Lords Sitting of 15 March 1949

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

  BRITISH MILITARY MISSION IN BURMA
  2.34 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given them private Notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make regarding the departure of the British Military Mission from Burma.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the British Joint Services Mission went to Burma at the end of 1947. This was in accordance with the terms of the Military Agreement negotiated at the same time as the Treaty between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the Union of Burma when Burma attained independence. The numbers of the Mission are fixed by an establishment agreed with the Government of Burma, and the general object of the Mission is to assist in organising and training the Burmese Armed Forces.
  Unfortunately, the work of the Mission has been handicapped by the continuing disturbances in Burma. In particular, the fighting between forces of the Burmese Government and rebel bands in Upper Burma has led to the closing down of the Burmese Army Staff Training College at Maymyo, where part of the British Mission was stationed. In view of these developments and of the general conditions in that area, it was recently decided to withdraw the personnel of the British Mission and their families from Maymyo, and evacuation was planned to be completed by air to Rangoon by Sunday last. There has also been some concentration of the families of that part of the Mission which was stationed in the outlying parts of Rangoon.
  In these circumstances, the work of the Mission is unavoidably restricted, and His Majesty's Government have suggested to the Burmese Government that officers and non-commissioned officers of the
  302
  Mission who, in consequence of the evacuation of Maymyo, cannot at present fulfil the functions for which they were posted to Burma, should be released for service elsewhere. I should like to emphasise that any temporary reduction in the strength of the Mission which may thus be effected in agreement with the Burmese Government, will in no way affect the establishment of the Mission as agreed will Burma in accordance with the Military Agreement of 1947. Any personnel who may be temporarily transferred to other duties elsewhere will be replaced when events make it possible and useful to restore the Mission to its full strength.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, while thanking the First Lord for that statement, I would ask him whether he will confirm what I think has already been stated by His Majesty's Embassy in Burma——namely, that the allegations reported to have been made by Burmese Ministers and other persons in Burma, that the Military Mission abused their position, are entirely without foundation.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I can state categorically that there is no truth in the statement which appeared in the Press. The Foreign Office issued a statement yesterday, in which it was denied that any such happenings have taken place in Burma. It is to be regretted that statements should be made against a very valiant body of men.

MERGER OF B.O.A.C. AND B.S.A.A.
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the further Question of which I have given them private Notice—Whether they have any statement to make about the future of British South American Airways.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, the decision which I announced in this House on March 1, that The Tudor IV aircraft should not continue to be used for carrying passengers, raises very serious problems for B.S.A.A. That Corporation had five Tudor IV's in use, and were looking forward to operating a fleet of nineteen by the late summer. Without the Tudor IV's they have only Yorks, which are not competitive with modern

303
aircraft. To find the means of keeping the B.S.A.A. routes in operation, the obvious course was to turn to B.O.A.C. Since B.O.A.C. also operate long-range aircraft, and their routes to some extent overlap or converge with those of B.S.A.A., a complete merger, in addition to achieving the maximum economy and efficiency in other directions, should enable the main services of both Corporations to be organised with the minimum number of aircraft. The Government have therefore decided to recommend to Parliament a complete merger of the two Corporations. The Boards of both Corporations agree that this is the right course.
The amalgamation will not mean that the smaller Corporation will simply be swallowed up by the larger. I consider that B.S.A.A. during their short existence have exhibited certain qualities which must on no account be lost. They have developed a most valuable team spirit and collective loyalty of their own. The two Corporations will be brought together in a way which secures that the experience of B.S.A.A. will be used to the full. Any staff redundancies resulting from the merger will be shared fairly between the two Corporations and in accordance with National Joint Council procedure. On the other hand—and I would like to stress this fact—redundancies arising from the internal reorganisation of B.O.A.C. which is now in progress will be restricted in effect to B.O.A.C. personnel. I intend that, under the Chairman of B.O.A.C. (Sir Harold Hartley and, after the end of June, Sir Miles Thomas), the present Chairman of B.S.A.A. (Mr. Booth) and the present Chief Executive of B.O.A.C. (Mr. Whitney Straight) shall become equal joint Deputy Chairmen.
The necessary legislation to bring this amalgamation into effect will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible. Meanwhile, to help in securing the best utilisation of the available aircraft along the two Corporations' routes, I am immediately appointing the Chairman of B.S.A.A. to be a member of the Board of B.O.A.C. Proposals for dealing with the deficiency in the combined fleets of the Corporations are still under consideration. I appreciate that the House will wish to examine thoroughly the implications of what I have just said and the
304
Bill required to give effect to the proposed amalgamation. I hope, however, that I may be permitted to-day to express my conviction that in embarking on this course we are not merely making a virtue of necessity but taking a step which should enable the staffs of both Corporations to do even better work than in the past, and which should prove of lasting benefit to British civil aviation.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, we shall of course defer any questions upon the legislation which the noble Lord has announced until the terms of that legislation are before us, but arising from the noble Lord's answer I would like to ask two questions. He has told us that he is now appointing the Chairman of B.S.A.A. to be a representative on the Board of B.O.A.C. Can he tell us whether he contemplates anticipating the legislation, about which he has spoken, by administrative amalgamations of the staffs? It appears to me that that is a matter which should follow, and not precede, Parliament's approval of that legislation. In the second place, can the noble Lord say what steps it will be possible to take to ensure that the services to South America continue?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords if I may deal with the second question first, the steps which have been taken recently will continue in operation. Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an account of what is in fact being done at the present time in the direction he mentions. As regards the first question, I entirely appreciate the point that the noble Viscount has raised, and I can assure him that we shall desire to act in any way that will seem proper to any important section of opinion, including noble Lords opposite. Subject to that, we wish to push on as fast as possible.
The account referred to by the Minister is appended:
The following are the services which B.S.A.A. are at present operating:

(1) On the East Coast route to South America, the schedules to and from Buenos Aires are maintained unchanged. The once-weekly service to Rio de Janeiro only is being flown on an occasional basis. The extension across the Andes from Buenos Aires to Santiago and return has been discontinued.

305

(2) The service previously operated via the Caribbean down the West Coast of South America is now maintained on a fortnightly instead of as previously on a weekly basis.

(3) On services to the Caribbean area passengers are carried from the U.K. to Bermuda via New York by B.O.A.C., B.S.A.A, operating onwards from Bermuda at the same frequency as before.

(4) Local Caribbean services are being maintained on a slightly reduced basis by readjust vent of frequencies. The only service cancelled is that from Nassau to Kingston and back.

(5) A freighter service is being operated on an ad hoc basis by two Lancasters flying U.K.-Dakar-Natal-Trinidad.

WANDSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL [H.L.]
2.45 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving the Second Reading of the British North America Bill precedence over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

EUROPEAN GRAVES IN INDIA
2.47 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, the result of the discussions to which Lord Listowel referred in the statement made by him on June 16, 1948, on the subject of the maintenance of European graves in India.]
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, arrangements have now been made for the care of European graves in India and Pakistan. As the statement of the arrangements is rather long, I will, with the noble Lord's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I thought.
306
however, that your Lordships would like me to give a brief outline of the arrangements. It is intended to form a Board of Trustees to include both the United Kingdom High Commissioners for the supervision of maintenance. Parliament will, in due course, be asked to provide the Trustees with funds with which, and with income from other sources, it is expected that all cemeteries still required for burials will be maintained, and that periodical attention will also be given to the closed cemeteries for as long as the funds will last. This is expected to be for at least ten years. Owing to their isolation, however, about 100 of the cemeteries, which number about 1,350 in all, must with great regret be left to be safeguarded so far as local circumstances permit.
The Trustees will have voluntary assistance from provincial boards and local committees on which the Churches and other interests will be represented in carrying out their duty. I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing our gratitude to the Governments of India and Pakistan for tie assurances they have given regarding the protection of our cemeteries from encroachment. I should add that war graves continue, as in the past, to be the responsibility of the Imperial War Graves Commission.
LORD HAILEY: My Lords, as the noble Viscount has been good enough to let me see a copy of the full statement that will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I hope your Lordships will allow me to take the opportunity of thanking the Government, on behalf of the many who are deeply interested in this question, for the consideration which they have given to the matter.
The full statement referred to is as follows:
Many members of your Lordships' House will, I think, be concerned to know what arrangements are contemplated for the care of European cemeteries in India and Pakistan. Your Lordships will be aware that, as a result of the transfer of power, European cemeteries maintained in the past by the Government of India have become since April last the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. Since that date they have been maintained largely at the expense of United Kingdom revenues. With your Lordships' permission I will outline briefly the arrangements proposed for their future maintenance.
I should first explain that before 1948 the maintenance of these cemeteries was supervised by the Government of India through the

307
Public Works Department, the Military Engineering Service, or the Railway Board, as appropriate. For this purpose Indian expenditure amounted to £45,000 a year apart from the proceeds of income from private endowments. The cemeteries numbered over 1,350, of which about 350 are open for further burials. A considerable number of the remainder are not cemeteries in the strict sense, but merely groups of graves, often by the roadside, in remote places. Many of the cemeteries date from a distant past and have had no burials in them for generations.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, appreciate that a full-scale maintenance of all these cemeteries would be a formidable commitment, and I am bound quite frankly to admit that we shall not be able to continue to maintain some of the cemeteries on the old standard; indeed, there are certain cemeteries that we shall not be able to maintain to any extent. Nevertheless I hope to satisfy your Lordships that the Government are doing what they can to secure that, where cemeteries cannot be maintained their preservation will be safeguarded so far as local circumstances permit. In such cases our aim would be to secure that they should revert to nature in a dignified and decent manner. In respect of the rest, I hope also to satisfy your Lordships that our proposals are as reasonable and appropriate as most of us can expect.
Manifestly our High Commissioners are unable to maintain an organisation for the care of these graves comparable with that of the old style Government of India. It is on members of the Christian congregations resident in India and Pakistan that the local task of caring for Christian graveyards must now primarily devolve. In many places the Christian Churches now find their European congregations depleted or non-existent. Thanks, however, I am happy to say, to the authorities of the Christian Churches, and to many members of both the European and local communities, a number of voluntary bodies have been formed who have undertaken to care for our graves. I am sure that your Lordships would desire to be associated with His Majesty's Government in commending those who have undertaken this invaluable and generously given help.
So far some 312 voluntary local cemetery committees have been formed. They include representatives of the clergy, local industry or business, the United Kingdom Citizens' Association, and the Anglo-Indian Association, and they will undertake local supervision of the work of maintaining the cemeteries. In certain areas, however, the local body will consist, through force of circumstances, of only a solitary missionary or local Christian. Hitherto the committees have been in direct correspondence with the High Commissions, but this is not a practicable long-term arrangement, and it is intended to set up, generally on a provincial basis, a number of trustee boards to act as a link between the committees and the High Commissions. The trustee boards will generally co-ordinate and supervise the work of the committees. They will be composed of senior representatives of the religious denominations concerned, prominent local members of the Province and,
308
wherever possible, the Deputy United Kingdom High Commissioner in the area.
Turning now to the future method of upkeep of the cemeteries, I should explain that these have been considered broadly under two heads—namely, open cemeteries, which are those still used for burials, and closed cemeteries. Since April 1, our High Commissioners have been in the closest consultation with the various Church authorities in India and Pakistan, whose attitude, I can gratefully say, has been both realistic and helpful. We have also been fortunate in obtaining the views of a number of former Secretaries of State, Viceroys, Commanders - in - Chief, Provincial Governors and others, as well as of the ecclesiastical authorities mainly concerned. May I, on the Government's behalf, take this opportunity of thanking all these eminent persons for so readily assisting us with their counsel? I do not claim that the proposals which I am about to describe received their unanimous approval, but I can at least assure your Lordships that a substantial majority of those consulted, including the representatives of the Churches, are generally in favour of proceeding on the lines which the Government have now decided to follow.
As regards the open cemeteries, the Church authorities have said that it is their avowed object, with the help of income from endowments and burial fees, to maintain them in a suitable manner. It may well be that at the outset Church funds will not be wholly sufficient for the purpose, and that they will have to rely on the High Commissioners for small subventions. It has also been decided that the more important historically of the closed cemeteries should be cared for in the same way. These include, for example, the cemetries at the Kashmir Gate in Delhi and St. John's in Calcutta.
It is with regard to the thousand or so closed cemeteries that different considerations arise. They are, of course, of all sizes and they are to be found all over the sub-continent, from Gilgit in the far north of Kashmir, to the Andamans. A number of them, perhaps about 100, lie in areas where it has not been possible to form committees, for example, in certain of the Tribal Territories, remote districts and ancient camping grounds. These, with however great reluctance, we feel compelled to leave to revert to nature, along with certain isolated groups of graves. Assurances, however, have been received for which the United Kingdom Government are grateful to the Governments of India and Pakistan and to the Provincial Governments concerned. The Government of India say they will protect cemeteries from destruction and desecration in the same way as property belonging to the Government themselves. The Government of Pakistan have also issued instructions that the cemeteries in Pakistan are to be protected from encroachment and desecration. As to the majority of the closed cemeteries, it has been decided, after mature consideration, that they should be attended to at intervals, as distinct from constant maintenance, and that this attention will continue for as long as funds will last. This is expected to be for at least ten years and perhaps for an appreciable time longer.

309
To meet the cost of attending periodically to closed cemeteries, and to provide some initial assistance to the Churches in caring for the open cemeteries, Parliament will in due course be asked to provide a lump sum, to be placed in trust, to be drawn on as required by the trustees who will include the High Commissioners. Provision on maintenance for the interim period has been made in the 1949–50 Estimates for the Commonwealth Services. The capital sum, is of course, quite separate from the private endowment funds in the hands of the two Governments which are shortly to be transferred to our High Commissioners. The interest from these endowment funds, in so far as it pertains to the open cemeteries and to the closed cemeteries of historical importance, will, of course, continue to be applied in the manner intended. But in the case of the majority of the closed cemeteries it will not be practicable, under the arrangements contemplated, to apply the interest on endowment funds precisely in accordance with the original intentions. Where the money cannot be used for the upkeep of these cemeteries the most equitable course, subject to the express wish of any individual who has endowed a grave located in a closed cemetery to have a local record of the grave maintained, will probably be found to lie in its use for the assistance of the Churches in the maintenance of the open cemeteries.
I trust that I have satisfactorily explained to your Lordships the decisions reached in this important matter. It has not, of course, been possible in a brief statement such as this to cover all the points that arise, but on one specific matter of wide interest I should add that war graves continue, as in the past, to be the responsibility of the Imperial War Graves Commission.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL
2.50 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to acquaint the House that His Majesty places his prerogative and interest, so far as concerns the matters dealt with in the British North America Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
In rising on behalf of my noble friend Lord Addison to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I imagine that it will not be out of place if I remind your Lordships that it has already been fully discussed in both the Canadian Houses of Parliament, and in another place in this country; and as recently as last month, practically all the points that are embodied in the Amendment were discussed in your Lordships' House. The Bill is a short one of three clauses, the first giving the confirmation of the Terms of Union,
310
and the second setting forth the repeal of the Newfoundland Act of 1933. But the main matter for consideration by your Lordships, I expect, will be the Terms of Union, which form the Schedule to the Bill and which it is the object of the Bill to confirm. These Terms were negotiated in Ottawa in December, 1948, by representatives of Canada and Newfoundland, a majority of the people of Newfoundland having previously signified by a referendum their wish to enter into confederation with Canada. The Terms were afterwards debated by both Houses of the Canadian Parliament and, as the third Preamble to the Bill shows, the Parliament of Canada subsequently submitted an Address to His Majesty, praying that a Bill to confirm the Terms of Union might be laid before Parliament here. The Schedule to this Bill sets out those Terms.
Terms 4 and 5 provide representation for Newfoundland in the Senate and House of Commons of Canada. Terms 7 to 16 deal with the new Provincial Constitution. There will be a Lieutenant-Governor and a Legislative Assembly which must be called together within four months of the date of Union—that is to say, not later than July 31. The franchise will be extended to women over twenty-one years of age. Term 18 provides for the continuance in force of the Newfoundland laws in order to prevent the confusion which would otherwise arise if a new code of laws were to be introduced overnight. Term 22 recognises the special conditions of the Newfoundland fisheries. Terms 23 to 29 deal with financial matters. Provision is made for the payment by the Federal Government of certain statutory subsidies and of a transitional grant amounting over a twelve-year period to some 42,000,000 dollars. A Royal Commission will be appointed within eight years from the date of Union to review the position of the Province and to recommend whether further financial help should be granted. Terms 38 and 39 deal with the treatment of ex-Service men and of public servants. Term 47 deals with consequential income tax adjustments.
As your Lordships' House will know, this Bill and the events which have led up to it have been the subject of criticism both in Newfoundland and in another place. It has been said that His Majesty's

311
Government have shown themselves to be undemocratic in their treatment of Newfoundland. It is said that we should first have restored to Newfoundland her previous Constitution, leaving it to a Newfoundland Parliament to decide whether or not to accept the terms offered by Canada. As there have been many misconceptions about our attitude in this matter, I should like briefly to review the policy which we and our predecessors in office have consistently followed during the last few years. This policy has its foundation in the Newfoundland Act of 1933. In that year, as the result of the financial stress to which the Island had been subjected, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the financial situation of the Island. The Royal Commission recommended that responsible government should be suspended and that the Island should be governed by a Commission of six appointed members, three of them from Newfoundland and three from this country, under the chairmanship of a Governor. These proposals were accepted by the Newfoundland Legislature, at whose request Parliament here passed the Act of 1933.
The fisheries were modernised, and the people of Newfoundland made a striking and substantial contribution to the war effort. In order to strengthen the bonds which already existed between our two peoples, His Majesty's Government decided in the summer of 1943 to send an informal Parliamentary Goodwill Mission to Newfoundland. I had the honour of leading that Mission, and my three months' tour of the Island has left with me many happy and varied memories of the staunch loyalty and courage of the Newfoundland people. On our return to this country, my colleagues, Sir Alan Herbert and Sir Derek Gunston, and I made our reports to the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. Amongst the suggestions we made was one that means should be found in the not too distant future for the people of Newfoundland to decide on the form of government which they would like to see introduced at a later date.
With the end of the war in sight, the Government took up these suggestions and, after full and careful consideration, it was announced on December 11, 1945, by my noble friend Lord Addison, who now leads this House, that the Govern-
312
ment had decided that machinery should be established whereby the people of Newfoundland might choose their future form of government. That machinery included the election of a National Convention of Newfoundland whose task it would be to consider the financial and economic situation of the Island and, in the light of it, to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government as to the forms of government best suited to the Island. This Convention assembled in St. John's in the autumn of 1946. In May, 1947, they sent a delegation to this country to inquire what fiscal and other arrangements would be made in the event of the Convention deciding to recommend various forms of government. My noble friend, who was then Dominions Secretary, received this delegation and answered the questions which they put to him. Your Lordships may recall that he made a statement in this House on May 13, 1947, as to the outcome of those discussions.
A few weeks later the National Convention, of their own volition, elected a further delegation to visit Ottawa and to ask the Canadian Government the terms on which they would be prepared to admit Newfoundland into confederation. In November, 1947, Mr. Mackenzie King sent to the Governor of Newfoundland, for transmission to the National Convention, the terms which, in the Canadian Government's view, constituted a fair and equitable basis for confederation. These terms were debated at great length by the National Convention, whose proceedings were broadcast daily throughout the Island. In January, 1948, however, when the Convention finally made their Report to His Majesty's Government, they recommended only that the restoration of responsible government and the continuance of government by Commission should be placed before the people as alternative choices at the referendum. A proposal that confederation with Canada should be included in the ballot paper was defeated by 29 votes to 16.
His Majesty's Government, with whom the final responsibility lay, considered these recommendations with the greatest care, and, after much reflection, decided that the issue of confederation should also be put before the people. The decision was conveyed to the Governor by my right honourable friend the

313
Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in a despatch of March 2, to which full publicity was given. Perhaps I may be excused if I read one important passage from that despatch. It is as follows:
"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom appreciate that there has been a feeling amongst some members of the Convention that the entry of Newfoundland into a confederation with Canada should only be arranged after direct negotiations between a local responsible Government and the Canadian Government. The terms offered by the Canadian Government represent, however, the result of a long discussion with a body of Newfoundlanders who were elected to the Convention, and the issues involved appear to have been sufficiently clarified to enable the people of Newfoundland to express an opinion as to whether Union with Canada would commend itself to them."
In arriving at this decision, His Majesty's Government were also influenced by the fact that there had been a strong minority vote in the Convention in favour of placing confederation on the ballot paper. To have omitted it would, in their view, have been tantamont to disenfranchising a considerable percentage of the people. The outcome of the subsequent referenda has shown how right that decision was. Events then took their course. The first referendum was held in June, 1948, the result in round figures being as follows: for continuation of Commission of Government, 22,000; for confederation, 64,000; for responsible government, 69,000. No one course received a majority over the other two combined. Thus by the terms of the Newfoundland Referendum Act of 1948, a further plebiscite was necessary.
I will quote a passage from Section 4 of the Act, which reads:
"If at a poll held under the provisions of this Act a majority of the votes cast in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and any regulations and orders made thereunder shall not be in favour of one of the forms of government appearing on the ballot paper, the forms of government which appeared on the ballot paper, with the exception of that form for which the smallest number of votes was cast, shall be submitted to the people on a ballot paper for a vote at a poll."
That is the authority for the second referendum. The second referendum took place on July 22 of the same year. The result was as follows: Votes cast for responsible government, 71,000; for confederation, 78,000. It is important to add that of the former electoral districts,
314
18 out of 25 voted in favour of confederation, or only 7 out of 25 for responsible government. I think that is of real importance, and shows just what the balance of opinion of the country was. On July 30, Mr. Mackenzie King announced that the outcome of the second referendum showed, beyond all possibility of misunderstanding, that the people of Newfoundland had expressed their wish to enter into confederation. His Majesty's Government concurred in that statement, and a delegation was thereupon appointed to proceed from Newfoundland to Ottawa to negotiate the final Terms of Union. This delegation had full and friendly discussion with the Canadian authorities, and the final Terms were signed on December 11 last. Such, my Lords, in outline, is the sequence of events leading to the introduction of this Bill into Parliament. It is firmly based, as I have said, on the Act of 1933, and on the statement made in the House by my noble friend on December 11, 1945.
May I now turn to the objections which have been voiced against the procedure which we are debating? First, it has been said that we were pledged by the Act of 1933 to restore responsible government as soon as Newfoundland was again self-supporting. In my view, the interpretation of the phrase "self-supporting" must always be open to debate. But that was only one of the conditions laid down in the Act. If your Lordships will look closely at the Schedule, you will see that Paragraph (g) reads as follows:
"It would be understood that as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country is again self-supporting, responsible government, on request from the people of Newfoundland, would be restored."
It is the words "on request" which are the key to the whole matter. Can critics of this Bill honestly say that there has been any such request from the people? Can they suggest any more democratic method of discovering the wishes of the people than by a plebiscite thrown open to universal adult suffrage? That was precisely the procedure which we adopted. The people had, in fact, not one but two chances of requesting the restoration of responsible government, but at neither referendum did they take this course. That alone, I thick, must dispose of the suggestion that the Government have acted in an undemocratic manner and have failed to consult the people as to their wishes.

315
Moreover, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the flow of petitions and protests from Newfoundland began not when it was announced that a National Convention would be set up, or when it was decided that confederation would be added to the ballot paper; it started only when the results of the second plebiscite were known. In other words, this opposition came from a Party which had expected victory, but which was defeated at the polls. That is a natural enough reaction. But had we submitted to, and acquiesced in, the burden of these petitions, we should have done nothing more nor less than accede to the wishes of the minority at the expense of the majority. Further, we should have acted in direct contradiction to the wishes of the Canadian Parliament, at whose request we are debating this Bill to-day.
It has also been suggested that we had no right to proceed other than by the British North America Act of 1867 or, alternatively, that we could not proceed at all with arrangements for confederation since that Act, under Section 146, provided that Union could be brought about under an Order in Council only as the result of an Address from the now non-existent Houses of Legislature of Newfoundland. But, as the Attorney-General said in another place on March 9, there is no real substance in this argument. In any case, Mr. St. Laurent has pointed out in the Canadian House of Commons that the procedure by way of Order in Council, provided for under the 1867 Act, is not appropriate to the present constitutional position of Canada, since the King, in respect of Canada, now exercises his Prerogative not on the advice of his Ministers in the United Kingdom but only on the advice of his Ministers in Canada. Quite apart from the fact that Section 146 of the 1867 Act was, in a sense, an enabling section, that is a view to which we here must obviously defer.
There is another point of contention. It is said that by virtue of the Statute of Westminster we have no right to legislate for Newfoundland except at the request of an elected Legislature, and that the whole procedure which we have been following is, therefore, ultra vires. This
316
need not detain us long. The plain fact is that the Legislature of Newfoundland, prior to its suspension, had never adopted the optional provisions of the Statute of Westminster. May I refer your Lordships to paragraph 48 of the Schedule to the present Bill, which puts that matter right by indicating that the Statute will apply under the procedure that is being suggested? To-day there is no Parliament of Newfoundland, and the Statute, therefore, has no present application to Newfoundland.
The last criticism with which I must detain your Lordships is the one which has caused most misgivings, even among those who favour the idea of confederation. No doubt, it will be dealt with, so far as the legal position of the matter is concerned, with greater knowledge and skill by the noble and learned Viscount who is to follow me. It is based on the argument that, since the right of appeal to the Privy Council has been granted to certain interests in Newfoundland who seek to restrain the Commission of Government from proceeding with arrangements for confederation, no further steps should be taken by Parliament here until that appeal has been disposed of. Sir Hartley Shawcross explained that, if it had been possible, His Majesty's Government would have wished to await the decision of the Privy Council. But, as he said, it was not always possible for a sovereign Parliament to delay the passage of legislation when that legislation was the outcome of long thought out and consistently followed policy. Many of the matters raised in the appeal were irrelevant, and part of the appeal seems to be based on the erroneous impression that the Statute of Westminster applies to Newfoundland.
The major point of possible significance in the appeal is whether, as the appellants contend, this legislation, which we are now called upon to pass, would be ineffective in Newfoundland. His Majesty's Government, for their part, are satisfied that this contention is without foundation. As the learned Attorney said, His Majesty's Government, without in any way wishing to prejudice the hearing before the Judicial Committee, accept the clear judgment of the Newfoundland courts, including that of the Supreme Court of Appeal. I might say that in

317
dismissing the initial action in Newfoundland, the judge said:
"The action is based on fundamental errors of law and logic which are apparent on the face of the papers and which are fatal to it … logically, legally and practically it seems to me to be nonsense."
When the case came on appeal before the full Supreme Court Bench in Newfoundland, it was dismissed without the Attorney-General being called upon to speak. To attempt now to put the clock back would not only cause us great embarrassment in our relations with His Majesty's Government in Canada; it would bring consternation to the majority—a growing majority—of the people of Newfoundland who favour confederation.
In this connection, it may be interesting to your Lordships if I mention that I have received some communications from people in Newfoundland, in which they congratulate us on taking the step which we have taken. Amongst these documents there is a copy of a booklet called Among the Deep Sea Fishers, which is the organ of the International Grenfell Association, and which exercises considerable influence in the North of Newfoundland. There appears in this publication a letter from a lady dealing with the position of affairs as it was on July 22, the date of the second referendum in Newfoundland. She writes:
"But no ordinary date was July 22. It was final Referendum Day. Newfoundland was to make her choice between a return to responsible government and confederation with Canada. In that country, nothing can interfere with the stark reality of earning a living in a short summer. This is no time or place for the pre-election indignity of bill-boards, sound trucks or street corner blarings. But in the long still evenings, those who had radios never moved far away from them. Audience reaction to the speeches would have reflected the almost white-heat undercurrent in the Northern section. 'The evening after its over;' people said with confidence, 'we'll take time off to parade for the winning of confederation!'"
That I venture to say was the general feeling afterwards of most of the ordinary people outside the two or three large towns. They were very keen for confederation. It would cause something approaching administrative chaos, both in Canada and in Newfoundland, where detailed and carefully thought out plans are now being put into operation for the division of Federal and Provincial services, for the readjustment of income tax
318
and so on, if an attempt were made to put back the clock.
I would appeal, therefore, to your Lordships to support this Bill, and I trust it will be passed without a Division. Its principles have received the support of every Party in the Parliament of Canada, and it is in the interests of all of us that nothing should be said this afternoon which souls' help in stimulating bitterness and rivalry in Newfoundland. I would not like to close without paying some brief tribute to the successive Governors and members of the Commission of Government of Newfoundland. The Commission took office in 1934 in a period when the Island was at the lowest ebb of her history. The people were disillusioned, unemployment was rife, the economic situation was desperate and though financial assistance was given from this country this could meet only the most essential schemes of rehabilitation. Little by little the Commission of Government restored confidence, placed the public administration on a sound and permanent footing, increased revenues and improved the social services. That they were aided by the prosperity which war brought goes without suing, but their record is none the less a striking one. Hospitals, clinics and public institutions of all kinds have multiplied. Free and compulsory education has been introduced. The fisheries have been modernised, and trade generally has been stabilised. In a period of some fifteen years the general standard of living of the people of Newfoundland has improved out of recognition. I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in echoing this tribute to a body of men who have carried out a difficult and sometimes almost thankless task with a spirit of patience and enthusiasm.
My Lords, in conclusion may I express the hope that this Bill will bring fresh strength to the peoples of Newfoundland and Canada, with both of whom our fortunes are so closely linked? While there may be a slight feeling, perhaps, of sentimental melancholy that a country which has been closely connected with us for nearly 500 years and which has stood loyally by us at all times is going, probably, to lose its own separate independent identity, I personally look upon it as an opportunity for larger development and for a larger part to be played in the story of the British commonwealth

319
by Newfoundland, joined to her bigger brother on the other side. Therefore I recommend this Bill with confidence to your Lordships, and ask that you will give it a unanimous Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ammon.)
3.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, for giving us so clear an account of the Bill, and for putting before us the considerations which make the Government feel that it is right for us to give it a Second Reading without a Division. Obviously, it is a measure of great importance. To all those of us who keep in mind the wonderful story of the growth of British institutions in the Commonwealth overseas, the whole topic of this Bill is a subject of the deepest interest. What is so regrettable is that in certain quarters an impression has arisen that what is being done is not being done in the best way—even, indeed, an impression that the Bill involves some departure from true constitutional doctrine.
As the noble Lord has observed, the view is held in some quarters even that we are not proceeding in a democratic manner, or (to put it at its highest) that something like a breach of faith is involved. If that were so, it would give all of us the greatest possible concern. I do not take that view, though I know it is a view which is sincerely entertained in some quarters. It is expressed in very careful language in the Amendment which is to be moved by my noble friend Lord Sempill and which we shall be discussing shortly. And may I say that I am obliged to him for allowing me to intervene at this time, because before we come to any Amendment I wish to state as clearly as I can the reasons why, having looked at this complicated matter closely, I have reached the clear conclusion that the Bill is justified and that this criticism is not really well-founded.
If I may presume on your Lordships' patience, I should like to tell the House why. I would not do so if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor were here, because he would naturally be the person to explain to the House how this matter stands in point of constitutional law and practice; but somebody must do it, and I hope I may be
320
excused if I put before the House, without any sort of prejudice, the reason why I am confident that this criticism is ill-founded. If I am right—and we will see whether or not I can convince your Lordships—that will relieve some of the honest anxiety entertained, both here and elsewhere.
After studying the relevant documents, which are numerous and include the judgments that have been given in the Newfoundland Courts—because all these were given in public and I have them here—I may as well tell your Lordships at once that to my mind, from such experience and special training as I have, the conclusion presented to the House by the noble Lord opposite is unchallengeable, and the course that we are asked to follow is justified. Allow me to add, with great respect to all noble Lords, that nobody who is prepared to criticise or condemn ought to form a final judgment on this matter without first reading and studying the speech made by the Attorney-General in another place last Wednesday. If I may say so, it was a remarkable piece of reasoning, closely connected; and it dealt with these suggested difficulties in a clear and most convincing manner. The subject matter is to a certain extent technical, and on that I would ask for pardon. But that is not my fault; it is nobody's fault. The objection taken is technical, too. And if we want to do justice here, as we all do, we must be prepared to spend a few minutes considering what is no doubt a rather complex and technical matter.
Four objections have been raised. I begin by stating the four, each in a single sentence. The first objection is this: It is said that confederation of Newfoundland with Canada can be effected only under Section 146 of the British North America Act of 1867. The second objection is that what is sought to be done by this Bill involves an infringement of the Statute of Westminster of 1931. The third is that in view of the terms on which responsible government was suspended in Newfoundland in 1934, what is now being done should be done only on a request from a legislative Assembly in Newfoundland—obviously this is a criticism of politics rather than of law, but none the less I think it can be dealt with quite conclusively. The fourth and last suggested difficulty (and it is one which has impressed a number

321
of people in this country) is that the present legislation should await the advice which may be tendered hereafter to His Majesty by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in an appeal which is at present pending from the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. I think I have stated clearly, and I hope accurately, the four objections raised. Let me deal, in a few sentences, with each of the four, because I believe there is a conclusive answer to every one.
As for the first objection, based on Section 146 of the British North America Act, 1867, as the noble Lord opposite has already indicated, there is nothing in it at all. Section 146 of the Act of 1867 is a section which enables the Sovereign by Order in Council, without any further Statute at all, to admit Newfoundland into the Canadian Confederation on a request from the Legislatures of the two countries. It cannot be even suggested that this is the only possible way in which such a fusion can take place. Section 146 provides a way of doing it without the necessity of any further Act of Parliament. Here we have an Act of Parliament, and there is absolutely no ground for suggesting seriously that we must proceed by the method prescribed in the Statute of 1867—otherwise there can never be any extension whatever of the Canadian Confederation. Even if that were the effect of the Act of 1867, which it is not, it would still be true that one Parliament cannot bind its successor, and it would be possible to carry this Bill now, whatever the section of the 1867 Act said. But the real point is that Section 146 is merely a short and convenient way of securing a fusion which can also be secured with greater elaboration by passing another Act of Parliament. And that is exactly what we are asked to do now. As was pointed out in another place, Parliament here has already, in the interval, passed a Statute which, notwithstanding the Act of 1867, altered the representation of Newfoundland in the Canadian Senate as it would have been under the Act of 1867 if federation of Newfoundland with Canada had come about. If I may presume to be dogmatic, there is no possible doubt about This point. It is a bad point, and we should hear no more about it.
The second objection is based on a reliance on Section 4 of a most important Statute, the Statute of Westminster, 1931.
322
I am sure that every one of your Lordships who understands how constitutional development has taken place in the Commonwealth, would never consent, even though it was within our strict legal power, to interfere by a side wind with the proper provisions of the Statute of Westminster, the very basis and foundation on which the. Commonwealth rests, so far as it consists of Dominions. What does Section 4 say?—there is nothing like hearing the words. At first sight this object on looks rather a good point, but as I shall show in one moment it is not a good point at all. Section 4 says:
"No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or shall be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof."
Then your Lordship; see the argument is this: "Here is the Bill which the Government have produced. You may examine it from end to end, and you will not find it expressly declared that Newfoundland has requested, or consented, to this enactment. Therefore, if you pursue this present measure, you are disregarding Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster." Those who put forward that argument, unfortunately, have stopped reading the Act at Section 4, because Section 7 of the Act says that Section 4 is to have no application except to such Dominions as adopt it. Newfoundland has never adopted Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, so far as Newfoundland is concerned, the argument about Section 4 is completely worthless. Nobody who reads the Statute of Westminster from one end to the other, and applies its terms, can have any doubt about that. That consideration, I submit to the House, completely disposes, beyond any question, of that point.
I now come to the third point, which is that when we consider what were the circumstances in which responsible government was suspended in Newfoundland, we ought not to further the step now proposed, except on a request from the Legislature of Newfoundland. I know that this is a point which has impressed a number of careful and loyal people who, like all of us, would not willingly put their hands to anything which was other than completely justified and straightforward. It takes a

323
little longer to examine this argument, but the answer is just as complete. No doubt it is true that the suspension of the Legislature in Newfoundland was not intended to continue longer than was necessary. I do not for a moment suggest that the Legislature was abolished for ever; it was a temporary suspension. In its place, for the time being, the government of Newfoundland is carried on by the Governor, under the terms of new Letters Patent, with the advice of six advisers who form what is called the Commission. The idea was, as Lord Amulree's Report proposed, that when the finances of Newfoundland so far improved that Newfoundland "became self-supporting" again, responsible government would be restored "on request from the people of Newfoundland."
There are, therefore, two conditions which are to be fulfilled, and not one. The first condition is that Newfoundland's finances should be so far improved that Newfoundland becomes self-supporting again; and the second, that there should be a request from the people of Newfoundland. I will not detain your Lordships in discussing whether or not it can be asserted with confidence at this moment that the finances of Newfoundland are restored. I recollect that point was dealt with very effectively by my noble friend Lord Rennell in an earlier debate. It is true that during the war the annual receipts in Newfoundland exceeded the annual expenditure, but if that was due to the special circumstances of the war, that is a very different thing from saying that if left to itself Newfoundland would henceforward be on a sound financial basis. Be that as it may, there is the second condition that it shall be on request from the people of Newfoundland. Can it be suggested that this request, which is one of the essential conditions, is to come from the Legislature of Newfoundland? That, of course, would be arguing in a circle. The request is: "Please restore our Legislature." There would be no sense, therefore, in saying that the request must come from the Legislature. The request, as the document says in terms, is to come from the people of Newfoundland. I have no notion how that request could be more clearly expressed than by the use of a
324
plebiscite in which every adult in Newfoundland voted—universal adult suffrage.
Therefore, it is clear, if one follows the matter, that there is before us a request by a majority of the people of Newfoundland that the step should be taken of confederation with Canada. But there is no request, and there never has been, by any such majority to restore to Newfoundland its own Legislature. No one who traces the matter out can possibly arrive at any other conclusion. I will not delay to discuss how it came about that there were two plebiscites; the noble Lord opposite has explained it quite clearly. But to take the one that really matters, the second, what happened? The figures are not very large because the population of Newfoundland is not very large, 78,000 people voted for confederation with Canada, on a question posed to them for that very purpose, while 71,000 people voted for the restoration of the previous Newfoundland Government. That may not sound a very emphatic majority, but that is due to the circumstance that, when you have a plebiscite or a referendum, you add all the votes together to make a total to compare with all the votes added together on the other side. I may perhaps point out, either for the comfort or for the distress of honourable Members of another place, according to where they sit, that if that had been the method by which at the last General Election we decided what Government we should have, we should not have the blessings of a Socialist Government at this moment.
The matter can be put very simply if one remembers that, although you are conducting a plebiscite, you have as a matter of organisation to divide your area into electoral districts. In the case of this plebiscite Newfoundland was divided into twenty-five districts. In eighteen of those districts the majority was in favour of confederation with Canada, and in seven it was not. How anybody, in those circumstances, can say that there is anything in this third point passes my understanding. It is perfectly plain that, so far as that point is concerned, the verdict of a majority of the people of Newfoundland, on the precise issue, was that they wished to confederate with Canada; and there never was at either plebiscite a request by any

325
majority to return to their former system of isolated government.
I now come to the fourth and last objection. This is a point which has most disturbed many people who have thought over the matter. I am very far from saying that it is not a point worthy of careful consideration. It is said—and it is said truly—that there is an appeal now pending to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which might affect this matter and, therefore, it is wrong (perhaps not legally wrong, but morally and politically wrong) that we should take the step of carrying the present Bill until that matter had been finally disposed of judicially. I suppose that if I have a prejudice in these matters it is a prejudice in favour of settling these matters by recourse to the courts, though I do not recommend it to other people, except in cases of extreme necessity. But I have never come across a case in which the argument is so far-fetched as it is in the present case, and I will tell your Lordships why.
I have here the proceedings. Six gentlemen who are residents in Newfoundland started an action against the Governor of the Colony and his six advisers who form the Commission. They claimed that they ought to be entitled, by an appeal to the law courts, to get a decision which would result in establishing that the course proposed was what is called "unconstitutional" and, further, that they should be able to get orders from the court restraining the Governor and his advisers from taking steps for confederation and indicating that they ought to do something different. Do not let us exaggerate the powers which can be exercised by courts of law. Courts of law exist for the purpose of applying the law of the land to the facts of the case. They do not exist for the purpose of dictating to those who conduct a Government how they should govern or to a Legislation how it should legislate, or what policy they should pursue. The whole idea that, by a legal process in a court, you can proceed to determine these questions is, as it seems to me, quite fantastic. It certainly seemed very fantastic to the courts in Newfoundland which had the matter before them. I should inform your Lordships that what has been before the courts of Newfoundland is not a formulated case on the one side or the other, but an appli-
326
cation at the beginning of the proceedings to strike the whole claim out because it is, in lawyers' language, "frivolous and vexatious." We have an exactly similar process in the law of this country, and if somebody puts up a claim—I do not wish to speak disrespectfully—which is manifest nonsense, the Judges are not called upon solemnly to hear it, it may be for weeks or months; but when they have ascertained what is the nature of the case set up they are entitled to say: "This is a frivolous and vexatious action," and may strike it out forthwith.
As a matter of fact, the Judges in Newfoundland examined each of the contentions with great care. I admire the way in which they have applied the constitutional law to the matter. They point out that there is nothing whatever in these allegations which any court of law could ever undertake to decide. Lest I should be thought to be speaking with undue freedom about contentions which, no doubt, are put forward with great earnestness, I would ask leave to read to the House one sentence from the Judgment of the learned Judge who first had the matter before him. I can assure the House that if you read the earlier part of the Judgment you will find that he discussed each question with the greatest care and precision. Having done that, he said:
"I have listened to counsel at some length, but this Statement of Claim is a dead horse, and flogging it will not bring it to life, or make any difference to their position. The action is based on fundamental errors of law and logic which are apparent on the face of the papers, and which are fatal to it no matter what counsel may say. Legally, logically and practically, it seems to me to be nonsense."
Thereupon, the six residents of Newfoundland—who have no more right to make this sort of claim than any other resident of Newfoundland and which, on the most elementary principles of law, therefore, they should not make themselves but should get the spokesman for the public, the Attorney-General, to make—then appealed to the Celia of Appeal in Newfoundland. I have read all the Judgments of the Court of Appeal, and they are quite unanimous. These gentlemen appealed against the decision that their proceedings were frivolous and vexatious. They were listened to with great attention, and the Judgments are well worth reading because they deal with each point with great care and soberness.

327
But at the end of it all the Court of Appeal unanimously said: "The judge below is quite right," and they never even called upon the defendants to say anything at all. They confirmed the dismissal of the whole proceedings as frivolous and vexatious.
Your Lordships therefore see that if, indeed, the appeal ever came to the Privy Council—and up to the present I am told that no case has been deposited there, though notice has been given—the Privy Council would not be deciding the merits of this matter at all; they would merely have the question before them of whether it was not manifestly a "frivolous and vexatious" proceeding. It is not for me, speaking here quite apart from any judicial function, to say what would happen. I am not pronouncing judgment. Being a fairly cautious lawyer, I say only that I cannot conceive any court taking any other view. Even if they did, the only result would be that the matter would have to begin all over again, in order that both sides might formulate this argument and that. I do assure your Lordships that there was never a more astounding effort to get a political question decided by a court of law than exists in this particular litigation.
Of course, the political question remains, and we are much more concerned with the political question than with any purely legal or technical question. The political question for us is this: Are we, the British Parliament, morally bound to hold our hand when we are requested to do this, both by the Parliament of Canada and by the vote of the majority of the inhabitants of Newfoundland, until there has been a restoration of the former self government in Newfoundland? If your Lordships have been good enough to follow me—and if I have stated the matter clearly—it is obvious that we are not so bound, because, amongst other things, the only way in which to find out whether the inhabitants of Newfoundland want to have their own local Parliament restored is by asking them to vote and say what they want. They have voted and they said: "We do not want our former Government, but we do want federation with Canada."
328
There is one small point left with which I would like to deal, out of respect for the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, who has felt it his duty—and we respect him for it—to raise this question in the form of an Amendment. I look at his Amendment and I see that it contains a phrase which speaks of the "decisive rejection by the elected representatives of the people of the Island sitting in National Convention" of the proposal for Union with Canada. If that were accurate, it would be a point well worthy of consideration; but it is not accurate. What this National Convention did was this. It was asked to advise, just as a Committee of one House or the other might be asked to advise. It was an elected body, I agree. It actually paid a visit to Ottawa to ask, "What would you in Canada do for us if we did join up?" I believe it also paid a visit to this country. It was not a representative body, in the sense of having a power to decide anything at all. I think I can save time if I read a short passage from a statement by the judge which disposes of the matter in these words:
"In 1946, economic conditions having improved, the Newfoundland Government, with the approval of the Imperial Government, sought to ascertain public opinion as to the future form of government by assembling a National Convention of selected persons to discuss the matter. … These were selected by the Electoral Districts by an election process. (I use the words 'selected persons' advisedly. They were neither delegates nor representatives, but merely appointees to a debating body, having no powers save to recommend; and the Government was not bound to take their opinions.) This Convention, of its own motion, sent a Delegation to Canada to ascertain what terms, if any, might be available for confederation of Newfoundland with that Dominion. As a result of this visit on October 30, 1947, the then Prime Minister of Canada"—
that was Mr. Mackenzie King—
"offered specific terms to the Governor of Newfoundland. The Convention voted by a majority against submitting these terms to the electorate; but the local Government and the Secretary of State in England, considering that the terms ought to be submitted to the people, rejected the advice of the Convention on that point."
That is the whole story; and if your Lordships ask: "Where is the proof that the people of Newfoundland want to be fused with Canada and to form a Federation," the answer is that they have been asked that specific question, and have voted by an absolute majority that that

329
is what they wish to do. I have risen really to discharge what is rather an unpleasant task—because no one likes to talk technicalities in this House. It is right, however, that your Lordships should know how this matter strikes one who has looked at it without prejudice, and who has some special reasons for being interested in the future of Newfoundland. I have no doubt about the matter. I think it right, and a duty to the House, that I should say with candour that I really have no doubt at all about it. If I have been able to say anything to relieve the minds of any noble Lords here, I am glad.
I should have hoped, my Lords, that we might have used this occasion for a rather different purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, was right when he said there was sentiment in this. Just consider this event in its historic perspective. As you go across the Central Lobby here, by that corridor which leads to the statue of Oliver Cromwell, you will see a fresco which depicts King Henry VII, in the year 1496, granting a Commission to John Cabot. Under that Commission, Cabot and his boy Sebastian perilously ventured across the Atlantic, with eighteen Bristol sailors, in a cockleshell of a boat, and landed on a foggy shore, which was called New Found Land. That place has been part of our pride ever since. Next September it will be 190 years since Wolfe, by his victory on the Plains of Abraham, secured Quebec for the British Crown. It is 110 years since Lord Durham, in his famous Report, when he was called to advise at a time of great confusion and tumult in British North America, pronounced the immortal proposition that the way to secure unity and content in the King's Dominions is by trusting people, and not by trying to order exactly how they should live.
The Fathers of the Canadian Confederation met in Quebec in 1866. All that that Confederation consisted of then was a small portion of what we now call Canada—Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia: that was all. But the fathers of Confederation had a vision, and their vision was that one day in the future the whole of British North America, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, would be included in allegiance to the Crown in a single great Federation. That
330
vision was embodied in Section 146 of the Act of 1867. The Colony of British Columbia already existed. It had not been established by settlers moving across the Continent, but had been populated by a people who went round by the Pacific and landed at Vancouver. Between British Columbia and what we then called Canada, was the barrier of the Rocky Mountains. There intervened an immense unorganised territory called Prince Rupert's Land (because of the grant given by Charles II to Prince Rupert) and the North-West territories in which the old Hudson Bay Company had a monopoly of land. But these fathers of Confederation founded the Dominion of Canada. They cherished the idea that one day the whole of British North America would be included in the Dominion. British Columbia has come in, and Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and Prince Edward Isle. At this moment there are nine Provinces in Canada. This Bill is going to make the tenth; it will complete the consummation of the vision which those early Fathers of Canada had in their minds and expressed in the Statute so long ago.
I would add this final word to our good friends in Newfoundland—a place that throughout the ages has supplied some of the best sailors to the British Navy, which has stood for this country through thick and thin, and whose people thus deserve the best we can do for them. I would say to them: Do not be deluded into supposing that you are losing your rights. You are going to be a Province of Canada—and some of us who have practised at the Bar know well what are the rights of a Province of Canada.
Section 92 of the British North America Act contains a list of the powers which the Legislature of a Province Of Canada has the exclusive right to exercise. And the executive powers correspond. At the same time, Newfoundland also comes under the wing of the Canadian Dominion and contributes to the legislature at Ottawa. Therefore, I cannot doubt, however sore feelings in some quarters may be at the moment, that the time will come when those who at present feel anxious will recognise that by this Bill a great benefit is being conferred on their children, and on their children's children.
4.0 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, it was an honour for me to be invited by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down to give way to him, and I did so with considerable pleasure. I am sure that I have benefited a great deal from all that he has had to say. I wish I had taken the opportunity of consulting with my noble and learned friend beforehand in the drafting of the Amendment on which he had something to say. Your Lordships will remember that on February 9, before asking leave to withdraw my Motion on the present constitutional status of the Dominion of Newfoundland, I gave notice that I would take an early opportunity of presenting a Bill on the matter. I did so, and introduced a Bill entitled "An Act to restore self-Government to Newfoundland." Your Lordships will remember that that Bill has already been accorded its First Reading in your Lordships' House, and probably it will be no surprise to you to find that to-day an Amendment to the Motion for Second Reading, dealing with that same matter, is down in my name. I will endeavour to take up as little as possible of your Lordships' time, but, as has been well stressed by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down, the matter at issue is a very serious one, affecting the future of Newfoundlanders, as grand a body of people as one could find anywhere, a people amongst whom I have been proud to work. I am sure, therefore, that your Lordships will bear with me for a short while, and I hope that many will support the plea that I submit, that the Bill be not read a Second time.
In the debate on Newfoundland which I was privileged to initiate in your Lordships' House on February 9, my noble friend Lord Rennell stressed the advantages, as he saw them, that would accrue to Newfoundland when confederation with Canada was brought about. I propose to say little or nothing about that side of the case, since I am not fully informed on the many complex ins and outs of the matter. With respect, I suggest that it is not for your Lordships' House to settle this question of confederation which, in my view, concerns only the Parliament of Canada and the Parliament of Newfoundland, when that has been set up again. My noble friend Lord Rennell, with his considerable business
332
knowledge, had much to say on February 9 on the advantages that would accrue, but I think he would not seek to justify the repudiation of a guarantee of a debenture issue if 43 per cent. (or even 53 per cent., putting it at its maximum), of the debenture holders had been "squared" to take something different from what they had been promised. I think Lord Rennell will be speaking later in this debate, and I shall be interested to hear his views in respect of that matter.
I did not move from my seat in the Gallery in another place, not long ago, during the Second Reading of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. I have read with considerable care the interesting debates that took place on the Committee stage and Third Reading. At that time, or at least in the first debate, the acting Leader of the Opposition in another place, had a great deal to say. He remarked that, "We to-day are in rather an unusual position." I venture to think, and it has been well stressed by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down, that the same may be said of your Lordships' House. The right honourable gentleman, in finishing his interesting remarks in another place from which I have quoted, begged the Government to postpone "the operative date for federation"—I quote his actual words. This showed, clearly, that the anxiety in another place of the Junior Burgess for Oxford University, and those who supported him in a Motion declining to approve the Bill, was not confined to him and the five other honourable Members who supported that Motion.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and others who have spoken for His Majesty's Government in another place, have laid great stress upon those two words, "on request," about which the noble and learned Viscount had a lot to say, appearing in paragraph (g) of the extract from the Royal Commission's Report, which is in the Schedule to the Act of 1933. The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State stated that, had the words not appeared,
"there would be a strong case for saying that, when the Island was self-supporting, the form of government which had existed in 1933 must be restored, and that no other alternative was open."
As your Lordships will recall, the setting up of the National Convention, a body elected by Newfoundlanders in

333
1946, gave them their first opportunity of making known their views and of voicing, should they so wish, this much discussed "request." That they did so wish is very clear from the proceedings of the National Convention. It decided, by a substantial majority, that only two issues should appear on the referendum ballot paper—the continuation of the Commission of Government, or the restoration of responsible government. Yet, despite this, the Commission of Government was instructed by Whitehall, as was made clear in another place during the debate on this Bill, to solicit a vote for confederation with Canada. The Government of Newfoundland, as your Lordships are well aware, consists of seven Commissioners, of whom only three are Newfoundlanders.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Surely it consists of six Commissioners and the Governor. The Governor is not a Commissioner.
LORD SEMPILL: I accept the noble and learned Viscount's correction of those figures. I thank him very much.
On the first referendum in June, 1948, a relative majority of votes was obtained for the restoration of responsible government. A similar result seems to have satisfied His Majesty's Government in elections in Britain! Why, therefore, should Newfoundland be differently treated? On the second referendum, in July, 1948, 52 per cent. of the total votes cast were for confederation with Canada. This was 43 per cent. of the total number of registered voters. The first figure constitutes a 4.6 per cent. vote in favour of the surrender of sovereignty. Surely this does not convince your Lordships that here was a sufficient majority for so tremendous a change? The views so clearly expressed by Mr. Mackenzie King, when that right honourable gentleman was Prime Minister of Canada, are not met either. He said in the Parliament of Canada that
"the people of Newfoundland should indicate clearly and beyond all possibility of misunderstanding their will that Newfoundland should become a part of Canada."
I cannot see in these figures an expression that is "beyond all possibility of misunderstanding," and I submit that this slender majority of 4.6 per cent. does not warrant a change of the nature contemplated.
334
In the last few weeks I have been fortunate in rediscovering several friends with whom in years gone by I was proud to work in Newfoundland. As a result, I have refreshed my memory on one or two points. One of the first Commissioners was Mr. Thomas Lodge, appointed because of his wide experience of finance and administration. I worked with him in Newfoundland, and I discovered his whereabouts a week or two ago from a letter in The Times of March 3. In this letter Mr. Lodge pointed out that he and his colleagues on the Commission of Government—I quote from his letter:
"have declared times out of number, in public speeches and in private conversations, that once the Island was self-supporting its political independence would be restored."
My Lords, I can well recollect several such occasions when statements of that nature were made, not only by Mr. Lodge but by other Members of the Commission of that time.
I take this opportunity, most gladly and from first-hand experience, of paying a sincere tribute to the splendid work done by the Commissioners, in particular the first appointed under Sir John Hope Simpson, of whom Mr. Lodge was one. As your Lordships are well aware, they were set the extremely difficult task of developing a new method in the administration of government. I am sure your Lordships will allow me to quote from an important letter just received from Mr. Lodge which has a bearing on this matter. He says:
"If ever there was a plain straightforward obligation, it was to restore the Island's political independence once it became self-supporting. The Government's case is that a 48 per cent. vote did not constitute a 'request' within the meaning of their original pledge. They seem to forget that their own tenure of office is based on a 48 per cert. vote of the electorate in 1945. The attitude of the Dominions Office to the whole problem of Newfoundland has been lamentable from the start. It is an open secret that the first reaction of the Government of the day to the Amulree Report was one of definite rejection. It was only the pressure of the Bank of England which made them accept responsibility for the Island's debt and for setting up the Commission of Government. The Commission worked well enough for its first two years, under the chairmanship of that distinguished naval officer and administrator, that prince of diplomats, the Governor, the late Admiral Sir David Murray Anderson. He kept us as a reasonably united body and he supported us through thick and thin… The Dominions Office bitterly resented my efforts to rub their

335
official noses against the refractory facts of Newfoundland life. They heaved a sigh of relief when they got rid of me, and thereafter they saw to it that only safe, docile, civil or ex-civil servants should be Commissioners."
Your Lordships will not be surprised that when arrangements were made for the Commission of Government to be set up, to help Newfoundland, prostrate by the world depression of 1931, as has already been pointed out, the honourable Mr. Alderdice, Prime Minister of Newfoundland in 1934, said:
"We thank His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. … We trust implicitly in their honourable intentions, feeling confident that a full measure of responsible government will be restored to the Island when we have again been placed upon a self-supporting basis."
He obviously spoke not only for his colleagues in the Cabinet but also for the people of Newfoundland. The intention of His Majesty's Government was clear to them, as the honourable gentleman's words show, and His Majesty's representatives at that time on the Island, the Commissioners (of whom I have quoted from one), were constantly reminding them of the truth of the Prime Minister's words.
If we consider this situation for a moment from the aspect of the public view in regard to this matter, as expressed in the organs of the Press, some of your Lordships will have noticed a leading article in Truth of February 18, headed "Betrayal of Newfoundland" which reads:
"Few more shocking breaches of faith have stained the honour of any British Government than the way in which our present rulers have gone back on the promise to restore responsible government to Newfoundland. Had that promise been kept, and had the elected government 'opted' for union with Canada, no objection to the proceedings could now be raised."
The Attorney-General during the Committee stage on March 9 did not take the same view as that which the Secretary of State took on the Second Reading on March 2. The right honourable gentleman stated on the Second Reading:
"If the Privy Council do take a different view, and do so advise His Majesty, the position would not really be much worse than if we were to delay the present legislation. If the Privy Council did take that view we should at once accept it and we here, and Canada and Newfoundland, would have to start all over again."
336
That was the Attorney-General, speaking on the Committee stage. I plead with your Lordships very earnestly to restore self-government for Newfoundland and—her freedom regained—fto let her plan her own future by herself, or if she so wishes it, with Canada. I submit that that should be done. Several of us who sit in your Lordships' House as elected Scots representatives, are descendants of pioneers concerned with the founding of Scotland's great Colony, Nova Scotia, over three centuries ago, in the reign of James VI. That was a great venture, and it might be thought, that as one of those descendants, and therefore a Nova Scotian (and more recently a Canadian), I would be anxious to force this issue. I say most certainly that we Nova Scotians would welcome closer ties with Newfoundland, but only if such ties were conceived in a free way and provided that Newfoundland was not dragooned into it. If I were privileged to be one of the representatives of Nova Scotia sitting in the Parliament of Canada, though a cross-Bencher, I should certainly have followed the Leader of the Conservative Opposition when he led 74 people into the Lobby against the final Resolution when this matter was being debated in Canada.
In conclusion, My Lords, I would like to say just a word on the human side, which is so little considered to-day. At the time of the setting up of the first Commission of Government, one of the Newfoundlanders chosen was the late Mr. Howley; he served on the Commission of Government with Sir John Hope Simpson; Mr. Thomas Lodge and one or two others. He leaves one descendant, a daughter, a Mrs. Kathleen Fletcher, who is bringing up her three small daughters in St. John's. She wrote to me a few days ago a letter which shows the feeling in Newfoundland. The letter reads:
"What everybody seems to overlook is the moral effect that this affair is having on the minds and hearts of so many in this country. 'England has done this to us,' they say. It is just as if some person whom you've loved and looked up to all your life, suddenly destroyed every ideal and illusion most dear to you. I know that this may sound farfetched, not to you but to some; but it's as if I suddenly turned my three children—your god-daughter one of them—out on the street for some stranger to pick up and look after."
My Lords, to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, I beg to move the Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
To leave out all the words after ("that") and to insert—
("this House, without prejudice to the merits of the proposed union of the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill for which the electors of Newfoundland have not expressed such a democratic demand as would warrant an irrevocable change in their constitutional status, which arises from the unilateral action of His Majesty's Government in including in referenda held in Newfoundland in 1948 the question of union with Canada after its decisive rejection by the elected representatives of the people of the island sitting in National Convention, which is based on terms of union which have not been discussed and agreed by the people of Newfoundland or their democratic representatives, which violates the solemn pledge of His Majesty's Government that self-government should be restored to Newfoundland as soon as it was economically self-supporting, and the constitutional legality of which is at present the subject of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.")—(Lord Sempill.)
4.20 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, in the course of the debate in your Lordships' House in February, I had occasion to point to some of the advantages, as it seemed to me they were, of the proposed Union of Newfoundland with Canada, and both the noble and learned Viscount who has recently addressed your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, have been good enough to refer to what I said. To what I said then I have nothing to add, but I have one thing to subtract from it. At the conclusion of my remarks on that occasion, I said that there was a lingering doubt in my mind and, possibly, in the minds of many of your Lordships, in regard to the method which had been followed to bring about the situation which is now brought to a head by the British North America Bill. From the documents which I then had seen there was a doubt in my mind about the procedure. Since then, I have had the advantage, as I have no doubt all your Lordships have had, of reading the report of the speech made by the Attorney-General in another place, and, more lately, we have all heard the account given by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, of his views in regard to the procedure. I would like to say that, for my part, any lingering doubts which I then had with respect to the legality or the propriety of the
338
method followed have been entirely removed, and therefore I wish to subtract that remark from what I said on the former occasion.
It would be impertinent for me, lacking the background and the necessary training, to comment on the remarks of either the Attorney-General or of the noble and learned Viscount. But, as a layman, I must say that there is one point upon which I have been rather impressed. The Attorney-General referred to it only in passing, and, unless it escaped my notice, the noble and learned Viscount scarcely referred to it at all. It does seem to me significant, as a layman, however, that a case was started in court by certain gentlemen in Newfoundland only when the verdict of the plebiscite proved to be contrary to their expectation. They then—but only then—appear to have alleged that the procedure was illegal and improper. If the procedure was improper and illegal, it was equally improper and illegal whatever the verdict of the plebiscite. To a layman, that fact alone, I suggest, must damn the case, whatever the arguments that may be put forward and with which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has so adequately dealt. That is another reason why I no longer feel any doubt, either about the desirability of what is being done or, indeed, upon the way in which it is being done.
I am sorry that the British North America Bill—or, as I have no doubt it will be, the British North America Act of 1948—should have been discussed otherwise than with the unanimous support of both Houses of Parliament in this country. The Bill is one which we in this country have been asked by the Government of Canada to introduce in order to comply with the provisions of the British North America Acts. We are doing so, and I would have wished that it had been a unanimous decision and that there had been no dispute. I do not think that the dispute in your Lordships' House will prove to be serious, but it has, to some extent, detracted a little from the pleasure which most of us would have felt in seeing the old Dominion of Newfoundland taken care of for the future in what I regard as a most adequate and most generous way.
The Bill, upon which there has been really no comment at all in your Lordships'

339
House but which is, I take it, the subject of our debate, contains a point in one clause upon which I would like the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to enlighten me. The first clause of the Bill reads:
"The Agreement containing Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland set out in the Schedule to this Act, is hereby confirmed …"
and the Terms of Union are set out in the Bill as a Schedule. In other words, that Schedule becomes part of the Bill, as Schedules do in other Bills. With respect, it would seem to me a cumbersome thing to have so long a Schedule of Terms incorporated in an Act, and it means, I take it, that the Schedule itself cannot be modified without an appropriate Act. There may be in many of the passages—and the Schedule is a very long document — certain matters which possibly in a short space of time may require some modification. I would like the noble Viscount to tell me whether such modification, if it were required, would mean yet a further British North America Act? I could have hoped that some easier method of modification might be found—that is, assuming that my supposition is correct. I conclude my remarks upon this Bill by saying only this. I, for one, am glad that this Bill has come, and has come quickly; that it provides a final answer to a very difficult problem; that it provides for the future of the people of Newfoundland and rounds off the great British North American Dominion in the way in which the Fathers of the Dominion in Canada and in this country had always hoped for, and which they have waited so long to see achieved.
4.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as the rejection of this Bill has been formally moved, I think that perhaps I ought to add a few words—and they will be only a very few words because the matter has already been thoroughly debated on a Motion in this House. In that debate the general opinion of the House on the merits of the case and as to the course which Parliament in this country ought to adopt was made very clear. To-day, we have had the matter further debated with the added advantage of an authoritative legal opinion on the legal aspects of the case.
340
I am certain we should all wish to be assured that what we do and the way we do it is in accord not only with the letter of the Constitution, in so far as the position is affirmed in the Statute of Westminster or other Acts, but is also in accord with the spirit of the constitutional relationship of the United Kingdom Parliament vis-à-vis the other countries of the Commonwealth.
The speech of the Attorney-General in another place and the speech delivered by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, to-day have made it absolutely plain that the method which is here proposed in no way runs counter either to the letter or the spirit of the Constitution. Indeed, I think it was right and proper that in this House, which is the Supreme Court of Law, as well as in the other House of Parliament, such an authoritative legal view should have been expressed. No one could have spoken with greater authority than the noble and learned Viscount, nor is there anyone whose legal opinion is likely to carry greater weight in Newfoundland, because I have no doubt the people of Newfoundland still have a lively and grateful recollection of the great success which the noble and learned Viscount, when he was a practising barrister, secured for them in the famous arbitration over Labrador. The legal position, therefore—and we laymen must take the legal position from the great lawyers—is absolutely clear.
I should like to say one word or two on the facts—the undisputed facts. We have the great advantage that not only is the law clear but also the facts on which we have to form an opinion do not admit of any dispute. Perhaps your Lordships will permit me to remind you of these undisputed facts. In December, 1945, His Majesty's Government announced that they had decided to set up in Newfoundland an elected National Convention which would make recommendations to His Majesty's Government as to possible forms of future government (and I stress this point) to be put before the people of Newfoundland at a national referendum. That was clearly announced to Parliament and at that time no single member of either House either criticised or took any exception to that pronouncement of policy and intention. Then, in May, 1947 (I learned this from

341
the debate; I did not know it before), a delegation from the National Convention which was set up came to the United Kingdom and sought assurances from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who was then the Secretary of State for the Dominions, that if a strong minority in the Convention desired a choice to be put in the referendum, His Majesty's Government would agree to it. Without a formal commitment, the Secretary of State agreed that if there were a strong minority he would pay sympathetic attention to its claim to have its views put on the ballot paper.
The Convention voted against confederation with Canada by 29 votes to 16, But observe that it was always the anounced intention, agreed to by everybody, that the decision on what should be done was to be the decision of the people of, Newfoundland taken by referendum—which, on a perfectly clear and simple issue, is the only way in which the opinion of the people can be obtained—and not the decision of votes in the Convention. Faced with that situation, on March 2, 1948, three months before the first referendum was taken, His Majesty's Government announced to Parliament that Union with Canada would be one of the alternatives which would be submitted on the referendum. Again it is fair to say that when that was announced, and the despatch published—I will not read again the important passage which the noble Lord has already read out in his speech—at that stage, after the vote in the Convention, nobody in either House of Parliament took exception to that course.
One other thing is clear, and in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, has said, I think it right to emphasise it. It is quite clear that the terms offered by the Canadian Government were perfectly well known to the electors who voted on the referendum. Canvassing took place—a great deal of canvassing by people who opposed the referendum, and I have no doubt a certain amount by the people who supported it. I think there is no doubt that the people of Newfoundland who cast their votes knew as well as any electorate ever can know what was the issue before them and what were the terms which were being offered. They voted for Union by 78,000 votes to 71,000. It is true that if you take
342
the result by electoral districts, the majority in favour was more formidable: 18 out of 25 electoral districts voted for Union. But we must take the result on the referendum, because a referendum is deliberately meant to be a counting of heads, and therefore we must take the figure of 78,000 to 71,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, has spoken of these electors in Newfoundland, I hope inadvertently but most unfairly, as having been "squared." He said, in another period of his speech, that they had been "dragooned." From my place here, I say this to the noble Lord, with respect, but I think I ought to say it: I do not think those are charges which should be made in a matter of this kind unless the noble Lord who makes them has satisfied himself that there is clear and unquestioned evidence by which his charges can be substantiated. I do not believe for one moment that the people of Newfoundland, who are a very independent people, were either "squared" or "dragooned." They cast their votes upon the terms which were then before them, and they were far less favourable to the people of Newfoundland than the terms which were subsequently re-negotiated and agreed to by the Government of Canada and the Canadian Parliament and which now find their place in the Bill. Nobody will dispute the fact that the present terms are much more favourable. It really cannot be said that if a majority voted for Terms of Union which were less favourable, they would be likely to reject terms which are much more favourable. The Canadian Parliament have approved the Union on these terms.
It is said that we should now hold our hand. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has mentioned to your Lordships the legal aspect of the argument that the Bill should be held up pending the appeal to the Privy Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, pointed out, that appeal was not instituted until the parties who are bringing the action knew which way the cat had jumped. If the cat had jumped the other way, there would have been no action. They are quite entitled to pursue any legal process at any stage, but if the legality of the constitutional process were being challenged, the more normal stage, surely, would have been when the decision of

343
the Government to take the referendum was made, just as we ought to have challenged it, if we objected, when the original announcement was made in 1945, and again in 1948, but nobody did, because we thought the Government were right in what they were doing. We have heard on the highest legal authority that there is no legal argument which can be founded on that basis. The inconvenience which would ensue if we did not pass this Bill now, before the close of the financial year in Canada, would be incalculable. We should be doing the greatest possible disservice to the people of Newfoundland and of Canada, and to the administration in both countries, if we delayed on what is really (I do not think I put it too highly, having heard Lord Simon and read the speech of the Attorney-General) a mere legal quibble.
The noble Lord has said that a constitutional change should not be made on so small a majority vote as 78,000 to 71,000. I agree, as a general principle, that it is desirable, even where nothing is written in a Statute, that a constitutional change of importance should, if possible, be carried by a considerable majority and command a large measure of support. I have heard it said—I would be interested to hear whether the noble Viscount has similar information—that since the new terms were published, and since the people in Newfoundland appreciate better what are the financial benefits which they will receive from this Union, and the great security which lies behind those financial benefits, public opinion in Newfoundland has become much stronger in favour than it was in July of last year when the referendum was taken on the original terms.
Be that as it may, what is the practical alternative before your Lordships? If you rejected this Bill, you would be deliberately imposing the will of a minority of the people of Newfoundland on the will of the majority, as expressed in the referendum. You would be deliberately refusing to do what the Canadian Parliament, through all their constitutional processes, having received the Newfoundland decision, have decided shall be done. The case has only to be stated in those terms to see how impossible it would be for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to do other than
344
endorse the expressed wish of the majority of the people of Newfoundland, confirmed and endorsed by the Canadian Parliament. That is the short simple issue before us to-day. There can be no possible doubt as to what is our plain duty: we must give effect to the decision of the majority of the people of Newfoundland. It was for them to decide. If I may say so (I said it in the previous debate) while the decision was for the people of Newfoundland, I am sure they have made a very wise decision in their own interests.
In conclusion, I would point out that it is just as misleading to talk about the people of Newfoundland sacrificing their freedom as it is to talk about them being "dragooned." They do not sacrifice their freedom by becoming a full province of the great Dominion of Canada. When the noble Lord next crosses the Atlantic, let him go to the people of any of the provinces of Canada—people who are extremely jealous of their provincial rights—and ask them whether they think they are not free people. So far from giving up their freedom, the people of Newfoundland, under this Act, will find their freedom anew as one of the great historical provinces of Canada, and will be fortified financially and in every other way by their place in that great Dominion.
4.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in view of the character of this discussion it is not necessary for me to say very much in conclusion. However, I am sure the people of Newfoundland and of Canada will be grateful for the exposition of the law that has been given so forcibly in both Houses of Parliament. I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon—an ex-Lord Chancellor, with immense authority—has expounded the case here as no other member of the House could do with similar authority. I am sure that in so doing he has rendered a signal service to the case that is before US.
Meanwhile, I should like to make one or two simple observations on the general conduct of the case. It would be quite out of place for me to add anything to the legal considerations which have been put before your Lordships. We accept them. There is no question of Party in this matter. I was very glad

345
that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, took the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, to task for his use of such words as the people of Newfoundland having been "squared." I wonder how in the world that could be done. I know something of these people. Like most peoples who live in isolated communities they are exceedingly independent-minded. By what species of psychological pressure these things, this "squaring" could be achieved I should be much interested to learn—as I think many political managers might be. I do not think it is a psychological possibility for any Party to dragoon these honest fishermen and their wives and families—as the noble Lord seems to suggest, to their discredit, that they could be dragooned. They will not thank him for that compliment, I am sure. I will not say any more on this point, because the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, dealt very adequately with it. But the noble Lord really should not say that sort of thing. Moreover, we never heard anything of this kind until after the result of the second referendum to which I will refer in a moment.
So far as I can with short notice, I should like to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who asked: If any alteration were made in this, would it require further reference to this Parliament? I am advised at present that under the British North America Act it would. Now, let me say a word about the conduct of this case because, as is well known, I was very largely responsible. In the first place, nothing has been concealed from the very beginning. This House was informed as early as possible of what was in contemplation, and it was informed as soon as possible of what had been recommended at the different stages. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said that we heard no objection at any of these stages, and quite frankly I do not see how there could have been objections. The deputation from the Convention came over here, and we had long and friendly discussions on financial issues and on the way in which the opinion of the people should be ascertained. It was in fact agreed, and statements were made in this House, that there were to be three questiorts—namely, continuation of the Commission Government, responsible government, or federation with Canada. Lf the three questions were submitted to
346
a referendum and no one of them obtained the predominant support of the people, then there was to be a second referendum on those two which, on the first referendum, emerged as having the most support. There was never any question at all at this stage, either in this House, or even in Newfoundland itself, as to the fairness of that method of ascertaining the views of the people.
As your Lordships are aware, in the first referendum, leaving out the odd numbers, there were 69,000 in favour of responsible Government, 64,000 in favour of federation with Canada and 22,000 in favour of continuation with the Commission Government. It was clear, therefore, that in accordance with the fair understanding reached, and in order to ascertain the wishes of the people, the first two questions should again be submitted for determination by the people. It is true that I myself was a party to that procedure months before it was applied; it was communicated to Parliament and was understood by everybody. It is significant that those who have taken the objections to which we have listened in the noble Lord's Amendment, never thought of them and never voiced them until after the result of the second referendum had been made known. I still wonder how otherwise we could have ascertained the wishes or the people, because in the Act we are required "to ascertain the wishes of the people." Well, we asked them what their wishes were, and this is what they said. I can assure the noble Lord that, whatever may have been the manipulations to which he referred, so far as this country was concerned we left it to them, as interested and affectionate fellow members of the same Commonwealth; and this is their view. So far as I am concerned, this country, with the consent of everybody, conducted the machinery for ascertaining the wishes of the people in the only way it could conduct it.
So far as the present position is concerned, I think it was fully stated by the noble Viscount who has just addressed the House, and I have nothing to add to it. The case for federation was fully negotiated, and it is a very important point, as the noble Viscount said, that when the second referendum was held, the terms for confederation with Canada were substantially less generous than they

347
are now; and the vote was on that and not on the present proposals. I would ask the House to consider how it was that these eighteen more remote districts clearly came to entertain these wishes. The reason is that although with a certain type of expenditure the Island may fairly be said to be self-supporting, in that last year revenue met expenditure, that balance depends entirely upon what the expenditure is. But what the people in these remote districts want are better social services. They want child allowances and other services, and it is an arithmetical fact that as it stands Newfoundland is quite unable to provide them. I have no doubt that the reason they voted for joining a greater and wealthier partner, was to be able to share in the benefits enjoyed by the other Provinces of Canada.
Finally, I would emphasise the point made by the noble Viscount. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, talked about Newfoundlanders being deprived of their independence. He put it very strongly. But I should like to hear, for instance, what the free people of Ontario would have to say to anybody who suggested that by being a Province of Canada they have been deprived of their independence. He would find their answer was more forceful than Parliamentary. No, my Lords, it is just plain nonsense. The people of Newfoundland will enjoy a greater and a wider freedom. They will be able to get their needs dealt with by a great Federation, which will be more able to meet their social necessities than by themselves they are now able to do as a small part of the North American Continent. Seeing how the world is moving, and seeing how things are developing, they will be able, by joining up with Canada as a Province of that Confederation, to share more of the benefits which come from large-scale co-operation and from association with greater wealth. But apart from that, I would like to say this: that as the world is moving to-day, we can see that people are everywhere joining together in greater associations, and we must take a longer view. There can be no question that Newfoundland as a part of the great Confederation of Canada, as it is and as it will be, will be immensely stronger and much better able to reap the benefits and the rights of freedom than she would be
348
if her people remained as a small isolated community. I am glad that all sections in your Lordships' House support this Bill.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, your Lordships have been good enough to accord me two hearings on the Newfoundland discussions, on February 9 and to-day; and for this I am most grateful. I feel that there is no more today that I can do but pray—as I shall—that when this matter comes before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council they will decide in favour the result for which I have unsuccessfully striven. Before withdrawing my Amendment, I would ask leave to put one question to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. He will no doubt have observed that in the House of Commons in Canada, Colonel Drew, in winding up the debate (after which he went into the Division Lobby with seventy-four others), said that the affair had "the taste of an unholy deal." I should like to ask whether an arrangement was ever come to, as between Britain and Canada, when the question of naval and air bases was under discussion during the war, which has resulted in Newfoundland's sovereignty over her own territory being given away without her consent.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I have had no notice of that question, and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, should know better than I do, because he was in the Cabinet at the time. But I am quite sure that Newfoundland's territorial integrity and freedom have always been respected. The point was that we had to make the best use of all our resources for continuing the war.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I was not directly concerned with this, but it is an absolute certainty that nothing which was done with regard to the provision of the bases, or the common use of bases, did anything at all which prevented us from giving to the people of Newfoundland the absolute and unfettered right to decide what their own future should be. Indeed, had it not been so, we should not have offered to the people of Newfoundland, as His Majesty's Government have done, the absolutely free choice as to what their future should be.
LORD SEMPILL: I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and also the noble Viscount the acting Leader of the Opposition, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ELECTRCITY (STAFF COMPENSATION) REGULATIONS, 1949
5.5 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, February 23 last, be approved. I think that, in the light of the discussions last week and of the considerable interest which was taken in these Regulations in another place, your Lordships would not think I was carrying out my duties satisfactorily if I were to content myself with a mere formal moving of these Regulations. Therefore, I will attempt in a very few minutes to bring to your Lordships' notice the main features of them; but first I ought to point out that there are two small printers' errors which will be corrected. On page 4, paragraph 4, the third line, the plural "regulations" should be singular; and at the bottom of page 5, in the last line of all, where it says "which the person concern" it should obviously be "which the person concerned."
These Regulations follow very closely indeed three other sets of Regulations which have been before your Lordships during recent months—namely, the National Health Service Regulations which were approved on June 22, 1948, the Transport Regulations which were approved on July 15, 1948, and the National Insurance Compensation Regulations, which were approved on December 14, 1948. On those occasions no question was raised, and as most of the matters which called for discussion under these Regulations call equally for discussion under the others, it is a little difficult to understand why this particular set should have given rise to the amount of controversy which has taken place.
As your Lordships are aware, the Regulations are laid under Section 55 of the Electricity Act, 1947, which provides for
350
compensation to be paid to persons who have lost their emoluments or sustained losses in one way or another as a result of the nationalisation of the electricity industry. The number of persons who are likely to be affected by the Regulations is not very large. It is not possible to say exactly how many there are, but obviously this industry is one which is in a very expanding state and it is only in regard to a few directors and a few rather highly-paid members of the managerial staff who were near to the time that they would have had to retire that the problem of compensation is likely to arise. The great mass of men who have been building up this industry successfully for years past will continue to take part in this great enterprise.
The Regulations are divided into four parts. The first part is, perhaps, of greatest importance, for it concerns entitlement—the conditions which have to be satisfied in order that the claimant for compensation may put forward his claim. Your Lordships will see that the man must have served not less than eight years immediately preceding the vesting date, in order to be able to claim; and that it is not, and never has been, the intention to compensate part-timers. In order to deal with the question of what is a part-timer, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the proviso on the top of page 2, and I hope your Lordships will agree with the criterion established of an average weekly aggregate of thirty hours' work: there was a certain amount of discussion about that matter in another place. The claimant must show a loss of employment or loss of emolument, or diminution of emolument, or worsening of position. Those are the three alternative types of loss which he must show in order to establish his claim. There are a number of other important clauses in Part I, dealing particularly with such matters as the position of people who have been engaged in war service. I think I need not draw your Lordships' attention to them in any sort of detail.
Part II deals with the mount of compensation. There your Lordships will see that, in assessing compensation, the assessing authority must have regard to a number of considerations which are set out in the first paragraph of Regulation 6, such as "the terms and conditions of his employment, including any accrued or

351
prospective pension rights"; the terms and conditions of any employment which he may have taken up, or of employment which he ought to have taken up, and matters of that kind which are obviously very relevant indeed to the question of assessing his compensation. Your Lordships will see that in Clause (4) of this Regulation the ceiling of £4,000 is fixed as the upper limit beyond which the Regulations will not entitle the man to compensation. A good deal of discussion has taken place about that upper limit. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that it has been fixed on two, if not three, previous occasions and has always been part of the Government's policy in respect of this problem of compensation. Then in Regulation 7 of Part II we go on to the question of the immediate compensation which is payable so soon as the man suffers the loss. "Unless within one month" notice is served on him that his claim is rejected, he is entitled to an immediate compensation based on the salary which he has been receiving, which will continue until such time as his substantive compensation, which is dealt with in the next regulation, Regulation 8, has been fixed. The way in which that is done is provided particularly in Clause (3) of Regulation 8, from which your Lordships will see how the compensation will in the ordinary way be decided.
Then, in Regulation 9, we have an interesting and valuable type of compensation called residual compensation, which is provided to safeguard the man in respect of the pension rights which he would have earned if he had not become redundant and lost his position in the industry. There a useful and, I think, generous provision is made by which, in the case of men who are over forty-five, the compensating Board will be able to give them added years, so that they will in that way be able to build up their pension position. Part III deals with the assessment. The assessment will be carried through by the Board, in the first instance, but, if the claimant is dissatisfied with the decision given by the Board as to the amount of compensation awarded, then under Regulation 12 he has the right of appeal. In Regulation 11, provision is made for a review of the substantive compensation because ob-
352
viously the position of the claimant may vary from time to time. It is only right that there should be provision for a review. Part IV is entitled "Miscellaneous." It is largely concerned with a number of miscellaneous procedural provisions which I do not think I need ask your Lordships to look at in detail. I hope that your Lordships will feel that these Regulations are satisfactory Regulations for the purpose of dealing with the compensation which, under the Act, is payable to men who have lost their positions, and that your Lordships will accept them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 23rd of February last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
5.16 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think it is well known and clear to all of us that one cannot compensate a man with money for the loss of a career. It is like a wound. We all know that Dr. Watson's pension did not prevent his shoulder, or sometimes his leg, from aching in the damp autumnal nights. In this way, the money can only be a salve.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt to remind the noble Lord that Dr. Watson recalls later, in the story The Hound of the Baskervilles, that he was reckoned fleet of foot and, although he was out-distanced by Holmes, he outdistanced the little detective.
LORD HAWKE: The noble Lord is quite right, but I might draw his attention to the fact that the mist had only just reached Dr. Watson; and it is a positive fact that the dampness which brought on this disability had not yet affected the fleetness of his foot! We have to see whether, in these Regulations, something like justice is done in the matter of providing compensation for loss of earning power. It always seems to me rather strange that when we speak of justice as administered by the British courts we boast that it is better that a hundred guilty men should get off than that one innocent man should suffer. Yet, when we turn to justice as administered by His Majesty's Treasury, we take the reverse view: it is better that one hundred men should go away with some grievance, rather than that one man

353
should suffer from over-lavishness. Therefore, we have to look at these Regulations in that light, to see what chances of injustice lie lurking in them.
I am going to show your Lordships that there are considerable possibilities of injustice. The noble Lord who expounded with clarity and brevity these extremely complex Regulations told your Lordships about the three types of compensation—immediate, substantive and residual. It seems to me an injustice that, for the purposes of calculating substantive compensation, there should be deducted the amount which has been paid as immediate compensation. To my mind, that is quite unfair. Secondly, in a calculation of substantive compensation, the Board are given a maximum. They are not given a minimum, so that in practice the compensation can vary from nil up to the level prescribed in the Regulations. There is an element of possible injustice. Thirdly, there is a Regulation to the effect that in calculating the compensation the Board must take account, not only of the diligence with which, and extent to which, a man has sought other employment, but of the emoluments which he might have obtained. There, immediately, is a possible element of injustice. The Board judge a man not on the employment that he has obtained but on the employment that he might have obtained. If the Regulation is administered properly I have nothing against it. But there is another possible element of injustice. If the Board were to offer a man a job which he could not accept without great loss of personal dignity, and then claimed that that offer constituted the measure of his worth in the open market, that would be a dastardly trick.
Those are potential injustices. In the matter of the £4.000 limit there is an actual injustice. Why is there a limit? In the Prime Minister's book of self-revelation (I think it is called The Labour Party Perspective) at about page 135, your Lordships will find that inequalities of income are to be redressed through the Budget, not through nationalisation. That is an unexceptional sentiment. But why is it that the Prime Minister can never control his lieutenants? When they have a chance of doing it outside the Budget, they always try to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to this, and said that it was Government
354
policy. If so, the Prime Minister has changed his mind. It may be Government policy, but that does not make it justice.
There is yet a fifth matter, dealing with the question of the whole-time, or one should say substantially whole-time, employees. They will have to prove that for thirty hours a week for the last eight years not only were they working on electrical work but they were precluded from engaging in any other activity in consideration of emoluments. But that is impossible to prove. They may be local authority employees engaged on gas, electricity or water works; they may be the whole-time executive directors. So it is in fact an impossible thing to prove, if the onus of proof lies on them.
Claims up to ten years from the date of loss can be covered under these Regulations, It is to be hoped that the records, which will be the sole proof of these claims and which were formerly the property of the electricity authorities, will be retained by the Board. One further point of possible injustice arises in a comparison of the Regulations with the Transport Regulations. The Minister at some part of the proceedings undertook that a man should receive compensation if he resigned owing to being offered a job not reasonably comparable to his existing job. That is embodied in the Transport Regulations, but it finds no place in these. Why, I do not know. Those are the points of potential or actual injustice.
I have a few points of detail of which I have given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. The first is: What right to compensation, or indeed pension, has a man who left an electricity authority to join a board before the vesting date and who becomes redundant or sick? I miss out my second point. My third is: Why is a limit of 5 per cent. imposed in Regulation 6 (6)? Fourth: What is the meaning of Regulation 9 (3) (b)? I cannot understand it, and the explanation of the Minister in another place did not make it any more comprehensible to me. Fifth: What does Regulation 9 (4) mean? Sixth: Will electricity boards be instructed to refrain from offering men employment on condition that they contract out of their rights to compensation? My seventh point is perhaps a minor one. The definition of war service contains a different series of services from

355
those in the Transport Regulations. This does not include detention as a civilian overseas, service in the fishing fleet or as a member of the Women's Land Army. They may not apply to any individual concerned.
I cannot suggest to your Lordships that you should reject these Regulations. The unfortunates have waited nearly a year for them, and rejection would be a serious blow to them. I think I have said enough to show that everything depends upon the spirit in which they are administered. We can only hope they will be administered with justice, tempered with Christian humanity. That is the least we can hope for these unfortunate people who have been servants of the public and who have lost their careers through no fault of their own.
5.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, before I say the few words I have to say on these Regulations, I should like to clarify my position and to inform your Lordships that I am a dispossessed chairman of several electricity undertakings which were taken over under the Act; that I have no financial interest whatsoever in these Regulations, and that my interest is concerned with the employees of our companies and of other companies and municipalities throughout the country. My noble friend who has just sat down referred to the length of time it has taken to produce these Regulations. I should like to give the actual dates and what happened. The Royal Assent was given to this Act on August 13, 1947. The vesting date was April 1, 1948. During that time constant pressure was put forward in your Lordships' House to try to get these Regulations produced. The first draft of the Regulations was submitted or laid, and withdrawn, on July 10, 1948. To be perfectly fair to the Government, I understand that those Regulations were withdrawn because a good deal of opposition was put forward against them. However that may be, the final draft of the Regulations was not made until February, 1949—a year and a half after the Act was passed. During that time many employees, scattered up and down the country, have lived in a state of uncertainty and anxiety.
356
When the Regulations were withdrawn in July, I understand that the Government consulted certain associations and other organisations with a view to their revision. I should like to know whether those who were consulted approved of the Regulations as they have been laid to-day or whether they were forced to accept them because they were unable to get better ones. Looking at the Hansard report of the proceedings during the passage of the Regulations through another place, I note that even that staunch supporter of the Government, Mr. Palmer, the Member for North Wimbledon—who is a qualified electrical supply engineer and, I presume, in that capacity advises the Government in such matters in so far as he is able—gave utterance to some very severe strictures regarding the effect of certain of the Regulations. Unhappily, Members of Parliament to-day do not always vote as they speak. I should have thought that the Member for North Wimbledon, having regard to the strong expressions which he used, might at least have abstained from voting, and not do as he did—that is, vote for the approval of the Regulations.
These Regulations are such as one would expect from a Government who seize people's property and pay for it at a price which the Government consider proper and sufficient whilst withholding any right to arbitration, as happened in the case of the electricity undertakings. When the Regulations were being discussed in this House, the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, if my memory serves me aright, pressed the Government to frame them on such lines as were customary in regard to compensation paid by private companies or municipalities. He urged that they should not be drawn up upon rigid, bureaucratic lines. To the best of my recollection, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking that that would be done. But, as has been pointed out by my noble friend, a number of these Regulations do not conform to the undertaking which was given at that time.
Take, for instance, the Regulation with regard to the ceiling of £4,000, concerning which there has been some discussion. The noble Lord says that that figure of £4,000 was adopted in the Transport Regulations and other Regulations.

357
Nevertheless, that is not in accordance with the customary practice of the companies of which those men were employees. I would like to put this question—I may say that I can put it in your Lordships' House, although I notice that in another place it was said to be out of order. The present Chairman of the Central Electricity Authority receives remuneration of £6,500 a year. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether that gentleman's compensation, when the time comes, is going to be based on £4,000 a year or £6,500 a year? This is an interesting point upon which many people in the country would like some enlightenment.
Then there is the Regulation 1 (1). Under this Regulation, before any man is eligible for compensation he must have served continuously in the employment, presumably, of the Area Board, or the supply company for eight years. As I read the Regulations, this one is quite rigid. There is no way of getting over it. Apparently there is no elasticity about it at all, no proviso under which a man concerned can escape the eight-year period. Suppose a man has served 7 years and 360 days. Is he not to receive compensation, although his service may have teen as adequate and perhaps even more adequate than that rendered by a man who has served for eight years? That, again, was a point which the Member for North Wimbledon emphasised when criticising the Regulations.
I would like to point out here that the old Electricity Act provided no qualifying period where the question of compensation arose, and for a very good reason—namely, that many of the employees of the electricity supply undertakings came from manufacturing concerns or other engineering concerns and might not have served a length of time which (as in the case envisaged in the Regulations) would have enabled them to claim the eight years' service necessary to receive compensation. I take it from my reading of the Regulations—and if am wrong I shall be very glad to learn that I am—that in these particular cases the Tribunal has no authority to alter that period except if war service has intervened. And even in regard to war service—according to my reading of the Regulations—there are qualifications which might render such service nugatory
358
so far as taking it into account for compensation purposes is concerned.
I can conceive of men who, when they have served only five or six years, and having reached an age of around sixty, are discharged, and who might be very hardly hit if they were not compensated. We know well that when men reach the age of sixty or thereabouts it is extraordinarily difficult, should they lose their jobs, for them to find fresh employment. It is even difficult for men of fifty or fifty-five to find fresh employment of the kind which they deserve, having regard to their former experience and their qualifications. Such men as these, I think, may be very hardly hit when cases of that kind arise.
Then there is Regulation 6 dealing with factors affecting compensation. I do not wish to lake up too much of your Lordships' time arguing about these two Regulations, but I would like to point out that there are cases in which men may be very badly hit by their operation. For instance, in one of the companies with which I was concerned we had an employee aged about sixty-three or sixty-four. He was one of Our best men. After nationalisation took place, three undertakings were merged and he was the unfortunate man who was pushed out, for the obvious reason that he was very near an age where he would retire on a pension. He was not quite old enough for that, so he had to seek other employment. He was offered other employment, but it was of a nature which he could not be expected to accept; consequently he is still trying to find other employment in connection with manufacturing companies. The point I want to emphasise is that in the case of this man, if he had retired in our employ and so long as the company was under private enterprise, although the pension awarded him would not have been sufficient to keep him, because he had not served many years, we as a board would naturally have given him an additional sum to enable him to live after he had retired. I cannot see that elasticity allowed at all under these Regulations.
This House is in a peculiar position. Your Lordships have not the power to amend these Regulations, as my noble friend Lord Hawke has said. It is a very unsatisfactory procedure and I

359
pointed this fact out at the time when we were pressing for these Regulations. It is a procedure which should be altered in these days where so often administrative regulations matter as much as the actual legislation itself. I know the difficulties about such a step, but I wish to press to-day that if these Regulations could have been debated in your Lordships' House, one by one, a number of them might have been amended to the advantage of the employees who are to benefit from them. The same applies in another place. A very short time after Regulations are passed, it is the printed word which will govern their application, and not the spirit.
My noble friend hoped that they will be administered in the spirit in which he himself spoke. I have no faith whatsoever in this spirit. We have had it over and over again from the Government Benches throughout this Parliament—they will see this happens; they will do that; they promise to look at this or that Regulation, and see that it is carried out in that way. It is impossible for any Minister to do that, once he has left office. We do not know how long the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will sit on that Bench or hold his present position. Who is to look after the spirit of the conduct of these Regulations? They will go to the Department, and the Department have no option—I speak as an old departmental official—but to read these Regulations, and if they are uncertain about their application, to submit them to their legal advisers. I have said this on several occasions in your Lordships' House, and noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite may be becoming weary of my doing so, but I repeat it. I can express only a pious hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, so long as he sits on the Front Bench, will see that the spirit of the Regulations is carried out, but I have absolutely no hope whatsoever that they will be after he leaves office.
5.46 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I cannot let the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in introducing these Regulations pass entirely without comment. While grateful to him for his brief explanation, I was rather surprised when he said that he was somewhat
360
puzzled why these Regulations should have evoked so much debate in another place and in your Lordships' House, whereas regulations in other nationalised industries had passed comparatively easily and undebated. The reason is that there are many weaknesses in these Regulations which in debate in another place were exposed on both sides, from the noble Lord's own supporters as well as from the Opposition, and which have been exposed to-day by my noble friends Lord Hawke and Lord Elibank. There are weaknesses and possible injustices, and in these respects these Regulations differ from previous ones.
I am not going to repeat what my noble friends have said. I would put only one point, and that is, the weakness of the system in which we are taking part to-day—the system of legislation by regulation. Compensation by regulation is a comparatively new feature in our legislative life. Up to and including the Water Act of 1945 the principle of compensation was that in a Bill where a reform was taking place in the public interest, where hardship was caused, the whole or part of that hardship was made good; that was provided for in the Act itself. We have departed from the principle of incorporating in the Act the provisions for compensation, and have come to this procedure of compensation by regulation. I think the weakness of that system is shown by this instance.
First, as my noble friend Lord Elibank said, it is eleven months since the vesting date and some eighteen months since the Bill was passed. My first criticism is of the time lag entailed in this procedure. My second criticism is that if the provisions were shown in the Act, they could be debated in detail, and all those concerned would know where they stood. My third criticism is that now we can take the Regulations only in toto. We do not say that the bulk of these Regulations are altogether bad. We say they are bad here and there, and we have tried to point out in a reasonable way where the weaknesses are. I believe it would be for the good of Parliament as a whole—not from any Party point of view—were we able to get down to regulations like these bit by bit, and amend them. I believe the Government would be willing, if that were possible, to accept certain amendments. That is the third weakness.

361
The fourth weakness is that those who are compensated by regulation are really at the mercy of the Executive in the future in that another Minister could alter the regulations, if he so desired. As my noble friend Lord Elibank said, pledges given by a Minister are no doubt given in good faith. But Ministers come and go; the Executive remains, and those affected are left in the hands of the Executive.
LORD CROOK: Is the noble Lord suggesting that the Executive do not go to the Minister for instructions?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: No. The Executive go to the Minister for instructions. Another Minister, however, might have a different personal view from that of his predecessor who had given a pledge in respect of a particular point. A Minister says that, so long as he is Minister, this and that shall not happen. But when he goes a new Minister is told by his advisers: "Here are the Regulations. Your predecessor said so-and-so, but you are not bound in any way by that. You are bound by the Regulations, but within certain limits you can interpret those Regulations as you, the Minister, think fit." I hope I make the point clear. The noble Lord may or may not agree. That is the fourth weakness.
There are many points with which one could deal in detail, but most of them have been adequately dealt with by my two noble friends to-day, and also in another place. I only wish to make the general point of the weakness of legislation by regulation on the four grounds I have put forward. I hope that, though we have to stay by this system, future regulations in other nationalisation measures will be better than those submitted to us to-day—which we approve in general, but wish to criticise in certain particulars—because we have tried to expose their weaknesses.
5.53 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am very sensible of the spirit in which this discussion has been conducted. I can say straight away, in answer to the last observation of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that any criticism of a genuinely constructive nature in respect of regulations will certainly be borne in mind in connection with any further sets of regulations of this type which have to
362
be brought before your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, made a number of points. He said, with some force, that in the case of these Regulations there was a possible element of injustice. He pointed to one or two cases where that might be so. Of course, there is always some possible element of injustice if the Regulations are not administered in a just manner. I thought the noble Lord provided the answer in his final remarks, when he said that it all depended on whether the Regulations were, in fact, administered in a just manner. I quite agree with that. There is the possibility of appeal. If in a particular case—I hope there will not be such a case—the Board make a mistake, a claimant who feels that he has not received justice can appeal to the Referee or Board of Referees, who will go into the whole problem anew and see that justice is done.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I would like to ask if there would be an appeal on the question of the eight years.
LORD CHORLEY: There cannot be an appeal on the question of the eight years. I will deal with that in a moment. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, said that, so far as he was concerned, he did not believe it was possible that these Regulations could be administered with justice—they had to be administered au pied de la lettre. As I understood him, he appealed to me to see that the Department administered them, so far as possible, with justice. But neither I nor the Department have anything to do with the administration of these Regulations; they are administered by the Board. All the Department are concerned with is seeing that a good set of Regulations is established. After that it is for the Board to administer them and, if a claimant is dissatisfied with the decision given by the Board, he then has the right of appeal to the Referee or Board of Referees, which is established by the Minister of Labour, after consultation with the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, criticised the £4,000 ceiling, as have other critics of the Regulations. On the whole, I think the mass of the people in this country feel

363
that a £4,000 ceiling is reasonable. So far as my recollection goes, until this particular occasion there has been no criticism of it whatever. The noble Lord also referred to difficulties of proof, and hoped that the Boards would keep relevant documents, as this problem may arise at any time over a period of ten years. It will obviously be necessary for the Boards to keep the relevant documents, because a claimant will come and make a prima facie case, and it will be for them to show that it is a wrong case. Naturally, they will wish to preserve the evidence on which they can base their case.
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, asked me a number of specific questions, and I am obliged to him for sending them to me beforehand. The first deals with the rights to compensation or pension of a man who has left an electricity undertaking to join a Board before the vesting date, and who thereafter becomes redundant or sick. This question is, to some extent, taken up with pensions. So far as that side of the matter goes, it is not within the scope of this discussion, because the problem of pensions is dealt with under the Electricity Pension Rights Regulations, 1948, which have already been accepted by your Lordships' House. So far as the other side of it goes, it is most unlikely that this particular problem will arise, because only a few key men were taken on—due to the fact that they were key men—between the passing of the Act and the vesting date. It is unbelievable that such men will become redundant. But if they did become redundant, the position arising is quite clear in the Regulations themselves. Regulation 1 defines persons entitled to compensation, and in the fourth paragraph it provides specifically that
"any person taken into the employment of an Electricity Board in the period beginning at the passing of the Act and ending on the vesting date … who but for being taken into the said employment … would have been a person to whom the foregoing paragraphs apply,"
falls within the definition of those who are entitled to claim compensation. Therefore, the point is covered.
I believe the noble Lord said he did not wish for a reply to the second question. The third question is: What is the object of the 5 per cent. mentioned in paragraph (6) of Regulation 6? The answer to that is that it was felt ex-
364
pedient to remove what might be called the petty cases. There might be a substantial number of petty cases which would clog up the machinery and would not be satisfactorily dealt with under this type of Regulation. This 5 per cent. franchise, so to speak, has been used previously—for example, in the National Health Service Regulations—and so far as I am able to judge it has been regarded as a very sensible provision. At any rate, that is the reason why it has been inserted in these Regulations.
The noble Lord's fourth question was in relation to paragraph (3) (b) of Regulation 9. The answer to that is that the Electricity Boards have taken over rights and liabilities under a large variety of pension schemes, and in those schemes there are frequently all sorts of conditions which have to be satisfied in order that the pension may be earned. The Regulation takes the generous view that these conditions shall be deemed to be satisfied. Suppose that one of the Regulations said that a man had to put in twenty years' service before he qualified for a pension, that condition is deemed to be satisfied. But it would be quite wrong to give him a pension on the basis of his actually having served twenty years and, therefore, it goes on to say that the actual assessment of the compensation shall be based on his actual service. That was the difficulty which the noble Lord had.
The noble Lord then asked for an explanation of the meaning of paragraph (4) of Regulation 9. This is the Regulation which deals with the added years in connection with residual compensation. I think the simplest way of explaining this to the House is to take an illustration. Suppose a man were to be declared redundant and, therefore, lose his employment at the age of 55, being a man who was subject to a pension scheme which contemplated his retirement at the age of 60. He would immediately become entitled to substantive compensation, but he would have to wait until he reached the age of 60 in order to receive his residual or pension type of compensation. When that time came he would have lost, so to speak, five years of service which would have qualified for pension. In order to compensate for this the Regulation provides that the Board may give him added years up to the limit

365
of ten years in order to assist him in that way. I think the noble Lord will agree that it is a very reasonable and, indeed, a generous provision.
The noble Lord's next question was: Will the Electricity Boards be instructed to refrain from offering employment to men on condition that they contract out of their rights to compensation? All Boards have been given instructions that they are to carry on their work like model employers, and I am quite sure that no model employer would try to bribe a man out of rights to compensation which he had under an Act of Parliament or under Regulations. The noble Lord also raised a question as to the definition of "war service," which he quite correctly pointed out is slightly different from that in the Transport Act. This particular definition has been worked out in consultation with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and it is thought that it is better than the one to which the noble Lord referred. It is rather wider and gives better scope for the person who has, in fact, been on war service. I think that covers the questions put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, raised a substantial number of points, and I hope I shall be able to touch upon most of them. He complained of delay, and said that these Regulations had been previously laid last summer and withdrawn. That is not so. They were not actually laid until last month. It is quite true that there were discussions last June with various interested bodies, and it was as a result of certain disagreements that there was delay. I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that it is much more important that a good set of Regulations should be produced than for them to be hurriedly brought into effect and found to be full of all sorts of mistakes and inaccuracies. The noble Viscount referred to what he said was a pledge given by the Lord Chancellor. No pledge given by the Government has been broken in any of these Regulations. The Lord Chancellor was simply referring (as an interpretation of law) to the scope of Section 55, but he did not give any pledge as to what would appear in the Regulations when they were subsequently brought before this House.
The noble Viscount spoke of the eight-year period. He referred to the compen-
366
sation of the newly appointed members of the Board, and he wanted to know how much a member of your Lordships' House who became a member of one of these Boards would get if he ceased to be employed. Members of these Boards are not within the scope of these Regulations at all and, therefore, the noble Viscount's question does not come within the limits of this debate. He asked whether something could be done about this eight-year period. The eight-year period represents a considerable concession on the part of the Government which, first of all, intended to have a ten-year period and reduced it to eight years.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord says that is a considerable concession on the part of the Government, but if he refers back to the Electricity Act he will find there is no period named at all. Therefore, where does the concession come in?
LORD CHORLEY: I think your Lordships will all agree that it is obviously necessary that a claimant to compensation should qualify by having had some substantial period of service in the industry. It was thought at first that ten years was the right period to establish, but after discussion the Government agreed to accept eight years. It is always possible to say that a man who is within a few days of eight ears is excluded. If we changed the period to seven years, the noble Viscount would have brought up a similar case of a mar having served six years and 364 days, and so on. I think eight years is a reasonable period to take, and obviously when you have established a period you have to stick to it. The noble Viscount referred to the case of a man who had unfortunately become redundant, and who had had difficulty in finding employment. He had been offered some employment which was not suitable to a man of his ability and position in the industry. If the noble Viscount will look at the Regulations he will see that there is specific reference to "suitable and reasonable employment." If the employment which the man was offered was not "suitable and reasonable," then it can be disregarded by the appeal tribunal in assessing the amount of compensation to which he is entitled.
The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, were directed mainly

367
to the whole problem of carrying out compensation by means of Regulations at all. With respect to the noble Lord, the matters which he raised were of great interest, but I do feel that they are a little apart from the question of whether this particular set of Regulations should be accepted by your Lordships' House. The noble Lord made one point as to the Regulations themselves. He said that the reason why they had been so much canvassed was that they were very different from the Transport Regulations.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Different in some respects.
LORD CHORLEY: It is quite true that in a number of details they are different. But I hope your Lordships will agree that in all the most important matters of principle they follow the Transport Regulations. Of course, the question of legislation by Regulation is a very big one. It seems to me that it would be exceedingly difficult to get into an Act of Parliament the rather complicated type of Regulation which is required nowadays. In simpler times it may have been possible to insert into the Statute itself the actual provisions relating to compensation. But if we were to take the quite bulky set of Regulations which is before your Lordships and insert it in the Statute it would make the legislation much more cumbersome and much more lengthy, and it would, I think, have the very opposite effect to that which the noble Viscount wishes, because it would make the thing much less elastic. We are able to achieve a much greater elasticity by Regulation than if we were to put these provisions into the actual sections of the Statute itself. However, I am quite sure your Lordships would not wish me to discuss in detail the very interesting problems of legislation which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, raised in his speech. It would quite possibly be a suitable subject for a general debate in your Lordships' House but I doubt whether I am qualified or if your Lordships would like me at this late hour to try to go into these difficult but interesting problems. I hope your Lordships will accept these Regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JURIES BILL
6.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Payments in respect of jury service.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, persons who serve as jurors shall be entitled to be paid, in accordance with prescribed scales and subject to any prescribed conditions.—
(b) compensation for loss of earnings which they would otherwise have made or additional expense (other than expense on account of travelling or subsistence) to which they would not otherwise have been subject, being loss or expense necessarily suffered or incurred for the purpose of enabling them to serve as jurors:
Provided that the amount which may be paid to a person by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection in respect of his services as a juror on any one day shall not exceed—

(i) where the period of time over which earnings are lost or additional expense is incurred is not more than four hours, the sum of ten shillings; or

(ii) where the said period of time is more than four hours, the sum of twenty shillings.

VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "additional" to insert, "loss or." The noble Viscount said: I must apologise to your Lordships, and especially to the noble Lord opposite, for not having put down on the Paper a small Amendment which I should like to have considered. It is to Clause 1, page 1, line 14, where, I suggest, it would be well worth while considering whether we should not insert after the word "additional" the words "loss or." Perhaps I may explain what is in my mind. Although I do not expect the noble Lord opposite to accept the Amendment straight off, I should be glad if he could say that he thinks it a reasonable proposal and that it will by sympathetically considered. What I am thinking of is the case of a juryman or jurywoman who is what is called "self-employed," the small farmer or shopkeeper who runs a one-man business and who is taken away from

369
his task to serve on a jury—a very necessary duly which, of course, he has to discharge on behalf of us all. I do not feel sure that that kind of case is adequately covered.
If the person is employed and loses earnings, compensation for loss of earnings is provided for. If the person incurs actual additional expense which he would not have incurred if he had not been summoned to serve on the jury, that case also is covered. But it seems to me that there may well be cases which we should wish to cover which do not fall within the description of either "loss of earnings" or "additional expense." Anyone can think of a case which would seem to be a reasonable one to cover. Therefore I wish to suggest that paragraph (b) at the bottom of the first page should read:
"(b) compensation for loss of earnings which they would otherwise have made or additional loss or expense (other than expense on account of travelling or subsistence) to which they would not otherwise have been subject, being loss or expense necessarily suffered or incurred for the purpose of enabling them to serve as jurors."
I will not argue the matter further, but I move the Amendment for the purpose of obtaining the observations—I do not ask for more—of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. If they are friendly and encouraging observations, I shall be all the better pleased, and then perhaps before the Report stage we can arrive at a conclusion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("additional") insert ("loss or").—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD CHORLEY: Naturally, I have every sympathy with the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. If it be the fact that the words as they now appear do not enable the juryman who is self-employed to be compensated for his loss, then undoubtedly some words of this kind must be inserted. Looking at it after the noble and learned Viscount spoke to me this afternoon, it seemed to me that the word "earnings" might well cover, say a farmer or shopkeeper. But the noble and learned Viscount is so much more eminent in the way of construing legal documents than I am that I would not for a moment like to say that it is necessarily so. If the noble and learned Viscount cares to withdraw
370
his Amendment now, I will have the matter looked at and consult with the draftsman and with my advisers on the matter.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord. He has given me a most reasonable reply. I do not claim any special skill in this matter, as the noble Lord was good enough to suggest, but it does occur to me that, as the Bill is phrased at present, the self-employed person, unless he proves that he has pad money out of his pocket to someone to look after the business while he is away, is completely debarred from obtaining any compensation. I should like to express my satisfaction with the sympathetic reply which the noble Lord has given, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Special provisions as respects assizes for certain counties]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (4) after "county" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:
"or at a court of quarter sessions held for that county"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the succeeding one, and indeed all those which appear in my name, are substantially drafting Amendments. They arise out of the fact upon which I commented in answer to an observation by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, when he said that this Bill was rather more complicated than appeared to be desirable in such a simple matter. I pointed out that there are a number of counties, for instance, which are divided up for the purposes of criminal jurisdiction. One of these is Hampshire, where the Isle of Wight and the County of Southampton form divisions, and the expenses of the Isle of Wight are paid by Southampton and then recovered. In this respect, subsection (4) of Clause 6 deals only with expenses of the assizes at Southampon, and not with the expenses of the quarter sessions—which obviously ought to be covered as well. The Amendment has been tabled in order to ensure that the quarter sessions also are covered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 19, at end insert "or at a court of quarter sessions held for that county").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This is an Amendment of a similar kind, dealing again with bringing in quarter sessions. For technical reasons, into which I do not think I need go, it has been felt that the best way is to remove paragraph (b) from subsection (4), and to add some words in Clause 9, which deals with this same problem of the costs at quarter sessions and assizes. By deleting the whole of this paragraph, and by adding in Clause 9 words which I shall move in a moment, the objective is considered to be achieved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, leave out from ("county") to end of line 34.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Consequential amendments of Local Government Act, 1888]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is the addition to Clause 9 to which I referred a moment ago. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 29, at end insert ("and references in the Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1889 (which contains financial provisions relating to assizes and quarter sessions and other matters for the purposes of which the administrative counties of Southampton and the Isle of Wight are to continue to be one county), to the costs of assizes and quarter sessions shall be construed accordingly").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 20 agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved, after Clause 20, to insert as a new clause:
"A common jury shall henceforward be known and described as a jury; and a common juror as a juror."
The noble and learned Viscount said: Whether my object would be properly achieved by the insertion of a new clause or by some addition to another part of the Bill will no doubt in due course he considered by the noble Lord and those
372
who advise him, if the suggestion contained in my proposal is acceptable. The suggestion was really made in the Second Reading debate by my noble and learned friend Lord du Parcq. He pointed out—and it seemed to me to be a good observation—that it was one thing to classify juries into common juries and special juries when both existed, but that if we were abolishing special juries, as in substance we are doing in this Bill, the proper thing to do was to speak of a common jury as a jury and a common juryman as a juror. I suggest that that is right. So far as I remember, in a criminal court one never speaks about a case being tried by "a judge and a common jury"; it is tried by "a judge and jury." That is because the jury-box is filled with people who are found on what is in fact known as the Common Jury List.
What has to be remembered in this connection is that there are not two separate and opposed lists of people—one set of people who are common jurors and another set who are not common jurors but special jurors. The Common Jury List includes special jurors, and the Special Jury List is only a selection from the larger list of people who are liable to serve on a common jury. If a man is summoned to serve as a juror in a criminal trial at the Old Bailey, he cannot say: "You are not allowed to call on me. I live in a house which is rated at £500 a year." He, like anybody else, has to serve, and quite rightly so. Therefore, as we are making this change, I suggest for consideration that it might be well to consider whether, as we do not have these two species, we should not now call a juryman by the name which is appropriate, without an epithet in front of it. I do not say that the word "common" is at all unclean. All the same, although it may be a matter of argument—I try to be a common man myself—I say it is a good thing to use short language. Really, a juryman is a juryman, and that is all there is to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, after Clause 20, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Simon.)
LORD CHORLEY: Here, again, I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount has moved so eloquently and so

373
reasonably, but it does appear to me that, if we accept this proposal in principle, it may not be possible to make the necessary investigations between now and Report stage. There are obviously various Acts of Parliament, for example, which refer to "common jurors" and "special jurors." There are various Regulations and other things which would be affected by such an Amendment as this. That point will have to be investigated. If we find that it can be looked at and reasonably dealt with in the intervening period, I am sure that my right honourable friend will be prepared to play. However, I cannot give an undertaking. If the noble and learned Viscount will withdraw his Amendment on that understanding, I will see that the question is looked at between now and Report stage.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I cannot ask for more than that. My experience of the draftsman is that he knows everything about where these words occur. I agree that they do occur in the most unlikely places. I am sure that before this Bill was drawn, there was a skilled gentleman who had the whole thing skilfully tabulated. If we can make this change, with an assurance which will come from that gentleman that it will be all right, I think on the whole it will be an improvement. At any rate, it would save a little paper and print. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

RENTING OF CIVIL AIRCRAFT
6.29 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEhad given Notice of the following Question: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in Paragraphs 95 and 96 of the Civil Appropriations Account, 1947–48, the Ministry of Civil Aviation are continuing the practice of renting civil aircraft to operators, and if so, whether hire charges will in future bear economic relationship to the cost to the Department of such aircraft. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I
374
should like to make it clear that I do so both in the interests of those who concern themselves with civil aviation and in the interests of the taxpayers in general. I have based my Question not upon any reports in the Press, but upon the specific items contained in the Civil Appropriations Account.
The Comptroller and Auditor-General, in his comment upon the Account, deals with transactions of the noble Lord's Ministry and expresses himself as not entirely satisfied. He says that he is calling for further information. I am aware that this is in no sense a class of regular trading of the Ministry; otherwise, of course, under certain statutory authority, the results of the Ministry's actions would have to be set forth in a proper trading account. Nevertheless, we are concerned with the revenue received, and the expenditure incurred, by the Department. This comes under two different sets of circumstances, the first being the renting of war-time aircraft adapted to peace-time use. Many of those aircraft have what one might term high book value but very little commercial value. I do not think any exception can be taken, during the transitional period from war to peace, if those aircraft have been let at a seemingly uneconomic figure. But the second set of circumstances deals with the post-war types of aircraft, specifically designed and built for civil use—aircraft such as the Vikings (I do not mean the original type of Viking, but the later types), the Tudors and the big Solent flying boats. They are costly aircraft, and it is difficult to see why they should be hired out now at uneconomic prices. It may be that that is not so. That is one of the purposes of my asking this Question.
One more point that I wish to make on this matter is that what holds good for British civil aviation—namely, hiring out at cut prices—does not necessarily hold good when we rent to foreign users. In the Comptroller and Auditor General's comments, he says that certain foreign users are having aircraft hired out to them, I presume at uneconomic prices. If aircraft are hired out to foreign users at a low price, they will be used in competition with our own aircraft, and it is difficult to see why the taxpayers should first of all be loaded with loss from the rental and, secondly, be loaded with

375
an additional burden due to air transport losses caused through such competition. As regards the future, we should like to know whether the losses are in fact continuing, because they are a form of addition to the civil aviation subsidy granted by the taxpayers, and, as we on these Benches have said in previous debates, we feel it is right (and I think the Government would share this view) that it should be possible for the public to judge the total burden of civil aviation.
I ask the noble Lord to reply to my Question, and at the same time (I do not seek a reply on this now, but perhaps later on, when his officer has appeared in front of the appropriate Committee examining this matter) I hope he will consider publishing a factual table, either in answer to a Parliamentary Question or in the form of a White Paper, as to what aircraft are hired out; on what terms; what was the initial cost of such aircraft, and to whom they are being hired out. Particularly we want to know this in respect of foreign operators. Then, and then only, can we judge whether the policy of the Minister and his Department is correct. I beg to ask my Question.
6.33 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, there is a pleasant custom in this House according to which those who speak from this Box usually begin their remarks by saying how grateful they are to the noble Lord who has initiated any discussion. Sometimes it is sincerely meant, sometimes a trifle less sincerely. But this is one particular occasion when I can say with all my heart that I am grateful to the noble Lord, because he has given me an opportunity of explaining how these heavy sums have been expended and of removing a number of misunderstandings that have arisen. Of course, in addition, I am grateful to him for the tone of his remarks—widely different from the tone of some of the newspaper comments, and more particularly the tone, or lack of tone, in the headlines.
If your Lordships read the headlines of some extremely reputable newspapers recently in regard to this subject, you would imagine that my Ministry were engaged in a series of speculative trading transactions. I am bound to say that,
376
whilst I have the greatest regard for the air correspondents of the main newspapers, I feel that the sub-editors can be described (to use a phrase which comes into this discussion) only as substandard. Some of the sub-editors are perhaps the greatest enemies that the Ministry of Civil Aviation possess at the present time. If only we could tell the contrary to this journalistic circle, in which I believe the noble Lord moves rather more freely and consequentially than I, and clip the wings of the sub-editors who put out these headlines, we should be doing a great service. Be that as it may, and in spite of the lateness of the hour, I must ask leave of the House to dwell for more than one or two minutes on the issues that have been raised.
The noble Lord was good enough to point out that we were not in fact engaged in trading. If we were, we should have to comply with Section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1921. As a matter of fact, it appears that we shall have to comply with that Act in relation to aerodromes in the near future. In order to understand what we have been doing, it is necessary to go back a little way and to review the situation, well known to the noble Lord opposite—much better known at first hand, in fact, than it is to me—that existed at the end of the war. It will be recollected that long before the war had run its course this country had entirely ceased the production of civil aircraft, and towards the end of the war it was clear that unless some preparatory measures were taken, we should at the end of the war be left without any civil aircraft of our own, and without any dollars to buy American aircraft. It was in these circumstances that the Coalition Government—and I am certainly far from criticising them or trying to shirk responsibility for the decision—in 1943 and 1944 prepared plans, based on the recommendations of the Brabazon Committee, for post-war civil aviation.
The policy that was shaped at that time took the form of a two-stage programme—first, the adaptation or conversion of military aircraft and designs; and, secondly, the design and manufacture of new civil types, types that could not be expected to fructify for at least four or five years after the end of the war. The

377
various aircraft that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has mentioned this afternoon, such as the Lancastrian, the York, the Viking and, I might add, the Tudor, though that represents a rather different category, are all either straight conversions of military aircraft or derived from military aircraft in pursuance of the decisions of the Coalition Government. As the noble Lord will recollect, the Coalition Government went further. In their White Paper, British Air Transport, published in March, 1945, the Coalition Government announced their intention to rent civil aircraft to operators, including Commonwealth and foreign operators, in appropriate cases, during the period that interim types had to be used.
As I say, I am not trying to argue this in any Party manner, or to avoid any share of responsibility for myself or my Party, but I would point out that to-day we are discussing the consequences of the policy agreed on during the period of the Coalition Government. The policy, briefly, was based on this conception. Until new post-war types of aircraft were available, it was considered necessary for British operators to use interim or redundant types. Such interim types were expensive and uneconomical and, moreover, would be in use for only a comparatively short period until modern types were available. I stress that second point in particular. In these conditions, no business operating on commercial principles—as the Corporations were enjoined to do—would buy such aircraft outright, except, possibly, at very low prices, and the policy of leasing, where appropriate, was, therefore, decided upon by the Coalition Government.
The present Government have continued to follow that policy where it was considered desirable. Rents were assessed by a pricing committee on which the Departments concerned, including the Treasury, were represented. I would stress that the Departments concerned included the Treasury. This was not some game played in a corner by one particular Ministry; it was all worked out by a most authoritative committee on which the Treasury were represented. They took into account all relevant factors, such as the economic character of the aircraft operationally, its range and pay-load, and the estimated length of its useful life.
378
Broadly, the resulting price was what an operator, working on commercial principles, could reasonably be expected to pay. So much for the question whether the best prices were obtained.
I would turn aside to deal with the two very relevant questions asked by the noble Lord. He wanted to know in what circumstances aircraft were leased to foreign operators. Broadly, they were leased only where the foreign operator was providing feeder lines to our own Corporations. In addition it was usually calculated—indeed, I think it was always calculated—that it would be advantageous to rent. British aircraft, because it was likely that in that way a permanent market for British aircraft would be provided. I believe that in every case both these conditions were satisfied. The noble Lord also asks—and I am grateful to him for not trying to bustle us—whether at some time we could not set out in a White Paper all the facts about all these transactions. When the noble Lord asks me to consider something carefully I never say "No." To do that would be lacking in courtesy and discretion. I will, of course, think over the proposal, but I am bound to say that I am extremely doubtful whether it is possible, or whether in my place the noble Lord would think it possible, to present all the details of what are essentially commercial transactions. But I can tell the noble Lord that we really have nothing to hide. If noble Lords in any part of the House desire to know the details I shall be only too happy to supply them if they will see me in my office at any time.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships with detail, and it would be improper for me to anticipate the outcome of the deliberations in another place of the Select Committee on Public Accounts which will shortly examine both the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Permanent Secretary of my Ministry upon the subject matter of the Auditor-General's Report. In view, however, of the rather glaring misrepresentations in the Press—there have been no misrepresentations by the noble Lord, but, as I say, there have been rather glaring misrepresentations in the Press—I would like to mention briefly the subject of the Vikings which the Auditor-General himself refers to as having been sold for under one-eighth of their cost. Those Vikings were ordered

379
in March, 1945, during the period of the Coalition Government. They were the first batch of civil production of that type, and it is no reflection at all on the good name of the manufacturers to say that, under the exacting conditions of operation on European routes, they proved sub-standard. The production had been deliberately urged and pressed forward so as to enable us to open up the routes with British aircraft at the earliest possible date. In fact, the aircraft met with certain problems new to our designers and constructors, and, as I have said, proved sub-standard. The information gained by the use of these aircraft, though admittedly expensive, led to the design and construction of the later type of Viking aircraft which, we all admit, is one of the most successful types of medium-range, post-war, civil air liners.
Let me pass from the particular case of the Vikings to the broader aspects of the story. Though I think it is fully appreciated by noble Lords, I should like to make it plain to the public beyond all possibility of misunderstanding that the policy pursued by successive Governments in respect to post-war interim and stop-gap types of aircraft was a deliberate policy. Its whole aim and object was the re-birth of British civil aviation as soon as the war was over. No one could pretend—no one who has been concerned with these matters could suppose—that that object could be achieved without cost. But the cost, in so far as it is connected with aircraft, has not been at the expense of the manufacturer. Whoever has had to pay, he has not. On the contrary, the policy enabled the manufacturer to employ at least some of his production potential at a time when a halt was called to the production of military aircraft, and it facilitated the solution of his problems of transition from war-time to peace-time production.
Nor could the cost of commercially uneconomic aircraft be laid on the operators, who, themselves, had an immense task to perform in opening up the routes in the face of international competition. In short, someone had to foot the bill, and that someone has proved to be the Ministry over which I have the honour to preside. It will not be news to any of your Lordships—indeed I think you are well aware of the fact—that the statutory
380
grants payable under the Act of 1946 to the British Airways Corporations were never intended to cover the whole costs of launching British civil aviation in the postwar years. Indeed, both the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and certainly I, myself, in the debate on civil aviation which took place in this House a few weeks ago, were at pains to point out the total costs of developing civil aviation in this country, which are somewhere of the order of £25,000,000 a year. So the Press are really wonderfully badly informed when they talk about the "mystery of hidden subsidies." No one in this House supposes that there is any mystery about the matter. I gladly accede to the invitation of the noble Lord to give as full information as possible at all times concerning those costs.
What of the future? We shall continue to pursue this policy of renting aircraft to operators where it is the only course appropriate to the particular situation confronting us. We shall attempt, where it is practicable and fair, to make hire charges which cover the actual costs, and, in fact, all leases of aircraft now in existence and finally settled accord with that principle. I feel bound to warn the House, however, that in two of the biggest cases, both of which have been mentioned by the noble Lord—namely, those of the Solent and the Tudor IV—I cannot give any guarantee that the costs will be repaid by the charges which can properly be made. As regards the Tudors, as I recently announced, they will be used for freight purposes, in the first instance on the Berlin air lift. It may well prove best and wisest to hire them out for those duties rather than to sell them outright, and the terms of hire will have to be related to the fact that they are to be used for freight and not for passenger carrying on the main airline routes of the world.
The Solent, to which the noble Lord referred, is another interim type that must be hired. The terms of the lease are still under discussion and negotiation. As noble Lords will be aware, this machine was derived from the military Sunderland flying boat. B.O.A.C. are now using it on the Empire routes, and I should like to be able to tell the House that there was every prospect of recovering the costs by renting these flying boats for five years and charging a rent that would recoup the

381
cost in that period. That is what one would like to do in all these cases—charge rent and draw rent for five whole years. Unfortunately, these flying boats are expensive to operate. There can be little expectation that B.O.A.C. will wish to operate them for so long a period, and, clearly, it would be quite improper for me to attempt to force these flying boats upon the Corporation for a longer period than they can usefully operate them. In both these cases, therefore—the Tudor IV and the Solent—I am afraid that I cannot give any guarantee as to the extent to which the costs of the aircraft will eventually be paid back.
I would like to end by expressing my genuine gratitude to the noble Lord for having given me a chance to expound this matter, albeit rather briefly. The details will fall to be considered by the Public Accounts Committee of another place; but on broad policy, with which we have been concerned this evening, I submit with confidence that neither this Government nor their predecessors, the Coalition and Caretaker Governments, have anything of which to be ashamed. Losses have been incurred and, I am afraid, until aircraft of new post-war design have been developed and have taken their place in the air routes of the world, more losses will yet be incurred in carrying out this policy. Meanwhile the costs under discussion are part of the total cost of carrying out the "Fly British" policy, a policy which we all endorse. As part of that policy, these costs are rightly reflected in the accounts of the Government.

NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]
6.51 p.m.
Reported from the Select Committee, with amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the
Rural District of Penybont:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

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

OXFORD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1949
Special Order proposed to be made by the Minister of Fuel and Power on the application of the Oxford and District Gas Company: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at eight minutes before seven o'clock.