NEWFOUNDLAND (Hansard, 16 December 1943)

§ Petty-Officer Herbert
I was going to resume my seat, and I have risen only in order to annoy the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton).

§ Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)
Is it in Order for an hon. Member to rise simply in order to annoy another hon. Member?

§ Mr. Speaker
An hon. Member should rise only to contribute to the Debate and not to annoy another hon. Member.

§ Petty-Officer Herbert
I spoke for less than half-an-hour, and I do not think that is an excessive time for a subject as large as this.

§ Earl Winterton
I must take the strongest objection to what the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert) has said. He has broken every rule of etiquette in this House. I made a private, a very private and personal statement to him, of a certain character, and if he proposes to bring that up in Debate I take the strongest objection.

§ Petty-Officer Herbert
I am well aware that my Noble Friend has been here for 408 years.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think the hon. and gallant Member had resumed his seat before I left the Chair.

§ Petty-Officer Herbert
I was trying to remember what my peroration was at that moment, and I heard my Noble Friend muttering things about giving someone else a chance to speak, and if it is against etiquette to object to what I think was a discourteous remark—

§ Mr. Speaker
Etiquette has nothing to do with the Motion now before the House.

§ Petty-Officer Herbert
I think my hon. Friends here will bear me out when I say that the interruption was loud and noisy, and really the Noble Lord cannot expect to be the only person—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I want to get on with it. I want to say that I believe the Government are on the right lines in regard to the political aspect of this problem, and that I hope they will go on with the same energy in regard to 1789 the industrial and economic problems, without which the rest will not be of very much advantage to Newfoundland; and if anybody asks me what advantage there is in it to us I can only say that this child is our child, and for many good reasons we do not want to see a child of ours picked up, a tattered foundling, on the doorstep of the United States.

§ Mr. Bartle Bull (Enfield)
I have hardly been here long enough to appreciate these delicate points of etiquette, but I hope that as I grow up I may learn some of them. In regard to the Motion which we are discussing, there is only one thing in it to which I wish to take exception. Had those who drew it up consulted the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) and myself, we should have been able to help them to draft it in a more suitable form. I do not like the words which appear at the end of line 1 and towards the middle of line 2: on behalf of His Majesty's Government, of the acceptance in principle. I do not see why we want the words "in principle." Surely Newfoundland, as our oldest Dominion, should have it as of right and not in principle. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in his seat. I do not know whether this is a breach of etiquette or not, but I heard it rumoured abroad—and like most other men and a few women I am prone to gossip—that he said, when my name appeared as Seconder of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Wood Green, that he was glad to know that the hon. Member for Wood Green had his "Charlie Macarthy" to support him. I hope he will not take exception to my saying that. It is a new thing to me to be called a "Charlie Macarthy" by anyone, but when I have been here as long as the hon. Member it is very likely that I shall learn about that as well. I agree with a lot that the hon. Member for Wood Green said, but I also disagree with a lot. One of the things on which I disagree with him is that a lollipop is a prize. I should certainly not regard that as a prize. The hon. Member for Bridgeton is very much liked in this House and I think that now he has, perhaps for the first time, a very distinguished political future in that his party, now that it is allied with the powerful Common Wealth party, may well form the next Government of this 1790 country particularly if the by-election at Skipton has the to days interval about which the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) spoke. I do not know that I can refer to Acton as another hon. Member did. I should draw a different conclusion. I happen to be chairman of the Association of the party to which I belong for that area, and the Acton by-election result shows the importance of all parties observing the party truce. The hon. Member also mentioned the loss of deposits. If the candidates are wealthy enough, let them forfeit the deposit.
I pass now to the Motion which we are discussing. There is an old saying, I think it comes from Cicero, that lack of gratitude is the worst of all the vices and also the most common. What I am worried about is that Britain will be blamed for anything that goes wrong in Newfoundland, as we were in the days when we lost the 13 American Colonies. We were taught at school in England that the majority of the people in the American Colonies were in favour of Britain and that the majority of the people here were in favour of the 13 American Colonies at the beginning of that unfortunate war. That situation will not arise, but I am most anxious that we should not be blamed for anything that goes wrong in Newfoundland. We know that the American Colonies—they do nut teach it in their history books, but that is the way it is taught here—did not revolt until the Indian menace had been put down and the French menace in the whole of North America had been subdued. It was not till after that, that they decided it was time to revolt. We ought to learn a little from those past events, although perhaps the position is hardly analogous.
The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), to whose speech I listened with great interest, mentioned several courses which were open to Newfoundland. One was to link up with the United States. I should hope, as I hope he and I am sure all the rest of us, and all Newfoundlanders as well would hope, that nothing of the sort will happen, but in that connection, and in regard to America I would like to say that when recently I spent six or seven months in America I found a curious frame of mind existing there. They think it is all right that America should have an Empire, but that 1791 it is not a good thing for Britain to have an Empire. When they asked me about the British Empire and representative government I used to say to them, remembering that in some of the Southern States white people are outnumbered by two or three to one: "How many negro Congressmen are there in the American Congress?" The answer usually was that there did not happen to be any at the moment. The conclusion to be drawn from that is that it would be better for them to tidy up their own back garden before asking us to tidy up our front garden.
Another alternative is that Newfoundland should link up with Canada. I hope that to most Newfoundlanders that would be preferable. What is still most important is that they should be in a position to choose exactly what they want to do. I think that a function of Great Britain and of this House at the present time is to see that they are in a position to have self-government, to have what they want, go where they want and do what they want. That is what we can do and that is our function in the world, at any rate in regard to the British Empire. With regard to restoring Dominion status, I am not quite sure how vital that issue is at the moment, but I regard it as important that Newfoundland should have a Parliament of some sort. Frankly, I do not see how, otherwise, we can ascertain anyone's opinion there. We cannot take the voice of the Press. How representative is the voice of the Press? For example, when Mr. Roosevelt was re-elected, nine-tenths of the Press were against him. The Press is not always representative of the people's voice. Among the prefects of a school, very few are usually popular. I do not, therefore, see how government by Commission can ever be popular particularly as the Commissioners were appointed, I understand, in 1933. If they go on a little longer they will be like the 1922 Committee; we shall have to make the post hereditary.

§ Sir Percy Harris (Bethnal Green, South-West)
What is the 1922 Committee?

§ Mr. Bull
Perhaps I might have a word with the hon. Baronet afterwards about that, and I may be able to convert him. Without a Parliament of some sort in Newfoundland, how can we possibly hear 1792 what the popular voice of Newfoundland is? I would like to quote from a speech made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions. I hope he can hear me without difficulty. We cannot always hear him. He referred on 2nd December to the recommendation: As soon as the island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting. Are we really self-supporting? Suppose that the United States were to take over the government of these islands—but I am certain that they would not—are we self-supporting? How dare we lay down any stipulation like that? Let hon. Members be quite sure that if we are not prepared to put up some money for Newfoundland that country will not have to look far for someone who will gladly and willingly do it. The recommendation mentioned in the Under-Secretary's speech went on to say: responsible Government on the request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1943; col. 598, Vol. 395.] How in the world, without a Parliament in Newfoundland, can we find out whether the people of Newfoundland have made a request to Great Britain for Dominion status, or a return to self-government or however you wish to put it?
What worries me about this is that we should be blamed for anything which may go wrong. Furthermore, there is the question of the bases which have been mentioned many times before to-day. It is unfortunate that that action was taken when there was no Parliament to be consulted in Newfoundland. If there had been a Parliament it could have been asked for advice. We could still have sent commissioners and they might have asked Parliament to advise them on the question of those bases. When we restore self-government to Newfoundland the people will not like very much what has been done in that respect. There is an old American expression, dating from pre-Civil War days, which were the days of slavery in the slave states, and it is "Selling someone down the river." I am just a little afraid that there may be some such feeling about those bases.
I am not quite happy about the taxation system which exists in Newfoundland at the present time and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State, or 1793 whoever will reply to the Debate in the few minutes I shall probably leave him, would say something to justify the position of taxation in Newfoundland. We do not want anything to arise there in any way analogous to the bitterness which was caused before the War of Independence. I know that a declaration has been made. I do not like it altogether and I have criticised it as well as I could. I hope a further and better declaration will be made. We all know about the patriotism and loyalty and the contribution made to the Empire and Allied war effort by the people of Newfoundland but, as I have said, I do not see how they can decide anything without a Parliament. Mention was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston) of how valuable to Newfoundland and Canada the tourist traffic had been, but we must remember that when Canada had that very valuable tourist traffic—as it still has—they were the days of Prohibition in the United States. When people were not allowed to drink in the United States, they naturally drank in Canada and we exported whisky and gin in large measure, and that accounts to a large extent for the tourist traffic.

§ Sir D. Gunston
But the tourist traffic in Canada was very big just before the war and that was after the repeal of the Prohibition law of the United States.

§ Mr. Bull
Would my hon. and gallant Friend deny that Prohibition in the United States and non-prohibition in Canada, stimulated tourist traffic in Canada?

§ Sir D. Gunston
At the beginning.

§ Mr. Bull
I am quite content with that reply. The hon. Baronet asked for the formation of a Royal Newfoundland Regiment which could come to Britain and other Dominions. I would only say that I cannot see what confidence this regiment, for which he said we should pay, or Newfoundland, could possibly have in the British Government if the Government do not immediately increase the pay of serving soldiers and allowances for the dependants of British soldiers.

§ Mr. Creech Jones (Shipley)
The Labour Party have asked me to express to the good-will Mission our sincere thanks and appreciation for the excellent job of work they have done, for the clarity of their report to-day and the 1794 constructive proposals which they have made to the Government and to the House. We should also like to say that we appreciate that the Deputy Prime Minister did initiate this particular type of investigation and thereby bring the matter so closely to the notice of the House. We rather regret that the three reports which have been prepared have not been published, because we feel that there is a good deal of meat in them, particularly the sections concerned with social and economic reconstruction. We feel that it would have been to the advantage of the House if the more detailed information of the reports could have been brought to our attention.
The Labour Party vigorously opposed, ten years ago, the introduction of the non-democratic régime, and it has, I think, shown its interest in the Newfoundland problem ever since by its constant questioning of the Government on the progress being made. Therefore we on this side of the House yield to no one as to the nature of our demands throughout the years for the creation as speedily as possible of the conditions whereby self-government could be restored. We have consistently criticised the complete divorcement of the peoples of Newfoundland from the work of government. We have complained as to the secret way in which the Commission Government has carried on its work, the inadequacy of that form of government, as well as the general absence over the years of any comprehensive economic and social planning. Let me also say that while we have been conscious that the restoration of self-government was conditioned by economic recovery as well as by the expression of the wishes of the people, we have protested in the past that financial solvency should be made the test of the practice of democracy. That has been our position.
Nevertheless, we fear we have to deal with a situation in which there is a limited desire only for the immediat restoration of full self-government, and that certain preliminary stages are necessary before it can be made an effective principle. We deeply regret these circumstances, but we cannot lightly set aside the opinions which have been offered us to-day by the good-will Mission, and we cannot look at this problem apart from its economic and political setting.
1795 The Government have made clear what their policy is to be, and we shall press that they will vigorously pursue that course, that immediately after the war Newfoundland shall examine her future and the form of her government most suited to her, for herself, and that the Government will take steps to see that the wishes of the people shall be respected. Meantime the Government also tell us they will push on with the creation of more local government and with the work of reconstruction. I must say that we wish that the Government would have done a little more than that, would even in this interim period have brought the Commission Government much more closely in association with the peoples of Newfoundland. I believe that as the chairman of the goodwill mission pointed out, there are some interim steps which might be taken in regard to the election of the chairman and his functions in the commission government, that he would cease to preside; that the selection of three Commissioners should be by elections from the general population, and that greater discretion should be given to Treasury officials with regard to expenditure. We expect the Government to push on along the road they have so broadly indicated, and that they will at the same time drive ahead in the field of local government. We want also the reconstruction proposals indicated to-day energetically pursued.
I am not quite certain whether we can subscribe to one of the views put forward by the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty Officer Herbert) as to the machinery which should be created for ascertaining the will of the people. That of course is a debatable point which we cannot enter into at the present time. But I would like to suggest that now proposals about the Constitution are under the active consideration of the Government that at least they should give serious attention to what the Mission have said in respect to the improvement of the quality of the Commission, to increasing the efficiency of the Civil Service, and also in restoring an immediate contact with the people. I would like further to underline the point made by the Senior Burgess for Oxford University that right away definite steps should be taken in the political education of the people. That is all I have time to say.
1796 We in the Labour Party are anxious for the full restoration of democratic government at the earliest possible moment, and we look forward to the near day when Newfoundland will again take her rightful place as a Dominion in the Commonwealth of Nations. Her people in this war have played a great and splendid part, and the great causes we are fighting to establish in the world must be applied to Newfoundland in reality and practice as soon as she herself desires that status and responsibility.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)
I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way to me. I have only three minutes, or I should very much have liked to have said something on Newfoundland—I happen to have been one of the few hon. Members of this House who have spent a considerable time there: I have spent more time there than that spent by all the members of the Commission—but there is no opportunity now. I certainly make no complaint of the length of the speeches and particularly of the most eloquent speech of the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert), which I heard with great delight. I should like to congratulate him upon the manner in which he put his points in the House and also for the very eloquent tribute he paid to Newfoundland in the columns of the humorous paper for which he so appropriately writes.
May I say just this before the hon. Gentleman gets up to reply? I very much hope that this matter will not be left completely where it is to-day. I do not think—and here I think that those who have been out on the Mission will agree with me—that it is right that we should devote only a small part of a Sitting to a discussion of this all-important subject. In supporting what my hon. Friends have said, may I pay a particular tribute to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), who opened the Debate, and to the valuable work they have done? As one in touch with some elements of opinion in Newfoundland, I who know the country would most earnestly beg the Government to afford a further opportunity for debate. I would suggest to Members in all parts of the House, if I may do so without offence, that we might get together at some future time and press the Government for a further discussion on this subject.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans)
We have had, I think, a most useful Debate to-day, and I will bear in mind the views expressed by the Noble Lord who has just sat down. The House will have heard the speeches of the members of the good-will Mission with great interest. The Government welcome and accept the Motion which stands in their names. They have shown how careful and how thorough has been the investigation which they have made into the conditions in Newfoundland. The House will be impressed by the fact that the three Members, while each summing up the situation in his own way, have arrived at substantially the same conclusions. The Government are very grateful to them for the valuable work they have done and the sympathy and understanding with which they inquired into the problems of the island.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) said he was not satisfied with the steps which the Government propose to take. He believes that, as the island has been able to balance its Budget—as everyone knows, that has been only on account of war-time conditions—representative government on the old model should be restored, without any kind of consultation with the people of the island. I would remind the House, as I did my hon. Friend, that the Annexe to the Newfoundland Act provided that self-government should be restored only after consultation with the people of Newfoundland. My hon. Friends the members of the good will Mission, who have a very recent acquaintance with the problem, have said that there appears to be little or no desire in the island for constitutional change during the war. The Newfoundland people look forward, as my hon. Friends have said, to a change after the war, but there is considerable difference of opinion as to what that change should be, in the circumstances which would be prevailing at that time.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) referred to a resolution passed by the board of trade of St. John's—that is an unofficial body, similar to a chamber of commerce. That body did pass a resolution in favour of constitutional reform, and set up a sub-committee to consider the whole question. The deliberations of that body, however, served only to show how marked is the division of opinion in 1798 the island. After examination, it confined itself to recommending that a Royal Commission should be appointed to hear evidence and to advise on the whole constitutional question; and even this suggestion met with very little support. I think hon. Members will agree that the proposals of the Government are in accord with the assurances given at the time when the Constitution was suspended, which met with the approval of the people of the island. It is our intention to act in every way up to the assurances we gave: it is not our intention to withhold responsible government from the people of Newfoundland.
The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thornbury (Sir D. Gunston), and I think also the hon. and gallant Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Petty-Officer Herbert), referred to the proposals which they have made that three of the Newfoundland Commissioners should be elected and that the Chairman of the Commission should cease to be the Governor. My Noble Friend has carefully considered these proposals. He feels, however, that to introduce changes of this character at present might tend to prejudice the settlement towards which we are working. The election of half the Commissioners would raise questions of constitutional theory and practice. The Governor is responsible to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament. If the three Commissioners were elected they would in a sense be responsible to the electorate, as well as to the Secretary of State. Divided loyalties might very well affect the efficiency of the Government. With regard to the position of the Governor it is not generally known that one of the reasons why the Royal Commssion recommended that the Chairman should be the Governor is that the Governor has a different status; and that his presence in the chair would keep a proper balance between the Newfoundland Commissioners and the United Kingdom Commissioner, and thus correct any tendency for the United Kingdom Commissioners to establish a dominating influence. In practice, there has never been any difference of opinion between the Newfoundland Commissioners on the one hand and the United Kingdom Commissioner on the other, but the presence of 1799 the Governor in the chair has served to reassure public opinion that the local point of view will have full weight.
I would point out that the Governor of a self-governing community acts on the advice of his Ministers and that the Governor of a non-self-governing Colony is responsible to the appropriate Secretary of State. But in the special case of Newfoundland the Governor in Commission—that is, the Governor acting on the advice of the Commission—is responsible to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament. If he ceased to be a Member of the Commission the Commissioners would be responsible to the Secretary of State direct, and not through the Governor. This would place the Governor in a very difficult position. Such a change, moreover, would be a departure from the arrangements made, with the consent of all concerned, in 1933, and it would be necessary to consult Newfoundland public opinion, to find out whether the people of Newfoundland would be agreeable to the change. My Noble Friend does not think that any minor change of this kind at the present moment would be desirable. The whole question of constitutional changes in Newfoundland will come up for consideration after the war.

§ Mr. Maxton
Has the hon. Gentleman not heard that the people of Newfoundland are ready for the change?

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
I have not heard that that is the case. I do not know whether the hon. Member has.

§ Mr. Maxton
Shall we have an opportunity of reading the reports of the Members who formed the Mission?

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
My hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell referred to the proposal which he put forward, for a 10 years' plan. It has been suggested in some quarters that if self-government was restored—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) raised this matter—the United Kingdom Government should continue to guarantee Newfoundland expenditure. Complete self-government, in the view of the Government, must mean responsibility for the island's finances. Any other course would mean a training in irresponsibility, rather than in responsibility.

§ Mr. Baxter
Then when we loan £70,000,000 to Austria should we demand that they give up their Government?

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
If my hon. Friend will wait I will carry my point a little further. This does not mean that any form of financial assistance should be ruled out. It means that the United Kingdom Government would not guarantee the island's finances. My Noble Friend feels that the Newfoundland people should consider their future prospects after the war and the possibilities of carrying on, allowing for capital expenditure and the maintenance of the social services. Only after making these calculations can they determine whether assistance will still be called for. If so, they should consider as the next step the bearing of the need for such assistance or the form of government best suited to the island.

§ Mr. Ammon
That sounds rather as though the Government are ruling out entirely any assistance to get the island on its feet. Surely that is not so?

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
No, that is not what I said. I said that they make their calculations as to the future and take all relevant considerations into account, and that after that they should consider what form of government they would desire.

§ Sir D. Gunston
This is of vital importance. I quite understand that after the war they should see to what extent they can carry on their social services, but surely we are not a wait until after the war for this long-term policy to be formulated.

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
No, Sir. The Government are going into all these suggestions. All I am saying is that as far as the people of Newfoundland are concerned that is how the Government feel they should approach this matter. We cannot indefinitely be responsible for their finances and say at the same time that they should have complete self-government restored to them while we were guaranteeing their finances. That was the only argument I was putting forward. I was not saying that the suggestions which my hon. Friend put to the House would not receive most careful consideration.

§ Mr. Ammon
Nobody has asked for a definite assurance. The maximum period 1801 we suggest is a ten years' development in which they should be helped and at the end of that they should go on with some definite plan. I wish we could obtain a definite answer.

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
I am not in a position to give a definite answer. The Government have gone a good long way in putting forward a statement fairly soon after my hon. and gallant Friends returned.

§ Earl Winterton
And it says nothing on the constitutional issue.

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
I cannot agree with the Noble Lord that the statement put forward on the constitutional issue says nothing.

§ Mr. Maxton
The Government statement is that, in principle, they are agreed that self-government should be returned to the island. That is all the statement they have made and they did not need to make that because that is in the Statute.

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
Oh, no, that is not the case. I could read out the whole of the statement that I made. They put forward definite proposals, and the hon. Member is going back on his own Motion. I said in the course of the last Debate on this question that my noble Friend would take steps to ascertain what machinery would be most acceptable to Newfoundland public opinion and devise means to put that into effect at the appropriate moment. We are going to take those steps immediately. But to come back to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell, His Majesty's Government have an open mind on the whole of this question and are prepared to await the conclusions of the people of Newfoundland with regard to the machinery to be set up before coming to a final decision.

§ Earl Winterton
Does that mean that the request made in all parts of the House for a further statement on the subject will be forthcoming during the present Session, or is it to remain definitely like this for the whole of the Session?

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
I cannot give my noble Friend any assurance about a Debate, but I have told the House that all these matters are being carefully considered by the Government at the present time. On the one item that does not 1802 satisfy the hon. Member for Bridgeton but satisfies most of the House, the constitutional question, the hon. Member for North Camberwell touched on the question of political union with Canada. That is not a new proposal. It was considered at the time of confederation and also in 1895 and has been considered since then. It is a question which must be decided by the people of Newfoundland because His Majesty's Government would not wish to interfere in any way.
With regard to the question of political union with the United Kingdom, I would like to say a word or two in reply to the hon. and gallant Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University. Newfoundland, the three Members said in the course of their speeches, is intensely loyal, but it is essentially part of the North American continent. The facts of geography remain and although the air has brought Newfoundland nearer to this country, it also brings the island nearer North America. The position of representatives of Newfoundland in the United Kingdom Parliament would be somewhat anomalous. They would in the very nature of things be more interested in Trans-Atlantic affairs than in our own domestic affairs here. They would have far less interest in United Kingdom business than would the representatives from Northern Ireland, which is after all a part of these islands. I do not think there is any strong demand, or even any demand at all, in Newfoundland for this solution.
I would like to refer to the question which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury and the hon. Member for Wood Green with regard to Goose Bay. There was no airport at Goose Bay two or three years ago and an arrangement was made with the Canadian Government which enabled them to build an airport at Goose Bay. Nothing could be said about the arrangement or the agreement which was made at that time because for operational reasons it had to be kept secret. The cost of construction of the airport was entirely borne by Canadian funds. In return it was agreed that the Newfoundland Government should grant a lease to the Canadian Government for 99 years. The lease was to be for Defence purposes and there was no transfer of Newfoundland sovereignty. The use of the airport for civil aviation will be considered after the war. The Government 1803 were unable to explain the position to the people of Newfoundland, but as soon as the Agreement has been concluded it will be published.

§ Captain Peter Macdonald (Isle of Wight)
Do I understand that the Agreement has not been approved?

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
It has not been concluded yet.

§ Captain Macdonald
Will the House of Commons know the terms of it before it is approved?

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
No, Sir, that is never the case.

§ Captain Macdonald
There has never before been a case where we have superseded the Government.

§ Mr. Emrys-Evans
We are, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend, watching this matter closely. The Noble Lord referred in the last Debate to the social services, but I have very little time left in which to reply. Since the Commissioner Government have been in power they have made great strides in social services, as my Noble Friend knows. In 1934 2,800,000 dollars were spent on such items as education, public health, hospital construction, unemployment, widows' and orphans' and old age pensions, local councils, etc., but a large portion was spent on relief. This year that figure has risen to 5,000,000 dollars, of which only a small part has been spent in relief. It is chiefly in the field of public health that the Commissioner Government have made the greatest advances. When the Commissioners took over, tuberculosis and beri-beri were rampant and as a result of measures taken tuberculosis has very much decreased and beri-beri was stamped out by 1939, although there has actually been a certain recurrence of it during the past year. I think the proposals the Government have made are in general agreement with the views of the three Members who went out on the good-will Mission. They are in accordance with the provisions of the Newfoundland Act, and they reflect generally the views of the people of the island. The future form of government is a question which is left to the people of Newfoundland to decide after the war in Europe has ended, and His Majesty's Government have no desire to influence 1804 their choice in any way. They will be prepared, with the assent of Parliament, to facilitate the change-over in any way that is practical when the decision has been made.