod form of legislation—if it is legislation—in the Gold Coast will not be pursued any longer. This is not the only example that has come out of the Gold Coast. I think I am right in saying that in 1948 an Ordinance dealing with prices and price control was found to be so unworkable that it had to be withdrawn within a few days of its issuance, and that a little earlier, in 1947, an Ordinance was issued which met with exactly the same fate. I must add that I would not like anyone on the Gold Coast or anywhere in West Africa to think that this criticism of the Immigration Ordinance is prompted by any desire on the part of
  516
  anybody in this country, either to remove the livelihood from Africans, or to remove their resources, prosperity, and so on. It does not require a great deal of imagination to see that no British concern operating in the Gold Coast, whether in the commercial, agricultural or mining fields, is going to send out one more employee from this country than they are compelled to. It is an extremely expensive matter to send people out to the Gold Coast with their families, bringing them home on leave, and finally, at the end of their service, retiring them on a pension. It is just folly to say that people overstaff themselves with European employees out there for fun, or to try and find jobs for people. The climate of the Gold Coast is not one to which people go as a matter of choice, or for their health.
  There appears to be a complete misconception about this. Emigration to me has always presumed some element of settling, living and making your life there. I know of no case of Europeans going out to the West Coast of Africa to settle, to make their homes there and bring up families. They go out there for the years of their work, and then they come back. They are temporary visitors, by the very nature of their occupations, and by the very nature of the development of the Coast. Therefore, to call them immigrants, as if they were to be there for the rest of their lives, to have their families there and increase and multiply at the expense of the land of the Africans, is so silly that it does not bear further examination; and it should never have been at the back of anybody's mind. We on this side of the House, just as much as noble Lords on the other side, wish to see the Africans develop Africa; but we know that in many of the technical aspects and technical employments which are filled by Europeans to-day, they are not in a position to do so. Those occupations necessarily have to be filled if the Colony is to carry on. There must be people to go there and fill them. To obstruct them by an Immigration Ordinance and restrictions of this sort is as stupid as it is wrong.
  In the last few days—this is one of the reasons why I was unable to postpone this debate—I have had my attention drawn to what is possibly the most remarkable development of the whole of this remarkable story. I have learned—

  517
  I am sure the noble Viscount who is to reply is aware of this—that the agitation against this Immigration Ordinance is not a monopoly of your Lordships' House, or of people in this country. One of the better-known political figures in the Gold Coast tabled a Motion in the Legislative Council, at a meeting which took place only yesterday, calling attention to this Ordinance, and opposing it. Whatever views your Lordships may have on the politics and ideals of Dr. Danquah, I do not think they can be said to be particularly friendly to some of the traditions that we stand for here. It is remarkable that, not only in your Lordships' House but on the Coast itself, there has arisen against this iniquitous document an agitation which has finally taken the form of a Motion in the Legislative Council. I feel sure the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, will be able to tell us something more about that Motion at the close of this debate.
  I am the more satisfied that I was right to raise this subject a short time ago by the knowledge that my protest has the support of what may be called even the extreme wing of opinion on the Gold Coast. They feel, as we do here, that this Ordinance is a bad document, a sloppy document, and a document that ought never to have been published. I desire—and I ask your Lordships to agree with me—to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to consider the withdrawal of this document, and discussion in the appropriate quarters before another is published in its place. I beg to move for Papers.
  5.45 p.m.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am sure we all agree with the able speech of my noble friend who has just sat down. My excuse for occupying your Lordships' time for a moment or two is that in the early days of my life (days too far back for my present peace of mind) I was a mining engineer, and I was very familiar with the difficulties in regard to the operations on the Gold Coast, which have now brought about such prosperity. As the noble Lord has said, we all know that this country was at one time looked upon as the white man's grave—as, indeed, it was. It was only through the energy and enterprise of those who, on the results of their primitive investigations in those days, determined to cont
  518
  inue, that the country has become, to the great benefit of the Africans, so important in regard to gold-bearing and manganese.
  To show the sort of situation that exists, I would like to tell your Lordships of a meeting I had with two friends of mine, prominent men in that part of the world, one of whom went out there a little while ago. He was taking his breakfast in the ship, and an official came in to the saloon and said: "What is your name?" My friend then gave his name. The official then said: "Are you here to get a job?" My friend said: "Who are you?" The official said: "You cannot go ashore until you have done this, that and the other." My friend happened to have hit, solicitor in the saloon at the time, and he turned to him and said: "Do you think there is a telephone on board to connect me to the shore?" His solicitor said: "Yes. I think we can manage that." My friend then said: "Tell the Governor I cannot lunch with him to-day." That is the sort of ridiculous atmosphere there is at the moment. Only two days ago I saw probably one of the greatest men from that part of the world, who is well-known to everybody—I will not mention his name—and has been there for thirty-five years. The same sort of thing happened to him. It is ridiculous that men of such prominence, who have taken such a great part in developing the country, should be subjected to these indignities.
  In the beginning, of course, a great deal of money, and many lives, were lost in prospecting this very difficult area. I am informed—and I am certain it is true—that the welfare of the miners in that part of the world is well looked after by the companies operating there. In fact, one of my friends said to me: "I'll bet you that the housing of the miners on the estates about which I know is a great deal better than the housing of the miners in England." They have hospitals; their welfare and their recreation is looked after. That is all done by the companies operating on the Gold Coast. There has always been a policy on the part of these people not to allow the immigration of undesirable white men who were going out there merely to look for a job. They have always supported the idea of restricting the immigration of

  519
  white people into the Gold Coast to the highest possible standard of Europeans.
  Only two days ago I was told that the greater part of the difficult operations on this particular property to which I am referring is now done by Africans. That is because the training of these organisations is making it possible for them to do really skilled work. The Gold Coast Government gain enormously by the operation of these companies. I do not know whether I am exaggerating when I say that tens of millions have been sunk in this country, with the resulting enormous royalties and taxation—even export taxes—which have gone into the pockets of the local Administration. Therefore this directive, to which the noble Lord has referred, is quite impractical if the success of these enterprises is to continue. I trust that the Government will do what the noble Lord requested, and that this directive (or whatever we should call it) will be withdrawn for the time being, and something far more comprehensive and reasonable introduced. Here is a country which is still in its infancy in regard to development, and there is no doubt whatever that many particular enterprises, of great value to the country and to Africans, can be dealt with in the near future. If it is left entirely to the local Africans, I submit that they will not be in a position to take over their country and to govern it.
  Perhaps noble Lords opposite will not like that, but we have seen instances in Burma where the local people have been allowed to govern themselves when they were not ready for such a thing; and we have seen the same thing in Malaya. For goodness sake do not let us have this sort of thing happening on the Gold Coast. As the noble Lord has so ably told us, it is dreadful to think that many of the intelligent and well-educated Africans are against this sort of directive which has been put before your Lordships. Within the last few years I myself have seen, outside the areas which are being administered and worked by the companies, worse slums than any that I have seen anywhere in the world. I earnestly hope that for the sake of the future of this country the Government will take this matter up very seriously. Unless this is done, I cannot for the life of me see how any sensible person will put a penny piece into that country in
  520
  the future. I most heartily support my noble friend in his Motion.
  5.53 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the noble Lord's Motion is phrased in the terms: "To call attention to certain unsatisfactory features of the present administrative and economic situation." I rise to deal with one aspect only: the most unsatisfactory aspect of the economic situation. I think it is no exaggeration to say that the economic prosperity of West Africa depends almost entirely upon two industries—the cocoa industry and the gold industry. Let me hasten to say that I have no personal interest in this gold industry at all, but it is that industry with which I wish to deal for a very few moments.
  The West African gold industry makes a vital contribution to this country. Gold production is the greatest source of gold which is at the disposal of His Majesty's Government, and, after all, we are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer day by day that the great need for this country is to bridge the dollar gap. That being so, one would imagine that the economic policy in the Gold Coast would be one to encourage the gold industry and not to depress it. The gold industry in West Africa employs some 38,000 Africans, it contributes about £1,250,000 a year to Gold Coast revenue and it pays £1,750,000 in wages. I give these figures to show the magnitude of the enterprise. Yet the economic policy followed by the Gold Coast Government has not aided this industry but has handicapped it. In 1941, some 882,000 fine ounces of gold were produced—that was a peak year. The noble Viscount says, "What is it to do with this Motion?"
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: If the noble Viscount was in his seat when I started my remarks, he will know that I said that the noble Lord's Motion calls attention to certain unsatisfactory features of the present administrative and economic situation in West Africa. The Leader of the House will acknowledge that gold production is the second greatest industry in West Africa, and that is the reason why I am endeavouring quite briefly to deal with it. I hope that answers the noble Viscount's question. I repeat

  521
  that, in 1941, the peak of gold production was 882,000 fine ounces. My predecessor in West Africa, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, had to reduce that owing to the world oil shortage. By 1947, production had worked up to 550,000 ounces, and unfortunately it is unlikely to rise much beyond that figure. Yet there are tens of thousands of tons of ore to be milled there, which would be a vital help to us at the present time.
  I think we are entitled to consider for a moment why that situation has come about, and why there is not likely to be any rise in gold production. Labour shortages, reduced efficiency of labour and taxation are the main causes. Up to recently there was an unfair tax levied on all gold, irrespective of the cost of production, and therefore the lower-grade mines could not pay. Let me say here that there were originally 150 mines in the Gold Coast. There are some twelve equipped for big production, but to-day only six are able to work economically. What I am asking for is some revision of the principles of taxation which the Gold Coast Government are following. In October, owing to pressure of economic cost, the Gold Coast Government altered the system of taxation and made certain amendments to help the lower-grade mines. But they have done this only at the cost of penalising the higher-grade mines, and the relief they have given is not sufficient to enable the lower-grade mines to produce.
  We may say in this House that we are disinterested in gold mines, but we are not. Our purpose is to increase the gold production in the British Commonwealth, and I think it is to be greatly regretted that the present system of taxation is so penal that it is not possible to increase the Gold Coast gold production. The duty of those responsible must be to cut down costs. There is no solution in lower wages at all. Wages have risen somewhere round 40 per cent. since 1939. I think we are all glad that wages have risen, provided that the cost of those wages can be carried economically by the industry. But the best solution, of course, would be a rise in the price of gold. If that cannot be—and, after all, that is a big international question—then I submit that there should be some large revision in the principle of taxation. At the present time the Gold Coast Government tax
  522
  both the process of production and the product itself. Every article that comes in to be used in the mines is heavily taxed. That is unsound. I believe that the tax on the process should be wiped out and taxation confined to the final product only, and thus an increase in production be allowed.
  I have dealt very briefly, because I do not want to keep your Lordships long, with this vital issue. I believe that the cause of this penal taxation is basically something to which the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, referred in his speech—the resistant attitude of the Administration to commercial interests and mineral development. I can remember certain very responsible persons in the Gold Coast—persons whom I held in great esteem—saying to me, "It would be better for the Gold Coast if these minerals had never been discovered." But, my Lords, you cannot turn the wheels of time backward. The minerals have been discovered, and are required, and could be produced in greater quantities if there were as a start a change in the psychological attitude and then positive action. Ii the taxation principles are altered, we can reap the benefit for the Gold Coast and ourselves of the wealth which is there, and help to bridge the dollar gap.
  6.2 p.m.
  LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I ask your indulgence while I refer to a personal difficulty which I have in dealing with this and similar Motions, although they refer to subjects of which I have made in late years a good deal of study. The fact is that during the last two years I have been engaged on behalf of the Colonial Office in an inquiry regarding the methods of native administration and local government in Africa, which has involved very extensive journeys and a great deal of work here. The Colonial Office has given me all the facilities for this study and the opportunity of coming into contact with the district officers of, I think, the greater number of the districts in the ten Colonies with which I dealt. I could not have done that work without their assistance and their countenance, and your Lordships will well understand if, in the circumstances, until that task is completed, have some hesitation in availing myself of the same freedom of criticism as that which some of your Lordships enjoy. Therefore, if to-day I address myself to

  523
  some more general considerations, which may possibly help in dealing with this case, I hope I shall have your Lordships' sympathy.
  Let me say, in the first place, that anxiety in regard to administration and affairs generally in the Gold Coast is no new subject with those who have studied Colonial matters. It is, indeed, of very many years' standing. I think I am breaking no confidence by saying that it has certainly been a subject of anxiety in the Colonial Office. The reason, I think, is that the Gold Coast has occupied a somewhat unusual position. If you look into its past history you will find that there was in the earlier days a tendency to regard our relations with the native authorities of the Gold Coast as relations with chiefs having treaty rights. The consequence was that the relations became more of a political character than administrative, and administration undoubtedly suffered. It is a long story and I will not go into it now, but it was not until seven or eight years ago that what I may describe as the claims of administration pure and simple were reasserted by the introduction in the Gold Coast of the system which we describe elsewhere as "indirect rule"; and the application of that system is still being worked out.
  Meanwhile, there has grown up in the Gold Coast another factor of importance. There has arisen there what is rare in most of the Colonies of Africa—something corresponding to what we should call here a middle class. Ordinarily, in most of the territories of Africa we have to deal with the chiefs and their entourage and the like on the one hand, and with the peasant class below. There is very little—in some parts of Africa, anyway—of a trading class or of what might be called the advanced commoner; but in the Gold Coast, owing mainly to the growth of the cocoa trade, there has grown up a large middle class, wealthy, often well educated, and with a keen interest in political advancement. That class has become highly important in the Gold Coast. On the one hand, it has, I think, a strong attachment to the position of the chiefs, whom it values as an African institution, values also on religious and on traditional grounds. On the other hand, it is equally desirous of advancement in that form of political
  524
  self-government which will give a place to men of education and progressive ideas. The point I wish to make at this stage is this: that whatever changes you may make there in the constitutional system—whether, as some critics say, the chief has had his day and must be replaced by the employment of another agency—yet the chief will remain on the Gold Coast as a person of influence, carrying the loyalty of a great number of people; and he will still be the authority to whom many will look for leadership and for guidance.
  Now, if I may turn to some of the points that have been made in the course of this discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and others, I should like to take first the question of cocoa. I speak with some reserve on this question, as I said before; but it is a fact that sufficient attention was not paid at an early date to the growth of swollen shoot disease. It was noticeable, as I well remember, as far back as 1936 and 1937. Then the Colonial Office took an interest in the matter and sent out one of their experts to inquire into the disease and to find out its cause. Again, I think there was undue delay in announcing the compensation that the Government were prepared to pay for the destruction of the affected trees and for replanting new ones.
  Of course, in saying that, one must remember that the task of those who are now endeavouring, quite rightly, to press on with the campaign of destruction has not been rendered easier by the fact that owing to climatic or other causes we have had this year the second biggest crop of cocoa that the Gold Coast has ever known. I will not attempt to draw any lessons from that. I will only point out that it does add to the difficulties of the administration there that, at the very time when people are having the largest crop almost within their memory and at the highest prices, it should have to be pressing them for the destruction of the trees. Believe me, it is not entirely an agitation provoked for political motives, because I well remember seeing people in Ashanti and elsewhere who pleaded that their trees should not be destroyed so long as they could produce fruit of any kind, even in a reduced quantity. There was a very natural movement on the part of the peasant himself to do everything possible

  525
  to save his trees, and that long before it became a matter of political agitation.
  Secondly, as to the immigration directive, I am speaking as one who has spent many years in administration, and I can only say this: that it represents to me a bad secretarial slip-up, and where the slip-up occurred I am not prepared to say. I will use no harsher words about it; indeed, for a Government officer to confess to a secretarial slip-up is sufficient condemnation. I should be very glad to see it entirely re-written because it had certain objects which have to be achieved; certain restrictions have to be placed on immigration; but I think it could all be done in another way and thereby avoid many of the objections which have been brought against it.
  There has, however, been a thought occurring to me in the course of this discussion which perhaps flows mainly from the contacts I have made with officers of the Administration and from the friendship that I have enjoyed from them. They have very great difficulties. They have difficulties of a somewhat doubtful administrative past. They have difficulties arising from the necessity of dealing with the swollen shoot disease. They have difficulties that arise from the economic upheaval of the Gold Coast, which has greatly multiplied the monies available to the people and at the same time has reduced the amount, until lately, at all events, of consumer goods upon which those monies could be spent. One of the greatest causes of the recent troubles in the Gold Coast, and a cause which certainly added support to political movements, is this economic upheaval. I remember well only eight or nine years ago when the price of cocoa per head load was 7s. 6d., and consumer goods were in plenty. To-day, when consumer goods are scarce, at all events in textiles, the price of cocoa per head load is 65s., and, as I said before, there is an unexampled crop. That has caused an economic crisis there which affects everyone, and I think that its results are seen in a great deal of the political movements that we have witnessed lately.
  Finally, these men have the difficulties of those who for most of their lives have been concerned in administration, and often administration in contact with primitive people. To-day they have to face political movements of which they
  526
  have no experience and in which they are not versed. I speak with some feeling upon that, for we went through that stage in India. It is one that one has to surmount; but at this moment, for the reasons I have given, their difficulties are great. I should be unwilling to think, as I know your Lordships would be unwilling to think, that anything said here should cast on to the Administration as a whole an opprobrium which they are bound to feel, and a reproach which must react upon their capacity to deal with the people in their charge.
  I should like to mat e one other point in regard to what has been said in relation, first of all, to the Watson Commission, and secondly to the Committee that has lately been appointed. With regard to the Watson Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, made the point that it was strange that the Governor should ask the Colonial Office for a Commission to examine into the actions of his own Government. I happened to see the Governor during the course of the troubles in Accra, and I know that it was in his mind that he should ask for an inquiry of this kind, for the simple reason that the action of his police and other officers was being attacked, and he thought it fair to his own Administration that it should be made the subject of an inquiry from outside. In any case, it had to be the Governor who announced the appointment of the Commission, for this reason: that it was only from him as Governor, acting in his executive capacity, that the necessary authority to call witnesses and the like could be given. Therefore, whatever the background of that may have been, it had to be announced as the Governor's Commission.
  As regards the Report of the Watson Commission, I may say that I have seen many Commissions of inquiry into disturbances, both in India and in some of the Colonies. I am bound to say that I find it difficult to explain why any body of men, with so short a knowledge of the country and spending so short a time in it, should have gore so far as they did in making recommendations regarding constitutional and other changes. I think it was almost without example in that direction. Again, as before, I am speaking with some restraint. I would add that I think it is a lesson to us that we should in future be more careful in

  527
  laying down the terms of reference, or at all events appoint a personnel with a better regulated sense of their responsibilities. In regard to the Committee which is now sitting, I will not go into questions that have been raised elsewhere as to its all-African composition, and the like. If the noble Viscount who is to reply cares to deal with that question, no doubt he will do so, but, from all the information that I can obtain, it seems to me that the Committee has started well, in the sense that through its chairman it has made it perfectly clear that it does not consider itself appointed merely in order to draw up a Constitution of self-government which will immediately and automatically be implemented. The Committee has made that perfectly clear.
  It is well that it should have done so, and I hope that anything which is said from the Government here will again emphasise that point, because there are fantastic stories going about, as we all know, in the Gold Coast—stories that self-government is to be announced (I do not want to be frivolous) on April 1, and stories that there will be a universal strike which will have to be repressed by military measures if on April 1 a proclamation of self-government is not made. One knows by experience that some of our political friends in the Gold Coast are rather naive about that kind of thing. I well remember that while the Watson Commission was sitting and was about to report, some of them already had the Cabinet named which was to take over the government as soon as the Watson Commission reported; they had the portfolios distributed, and they were apparently, in their own minds, quite resolved that that was about to happen. Political naïveté can really go no further. I hope, therefore, that it will be made perfectly clear by the Government that the recommendations of the Committee which is now sitting have been directed to only one particular purpose—that of making an all-round inquiry into the foundations available for political advance—and that there is no suggestion whatever that they are intended merely to draw up the terms of the announcement of self-government, or that those terms will be automatically implemented.
  If your Lordships will bear with me, I have one concluding point. I should
  528
  like to point out the important factors that go to make up the constitution of society in the Gold Coast, for I think that they have to be borne in mind in dealing with questions of this kind. The territory consists really of three parts. There is the Northern Territory, with about 1,250,000 inhabitants, who are for the most part primitive, who came under administration for the first time in 1907 or 1908 and who, as yet, have a purely subsistence existence. They have no exports and are indeed somewhat isolated from the rest of the country. Therefore, for the moment, at all events, they are outside the range of political considerations but very much within the range of the necessity for good administration. There is secondly the Ashanti area, where, as your Lordships know, not so many years ago we reconstituted the Ashanti Confederation with the Ashantahene and its divisional chiefs. Here then is the remains of a military organisation to which the people still owe a feeling of great allegiance. The Ashantahene and divisional chiefs are people of great influence but of a very conservative turn of mind, who are, as yet, little interested in the political movement that has originated for the most part in the Gold Coast itself.
  Thirdly, in the Gold Coast Colony there are a large number of people who, for the reasons I have already given, are still greatly attached to what are called locally the stools—namely, their native chiefs. There are also the advanced political elements, which are, however, as Lord Rennell has said, by no means all of one way of thinking. But I think you may say that in the Gold Coast Colony itself, where the chief centre of political movement lies, it remains the fact not only that there are large numbers of people who are still attached to the ancient régime, but large numbers of people whose chief interest at the moment is not in political advance so much as in the future of the cocoa crop and the situation created by the present inflation of prices.
  My Lords, they are factors that I should like to commend to you and, if I may, to His Majesty's Government for consideration in any plans that they have for the Gold Coast in the future. I feel, looking at the Gold Coast as a whole and as I have seen it, that at the moment the

  529
  primary requirement there is not merely political advancement (though I do not put that on one side) but a firm-based, consistent and progressive system of administrative and executive government.
  6.25 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I want in a very few minutes to put one question to you—namely: Are we doing half enough to-day to encourage the young and intelligent African to think of himself as a citizen of the British Commonwealth rather than as an African? I am afraid our policy is one rather of disintegration and of self-government run riot. The French do things differently. They hold out the conception of becoming a citizen of France, with all that that means to the intelligent and perhaps ambitious native. The word "France" is easy to grasp, just as the word "Rome" was easy to grasp in the days of that great Empire which was so successful in colonial administration in Africa. Some of us may remember that Septimus Severus, a North African, even became Emperor. Many young and ambitious Africans to-day dream not of service to the Empire but of power in independent self-governing States, some of which can never materialise. We have been too slow in offering the highest opportunities within the Imperial service to Colonials of all races. What a pity it is that the word "England" in its widest sense is now unfashionable! Let us, however, strive to make the term "citizen of the British Commonwealth" one which will inspire men of every race and creed.
  6.27 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am going to direct myself entirely to one point in this discussion. The debate is a natural and logical consequence of the debate we had a month ago, when such grave anxiety was evident not only in this House but in the country generally when that curious directive was published. I would assure my noble friend, Lord Haney, that not only constitutionally but actually and on merit, any criticism which will be or was advanced by me and, I think, by others, is criticism of the Secretary of State and not criticism of any official. The criticism must always be of the Minister. The Minister must take responsibility for his officials. He gets the credit if they do well and he must take the rough with the smooth. He
  530
  can give his officials a rough time when they let him down, but he will be less let down if he sees to it that he keeps proper supervision and proper control. Of course, not only in Parliamentary theory and practice but in reality the responsibility rests largely with the Secretary of State. Therefore, I ask what has happened about that directive.
  Not only is that directive a very bad piece of drafting, which no secretariat and certainly no Secretary of State should have allowed to go out, but it is not capable of being drafted rightly, because it is wrong in essence. It is not the verbal criticism that matters; it is that it goes to a fundamental principle of policy—namely, European-African co-operation. Where the policy is as big as that, there can be no possible doubt that the Secretary of State is the responsible person. The development has taken place in the Gold Coast. Moreover, under the Constitution of the Gold Coast the reserve power remains in the Secretary of State, and the Governor in Council exercises those powers which the Secretary of State has devolved upon him; but, always, in the greatest questions of policy, responsibility must be with the Secretary of State, and from the Secretary of State to Parliament. I therefore ask that to-day it shall be made clear that responsibility on this great question of policy is accepted by the Secretary of State and is not vested in a local immigration officer. The decision is of vital importance to West African prosperity and to the future co-operation of Europeans and Americans—whose co-operation, I know, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House equally wants. I am sure that people will not go in if the fundamental policy decisions are not clear, if such decisions are left to some junior official, and if they, themselves, have not fair freedom of action.
  So that I may appeal to the Government, may I take a simple parallel case? I take the Government's own announced policy and the Government's often repeated plea concerning the nationalised industries in this country. The Government have asserted over and over again, and have made what is not an unreasonable appeal to us, that we should give the managements a free hand. The Government, they point out, cannot be responsible for the details. I ask this

  531
  question: What would be said if some official in some Government Department were to dictate to the Coal Board or to the Railway Board or to any of the other governing bodies of nationalised undertakings how many men they were to employ at a particular time in a particular development?
  May I also put this point—and the analogy is even closer. A groundnuts scheme is now being conducted in Tanganyika. I ask the Government, does their local immigration officer in Tanganyika have the duty or the right to decide how many Europeans the Food Corporation—or whichever of the corporations is concerned—is to send in to manage the groundnuts scheme? There are other schemes, possibly not so great, but just as well-managed, which have been set on foot, and which we want to see set on foot. The same freedom which is accorded to the corporation operating in Tanganyika must be accorded to those other ventures in which people are asked to take risks, and in which no monopoly is sought. To do other than concede that would be to do a great disservice to Africans and to world recovery.
  I am sorry to hear of the illness of the noble Viscount, the First Lord of the Admiralty, but I am glad that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is to reply to this debate, because he speaks with great authority and, if I may say so, also with great understanding. I ask him this question because it is fundamental to policy. Is the Government's policy the policy of Aggrey, the greatest of African pioneers and teachers? The noble Viscount knows of Aggrey, the founder of Achimota, and of his policy and watchword—"The harmony of the black and white keys."
  There are some foolish extremists who preach class warfare at home. I am sure that the last thing the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would seek to do would be stimulate racial antipathy in the African Colonies. But it may well be—indeed it will be—that that will result unless the policy is made clear. Failure to declare the policy and the aim will be exploited not by the majority but by the evil-wishers, of whom there are not a few, and who are not inactive. I ask the noble Viscount to accept, and I
  532
  am sure he will agree, that the Government have a duty to preach and to practise this true gospel of co-operation. Directives, regulations and administrative actions are only the means of giving effect to policy, and it is essential that that policy should be plainly stated—the policy of harmony and partnership.
  May I give to the House one example? Years ago I had to decide how the diamond workings in Sierra Leone were to be developed. I said: "I must find the best pioneers and the best company I can to do this job." I found the Selection Trust, and I went into partnership with them. What was the result? Admirable employment and model employers. Ideal villages were set up, and great prosperity was created. In no more than a single year £350,000 of revenue accrued to the Government of that comparatively small Colony of Sierra Leone, to be used to promote native welfare and native development. Surely that is the right policy and the common interest. I am confident that the noble Viscount will agree with that, and will declare his agreement. The Leader of the House will render a great service to Africans and to Europeans alike if he will make plain that the policy of the Government is that policy of partnership and that the responsibility rests where it must rest—with the Secretary of State.
  6.37 p.m.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I will reply as well as I can to the very important question of high policy which has been stated so clearly by the noble Viscount who has just spoken. When he speaks of these matters we recognise his unique experience. I say at once—though I will come to the substance of the matter later—that I do not think I have any quarrel with him as regards principles. But before I deal with what he has said, may I try to answer some of the points which have been raised in this debate in the order in which they were mentioned? That means that I shall be dealing with one or two relatively minor points first.
  The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asked me how the alteration of taxation has affected the gold-mining industry. He used the description "a penal form of taxation." I was not aware that I was going to be asked that question, and I say quite frankly that I know

  533
  exceedingly little about the subject. But I am given to understand that the present system of taxation is not something new; it is not something that has been brought in for the first time, even during the tenure of office of this Government. There has, however, been one alteration during the past year. I understand that the purpose of that alteration was to assist the lower-grade mines, and that it is in fact doing so. I will, of course, pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, but all I can say now is that there is nothing specially new for which this Government can be held responsible in this particular connection. I confess, my Lords, that it was some comfort to me to receive that information.
  I should like to say here that I sincerely regret that my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty is unable to be present to-day. He knows a great deal more about this subject than I do, but I have done my best within the time available to acquaint myself with some of the governing facts. Now let me refer to the general charge brought by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, with respect to the cocoa industry, and the endeavours being made to deal with the pest. I do not think the noble Lord was at all fair. It is easy to be wise after the event. My Lords, there is nothing more consistent in the world than the exceedingly conservative outlook of the agricultural producer, whether in the Gold Coast or Lincolnshire. He is not easy to move. The decision from the first to cut these trees was found to be the only possible one, and this decision has now been confirmed. But is it any wonder that the natives, whose living depended on the product of these trees, did not look kindly on that operation?
  I myself, as your Lordships know well, come of agricultural stock, and I well remember when the late Mr. Chaplin introduced the policy of slaughter for foot-and-mouth disease in this country. The British farmer did not take at all kindly to it. He did not like to have his cows killed. I well remember the long struggle that took place; and even now farmers object to this slaughter, although they receive fairly liberal compensation. But it is very human. So the people in West Africa did not like it—and that is very human, too. It is all very well for the noble Lord to think he is in the
  534
  middle of the eighteenth century, but he is not. He complained very much that we should have paid attention to agitators. I agree that we do not want to surrender to agitators upon the terms of government, but if an agitation is due partly to the resentment of people who see their source of living being cut down, it is very sensible to inquire into the causes of the agitation and, while the inquiry is going on, to hold your hand a bit. I cannot see anything foolish about that.
  In order to convince the people that this was the right thing to do, it was necessary not only to take the advice of the people interested in the industry, but to get outside experts to give their advice; and this was done. A very strong Committee of experts of international repute—I have the particulars here—were gathered to examine this problem. The advice they gave was that the only thing to do was to cut down the trees, advice which fortified that given earlier on the spot. There has been a great campaign of education and instruction, and of persuasion, and I am glad to say that we are now making much more rapid progress. But it is a difficult, large and exceedingly unpleasant undertaking, as anybody can realise. I do not think the noble Lord was fair in his rather glib condemnation of the people who have been responsible for the conduct of this affair.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, reminded us, not only have we to deal with the obstacle of the prejudice and dislike of the people against having their property taken away, but the fact that the yield of the trees has been exceedingly remunerative during the last year makes it all the more objectionable to them. I, for my part, do not wonder that it has been difficult; and, on the whole, the rapid increase in tree clearances during the last year, dismal though the job is, is very gratifying. We know that liberal compensation is being paid and we must hope that every effort will be made by all of us, by persuasion and otherwise, to see that this horrible disease is eliminated as soon as possible. I think that the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, are not warranted: they are certainly unduly severe.
  I come now to the Commission of Inquiry, which arose out of the disturbances in the Colony, which were described by

  535
  the noble Lord, Lord Hailey. I have looked at their terms of reference. The Commission were in the Colony a very short time, and they made a number of very generous and wide-spreading recommendations. That is fairly obvious from their Report. But the chief point now is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State obviously took a similar view of that Report, because he issued a White Paper upon it. I do not think that the noble Lord should castigate the Government too much because this Commission, doing their best to find out the causes of unrest and to recommend some remedies for it, took an exceptionally generous view of their remit and made some rather wide-spreading recommendations. I think my right honourable friend dealt with this in the proper way. He arranged for the appointment of a second Committee to consider, under restricted terms of reference, the recommendations of this first Commission, so far as they related to matters of local government and other questions. That body was deliberately made up of people who live in the Colony. It had nothing to do with any glorious notions of independence; its job was to see what could be done practically to develop self-government within the necessary limits. It was natural, therefore, that it should be composed of people who live in the Colony, and whose life interest and that of their children is there. That is what we have done elsewhere, and that is what was done here.
  Apparently a very wise Chairman was appointed—as I will show in a minute—and the Committee consisted of four representatives from the different regional councils and a number of individuals selected by the Governor for their personal qualifications. This Committee are now, within the restricted terms of reference, considering, and will advise upon, the Report of the earlier Watson Commission. I shall be glad if the noble Lord will take the trouble to read the speech of the Chairman of this Committee, Mr. Justice Coussey, which is the subject of his somewhat generous censure. I have a copy of it here, and I propose to hand it to the noble Lord afterwards. I will read a small extract from that speech, which will perhaps bring some comfort to the noble Lord.
  536
  The Chairman said:
  "It should be unnecessary for me to state that this Committee does not meet"—
  that was how he began—
  "to form a Ministry composed entirely of Africans to assume, immediately, power and responsibility for the government of the country. That is not within the recommendation of the Watson Report, nor of the proposals of His Majesty's Government nor of our terms of reference. Although it is the cry of some, who have not considered fully its implications, that self-rule should be granted at once, it must be obvious to those who place foremost the true welfare of the masses, that a system must be created, flexible and progressive enough to permit the orderly evolution to responsible government within the shortest practicable time."
  That is a very wise and carefully-phrased (shall I say?) admonition to the Committee. Happily, I have myself been able to read the whole of that speech, and all I have to say of it is that I should be proud to think that I could make as good a speech. It is an excellent speech, very carefully phrased, and that Committee have been very wisely guided. I do not think the noble Lord need have many qualms about that.
  I now come to the document which has been described as a "directive," and by various other names. The history of that, if I may say so, is not quite in accordance with the impression that has been created by some. Originally there was an office document containing directions from the Governor to the immigration officers and explaining to them how they should administer the immigration regulations. But the document that was actually published was not in legal phraseology; it was just a sort of popular exposition of this for the general public. Before I come to the document and say what has happened to it—which I will in a moment or two—I would like to say a word about immigration.
  I say at once that I accept the principles of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. Of course, we want co-operation, and everything will be done to promote that. But there are immigration regulations in every British Colony, and nobody knows this better than the noble Viscount opposite. In the case of the Gold Coast there happens to be a special old treaty with the Dutch, under which they are entitled with us to have the same immigration rights as we have there: so we are bound by most-favoured-nation obligations. I can tell your Lordships

  537
  that conferences have been held, both in the Colony and here, with those who have had misgivings about it. There is no sort of intention of using these or any other regulations to interfere with the economic development of the country by British firms, or by firms from the United States and by other well-managed and useful enterprises. I can assure noble Lords that, both out there and here, these matters have been the subject of friendly conference with those concerned, and I see no reason why we should not anticipate that a sensible and practical understanding will emerge.
  So far as this particular document is concerned, the latest information that I can offer is of something that happened yesterday. This matter was debated in the Legislative Council yesterday, on a Motion by one of the African members. He moved that the directive—that is this document, which has been described as a secretarial "slip-up," or something—should be abrogated and replaced by regulations. In the debate which followed there was general support from all parts of the Legislative Council for the policy of immigration control. I may say that that control is common to all British Colonies; it depends how it is applied. On behalf of the Gold Coast Government, the Attorney-General suggested that, since the explanatory Gazette notice and the directive to the principal immigration officers were evidently capable of misrepresentation, they should be re-framed in order to remove ambiguity. The position at the moment is that both documents are remitted to be re-framed.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I ask the noble Viscount whether we shall have an opportunity in the British Parliament of seeing the new draft before it is promulgated—as I suppose it will be, if it is to be a regulation—by the Governor in Council, as well as the members of the Gold Coast Legislative Council? I think that is very important. The noble Viscount knows with regard to regulations here how invaluable it has been—and it is now generally accepted—that the regulations should be presented in draft, and that Parliament has a chance of seeing them; then they do not have to be thrown out. This has assumed such great importance that I would suggest to the noble Viscount that it would be a most admirable thing, both for the Gold Coast
  538
  and for this country, if the new draft regulation could be shown, not only to the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast but made available, as a White Paper or in some other convenient form, to the Houses of Parliament here.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have consulted my noble friend in the short time I have had. The noble Viscount knows very well that the Secretary of State has no desire to surrender or evade his proper responsibilities. However, I understand that the regulations issued in the various Colonies by the Governors are issued subject to discussion and consideration by their own Legislative Councils, but they are not submitted to this Parliament. There must be vast numbers of them in the different Colonies.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Naturally they are not normally submitted, but this is a very abnormal case. I appreciate that the form of the regulation is issued by the Governor in Council, but I say without hesitation, as an ex-Secretary of State, that the responsibility for the regulation which is issued by the Governor in Council is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, for which he is responsible to Parliament.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think I will challenge that constitutional doctrine. The Secretary of State does not wish to avoid his responsibilities, but, as the noble Viscount himself has said he is well aware, these various regulations and rules issued in the different Colonies by the Governors, subject to their Executive Council's advice, could not, as a matter of practical administration, come here every time, although the Secretary of State (to whom the Governor is responsible to report) has the final responsibility. My right honourable friend is taking a very close interest in the friendly talks which are going on in connection with this subject, and I will represent to him—I cannot say any more than that now—the exceptional consideration which the noble Viscount has urged. The noble Viscount must not take that to be any form of promise.
  That, my Lords, is the position with regard to that matter, and I think I can fairly say that it has been handled—although there was a little difficulty at the beginning, which I have not sought to hide—with great care and with great anxiety to protect all proper interests. I may add that there will be no dis

  539
  crimination between the wives of officials and those who are not officials. My noble friend is doing his best under considerable difficulties to see that all these matters are dealt with as happily and successfully as possible.
  Finally, may I say this?—and it arises out of the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. In this part of Africa there has grown up what he described as an educated middle class, a fact which differentiates it from several other Colonies. My noble friend and His Majesty's Government as a whole have to take account of these developments and deal sensibly with them. We are bound to recognise the legitimate anxieties of educated, trained and competent Africans to take an increasing share in the management of their own country. That is perfectly proper, and we have to do what we can to encourage and help that. I hope that nothing which is said in this House will be construed as prejudicing those healthy developments. Apart from that, with the opportunities that I have had available, I have done my best to reply to the points which have been raised, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, will be more or less satisfied with what I have said.
  7.3 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful, and I renew my apologies to the noble Viscount for asking him to deal with such a complicated question at such short notice. I understand that this notice, or whatever it is called, will cease to be, and will in due course be replaced by another notice. I hope that, so far as possible, the discussions which will lead to those new regulations will be held in London, and that that may be a precedent for the revision of similar regulations in other Colonies. With that, may I thank the noble Viscount for the very great trouble he has taken over dealing with my points, and I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion?
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  ALFORD GAS ORDER, 1949
  Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application of the Alford Gas Company: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.