HL Deb 17 March 1949 vol 161 cc506-39

5.7 p.m.

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 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 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 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 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— 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 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 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 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 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 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— 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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.