On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in order to get through the Votes quickly, they are to be taken together, or must they be taken separately? I want to raise a question on supplementary pensions.

They must be taken separately.

I would like to make some comments on the item of £850 for the Parliamentary Mission to Newfoundland. Will it be in Order to do so on this Vote?

Yes, it should be done now.

I am certain that the Committee will not grudge this sum of £850 for the Parliamentary Mission to Newfoundland, or, as it has sometimes been called, the good will mission. The sum is not large, and it is obvious that the three Members who journeyed to Newfoundland did not indulge in riotous living, at any rate at the expense of the Government. Nor can it be suggested even by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan), that there are any charges of corruption. This expenditure, however, is an expenditure of public money, and we must scrutinise it as carefully as we would a larger sum. Therefore, I want to ask one or two questions.

"My words fly up, my thoughts remain below."

I should warn the Committee that we cannot, on this Vote, which is very narrow and applies only to the actual visit; discuss the whole question of Newfoundland self-government.

I understood from the remarks of the Leader of the House that we were to debate this broadly. It seems to me that we must try to discover what was in the mind of the Dominions Office which resulted in this expenditure, small as it is. I will try to reduce my remarks because I know that there is a great deal of business before the House. I am sure, however, that the Committee will not grudge a few minutes to the discussion of a distressed part of the Empire. With your permission, Mr. Williams, I will put this last point, about self government. After 10 years—I will reduce it to one sentence—it is small wonder that those people have lost the instinct to use the vote.

I do not really think that the question of fish from Iceland arises under this Vote.

In saying that we must not talk about fish I assume, Mr. Williams, that you do not mean fish that comes from Newfoundland but fish that did come from Iceland?

No, I do not think we can talk about fish from Newfoundland either.

Then I will leave the fish and come on to the other part of my argument. I hope that the Dominions Office will not think that Newfoundland was pleased with the Debate which took place following the return of the three M.P.'s, because comments in the Newfoundland Press have been very caustic. The Government may say that the Press does not necessarily represent the point of view of Newfoundland, but owing to the Government's policy, there is no other form of expression for that distressed area, that impoverished island, that dispossessed part of the Empire. The Press is the only voice, and it has been caustic. Quite frankly, it does not believe that the Dominions Office mean business. I will bring these remarks to a close because I see that my next point might bring a reproof. [An hon. Member: "What is it?"] This is what I want to say. To those who were born in the Island and to whom these traditions of human liberty, justice and self-government—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member again, but we have already had a Debate on this matter, as he has himself just informed the Committee, and we cannot so enlarge this Supplementary Estimate, which is a very simple one, as to discuss the whole question of human liberty and things of that kind, much as we might like to do so.

I realise, Mr. Williams, that I have made great demands on your courtesy and judgment, which are both very great, and therefore I must drop any expression of devotion to the Imperial ideal at this moment. But it did seem to me that the hon. Gentlemen who went to the Island did so to try to discover what human liberty, justice and self-government meant to those people. With great respect, I believe that is why they went out. They came back and reported that self-government does not mean to those people what it means to the rest of the Empire. It seems to me that this is in Order, because if we are to send M.P.'s away from their jobs here—

If the hon. Gentleman states that the payment of this money enabled these three Members to come back and to explain certain things, that is in Order as an illustration. It would not be right however to carry that illustration on into a wide discussion as regards the principles of liberty. To say merely that they came back strengthened in their ideas of liberty, would be in Order.

On a point of Order. Certain public funds have been spent by the Government in selecting three Members of this House to go to Newfoundland. For what purpose was this done? There must be some reason. Was it to give a holiday to three Members of Parliament? In fact, those three Members worked very hard, and no one took exception to their going out, but surely we are entitled to ask, on the merits of their visit, what it was that induced the Government to send them, and to raise the question of the merits of the report that they made. Otherwise, the expenditure remains unexplained.

That seems to me to be what we have been listening to for some while. It was only when the hon. Gentleman got beyond the merits, that I intervened.

It seems to me that I am in Order in saying that either these men went out for some purpose or for no purpose, that they did find this decline in values, and that they came back and reported to this House. We are not opposing the expenditure for that discovery, but we have to say: Was it worth while? Are there to be more? If these great and fundamental facts can be ascertained only by sending Members of this House abroad, it seems that the depopulation of this House, which is already very great, will be still greater. Although the hon. Members concerned do not come under the charges mentioned yesterday. [An HON. MEMBER: "One went to the House of Lords."] There is a suggestion that one went to another place, but I am sure that that was for very long service and for other reasons not of a material character.

We are asked here to agree to an expenditure of £850, and we are entitled, as a right, to ask for what purpose the money is to be expended. That is clear. If we are precluded from asking that question, obviously the privilege of hon. Members has been rudely shattered. I fully agree, and this is well known to all hon. Members, that when a Supplementary Estimate is presented to the Committee, the Debate is circumscribed. We cannot therefore discuss wide questions of policy, and such is not our intention.

I do not wish to delay the Committee on this Supplementary Estimate, which offers only very limited a way of approaching this important subject, but as hon. Members know I have been interested in the matter and I look on Newfoundland as having been badly treated. I protested against the sending of this good will mission. If the Committee had listened to me at that time, we would have been £850 in pocket which in these days—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I understand, says that is nothing. Since the right hon. Gentleman reached his present high position, nothing that has less than six cyphers after it interests him. This Commission came back and made a report—more or less. The House has had no report, but the members of the Commission, knowing my interest in the matter, were good enough to submit to me their individual Reports. I read right through the whole lot.

Tell us what they contained.

It would be rather difficult to compress. But they were all interesting; they showed that there had been much travelling on the spot, and a keen interest taken in the subject. But it is suggested that it would take about 10 years before this Dominion could have self-government restored. It is very like the African policy: we are all in favour of the Africans having a greater share in democratic government, but they must go through a period of training and preparation first. That may be good enough for Africans—I do not know, for Africans seem to me as competent to manage the affairs of their own country as we are to manage ours—but it does not seem the right policy for the Newfoundlanders, who, as far as I have had contact with them, strike me as a very fine and intelligent body of people.

That is possibly getting a little wide.

It was in answer to the hon. Member's remark.

But the hon. Gentleman caused the remark to be made.

I want to ask whether, in addition to sending the good will mission, which reports that political activities should be stimulated there, anything organised is being done to stimulate political activity and interest among the very large number of Newfoundlanders at present in this country. I ask specifically, whether the Dominions Office will make arrangements for me to go round giving addresses, on my own line of political thinking, in the various Newfoundland camps in this country? If my type of political philosophy can secure representation in this House of Commons, it is good enough to be heard by Newfoundlanders in this country. If the Government are genuinely interested in carrying out the recommendations of their good will mission I am prepared to play my part in helping to stimulate political interest in the minds of Newfoundlanders at present resident in this country. I do not care if the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary follows me up with a course of lectures, to neutralise any damage I have done, provided that he goes on the same lines as I would with my lectures, and, after speaking, asks whether the men have any questions to put.

Is there anything about oranges in the Newfoundland Report?

No, there is a greater attachment to lemons. I have said before and I repeat that I do not mind the boys having their fun. I have never grudged any Member of this House any bit of light entertainment, but do not let us go to the extent of regarding this sort of thing as a little bit of patronage—something to tie a man more securely to the chariot wheels of the Juggernaut car which operates in this country.

Something said by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has passed completely unchallenged. He said that missions from this House of Commons or this country, should either be official or unofficial. He went on to say that, if they were official, they should be paid for and a proper report should be rendered, and if they were unofficial, they should not be paid for. If that doctrine is accepted, it follows that semi-official goodwill Missions by Members of this House would be completely out of place and out of Order. I feel that the cementing of the Empire to which the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) attaches proper importance, would suffer greatly. I believe that the future of all relationships between this House of Commons and the countries in the Empire, depends largely on semi-official contacts. There was an excellent goodwill mission to China. I hope the hon. Member for Seaham will think better of it, and will not condemn, out of hand, these unofficial bodies. I am not going so far as to say that visits of Members of Parliament to part of the Empire might necessarily impress the Empire with our merits. They will, in many cases do so; in others, they will not. What I am certain of is that the effect on this House of Commons of visits by Members is valuable.

May I inquire—I have no knowledge on the subject—whether the Chinese mission was paid for by Parliament?

Yes, but not now.

Yes, it was. I attach great importance to these semi-official good will missions, and if it is laid down that no mission may go out from this House unless on the lines of a Royal Commission, I believe you will frustrate a great deal of the good will, and render void, much of the good work that may be done by Members of the House of Commons.

May I be allowed to turn to another item in this Vote? I would remind the Committee, first on this question of failure of reporting on behalf of the Newfoundland Mission, that, some years ago, there was a Commission in the West Indies. Members of the House of Commons were on it, but we never had a report from that quarter, either. I think the Government published the recommendations and have carried some of them out, but I do not think the Commission's report has ever been issued.

That comes under another Vote.

I am glad to have that assurance from the Chair; I will probably get an opportunity later of raising the point. May I say, in conclusion, about these Supplementary Votes, that I hope the Government will not adopt the policy of granting lump sums of money to societies and letting them use Government money as they please without some check by Government auditors on those sums? I do not want Government auditors to pursue and check the spending of their own money, but where Government grants are given—perhaps £10,000 or £20,000—I think the House of Commons is entitled to know how those subsidies are being spent.

If I am in Order in doing so, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State whether Members of the Mission to Newfoundland made it clear, either to the people of Newfoundland or to the House of Commons, what this loan, without interest, really represents? Does it represent a loan in the ordinary sense of the term, or does it represent a balance unfunded in that form, for convenience pending a final financial arrangement?

Everyone will agree that the £850 in the matter of Newfoundland was probably well spent but we want to see that it is not wasted. Other hon. Members have spoken of the value of a report on the political conditions in Newfoundland. It struck me that perhaps the greatest value of the visit of the three hon. Members was the practical proposals they put forward with regard to the roads, the tourist industry, the fishing industry and so forth of Newfoundland. It would be unfortunate if, having spent £850, and having sent these hon. Members all the way to Newfoundland and brought them back, and having heard their report, nothing should happen at all. There is a feeling at the moment that the Government have forgotten the mission and do not seem likely to take any action on the report. I hope that my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, will be able to say that some of the practical proposals that have been put forward by the three hon. Members, are receiving the consideration of the Government and that something will be done about them.

I agree with the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson) that, on the whole these visits of a good will character which are undertaken from time to time by Members of this House to the Colonies and the Dominions, do a certain amount of good. It is important that when the delegations are chosen they should be as representative as possible of the House of Commons and of the life of this country. I understand that there is to be a good will mission to the Dominion of Australia in the near future representing the Mother of Parliaments. I think that will do a great deal of good. These commissioners—however they are styled—cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be referred to as "forgotten men" such as those we were discussing yesterday. These three commissioners are the men who came back. The unfortunate part about it is that, when they came back, they did not issue a report of what they learned, saw and experienced during their visit to Newfoundland.

I am doing nothing of the kind. The hon. Member does not realise that there are five different independent States under the Statute of Westminster, and I represent only the Government of the United Kingdom.

I realise that, but, on Newfoundland, the hon. Gentleman speaks in the House of Commons for a Dominion which is not, at present, a member of the Commonwealth of British nations.

I speak on behalf of Newfoundland in the House of Commons.

Would the hon. Member suggest to me that the great Dominion of Canada has no interest in the statement he is to make to-day?

I think the Debate is again getting rather wide. This Debate is definitely connected only with the £850 required on this Vote, and it would not be in Order to discuss the interests of other Dominions, as they are not providing a share of that money.

I will content myself by saying that the Under-Secretary is to reply and that his reply will be of tremendous interest to Newfoundland and Canada, and I believe, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said, it will be of tremendous importance to the coming Conference of Dominion Prime Ministers, vis-à-vis the vital question of civil aviation. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the specific question of civil aviation referred to by the hon. Member for Bridgeton is to be considered by the coming Conference of the Dominion Prime Ministers to be held in May, according to the newspapers. The hon. Member for Bridgeton has let the cat out of the bag. If there is one reason why this report is not being given to the House of Commons, is not being made a Government report, and is not being published, it must be that Newfoundland will be the greatest civil aviation prize in the post-war world.

It has been given away.

The hon. Lady says that it has been given away.

It has.

It has been said in the House of Commons and elsewhere that in the years immediately after the war, it will not be possible to arrange for routine services from America to this country without touching down at the island of Newfoundland.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member but really postwar civil aviation does not come under this Vote.

I was merely saying, following the hon. Member for Bridgeton, that it is the great prize and perhaps that is the reason why the report has not been made public. At least I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make some statement with regard to this matter and tell us whether Newfoundland is to be the great future terminus of civil aviation and whether it has a great future in this respect. Is it not regarded, not only by Canada and by this country, but perhaps by America, as a great international civil aviation terminus and, therefore, of tremendous importance to the future of civil aviation? I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should be anxious about this Debate. If there has ever been a Debate in which the Government have got off lighter than they have in this Debate, I would like to hear of it. The Government have had no opposition on this policy; they have got away with it. If my hon. Friend had done what, I believe, he wanted to do, if he had had the time or if it had been in Order, to quote the speeches of the Deputy-Prime Minister in the House of Commons, and the present Minister of Aircraft Production in the past, on this problem, no Government, whatever its power and constitution, would have got away with this.

The hon. Member could not have done that, because it would have been out of Order.

I must be in Order in suggesting that the hon. Member would have been out of Order, and that that was the reason why he did not raise it. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) referred to the future organisation or constitution of Newfoundland from an economic aspect, which is, obviously, an important question. These are important problems, and if the Government give us narrow replies within the context of this or that section of the old British Imperialism, then there is no future for the British Commonwealth of Nations as such. If the Dominions Office give a lead in a new democratic conception of the British Commonwealth of Nations we shall give a lead to all the young men who are fighting for and defending it to-day to the "brave new world"—which was apparently merely the carrot before the donkey in 1940. Those young men will see that the British Commonwealth of Nations faces the future, within the structure of the United Nations, as a great and powerful unit. Unless we give that lead, these Debates will become interesting to fewer and fewer Members in this House, until the British Commonwealth of Nations, as we know it, will cease to be an important political factor as such in our discussion of international affairs.

The speech of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) would give the impression that the Government have taken no initiative in this matter, but I would point out that it was on the initiative of my right hon. Friend the present Lord President of the Council that this mission went out at all. There was very little interest in the subject in this House and in this country or, indeed, in Newfoundland itself, until my right hon. Friend went there himself soon after he became the Secretary of State for the Dominions.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Surely the constitutional and economic difficulties of Newfoundland have been known to hon. Members for many years.

Of course they have, but I am saying that until my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council went out there a few months after he became Secretary of State, there had been no Debates on the question in the House of Commons for many years. The initiative came from my right hon. Friend and from the Dominions Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) asked whether this was the beginning of a process of education in Newfoundland. That was one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Lord President said in the course of his speech that he was asking my hon. Friends to go out to Newfoundland in order to initiate interest in political affairs. The hon. Member asked also whether they went there to thank the people of Newfoundland for their services. Yes, Sir, they did thank the people of Newfoundland for their services; they made a number of speeches during their tour in which they thanked the people, not only for their financial help, but for their services in the Air Force and in the Army and, particularly, in the Navy. When I discussed this question in the Debate on the Address before Christmas, I pointed out that the whole purpose of this visit was to arouse, if possible, some interest on the part of the people of Newfoundland on the question of governing themselves once more. They have received, of course, no invitation to the meeting of Prime Ministers. It is a meeting of Prime Ministers and not an Imperial Conference, as my hon. Friend suggested.

I am glad to have that clear statement, because from various statements made by various members of the Government it was not clear whether it was a Dominions Conference or a meeting of Prime Ministers. But is the hon. Gentleman telling us that this subject is not to be discussed at this meeting?

Is it really the determination of the Government that this island, which was a Dominion for almost 70 years, is not to be invited to this meeting; that it is to be exclusively for the solvent Dominions and not for this distressed area?

The position is quite clear. This is a meeting of Prime Ministers of the self-governing Dominions who control their own foreign policy.

Who will represent the interests of Newfoundland at this meeting, because Newfoundland must be discussed?

My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions will represent the Island of Newfoundland during the conversations and if any question arises in those conversations about its future.

He will be the trustee in bankruptcy?

No, he will not be the trustee in bankruptcy. The hon. Member asked whether we had taken any action on the Report of the three Members. The answer is that we have done so. We have already sent a despatch to the Commission of Government in Newfoundland and asked them to go into all the questions which the hon. Members raised in their Reports, and we hope to take action in due course.

We have not seen the Report.

The hon. Member for Wood Green said there had been a certain amount of caustic comment in the Press, and also expressed the view that the Press afforded the only means of expressing public opinion in the island. I have no doubt that the hon. Member lays particular stress on what the Press says the Government should do, but the Government have made up their minds from other sources. During the Debate before Christmas the three Members made it clear that public opinion in the island was not in favour of the immediate restoration of self-government, and I do not recall having seen any very caustic comment. In fact, I have seen very little comment in the Newfoundland Press with regard to the questions raised during the Debate. As I said before, the Dominions Office initiated this mission and they propose to act upon the views it expressed. The hon. Member for Seaham asked whether the mission was of an official character. Yes, Sir, it was of an official character. He went on to say that it was important that the Report should be laid before this House, that it was very improper if three Members of the House were sent out by the Government that they should not lay their Report before the House. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. That would create an intolerable situation. If his view prevailed it would be impossible to send any Member of the House of Commons on any mission of a confidential character. I think he will agree that that would be an unfortunate position.

My hon. Friend is raising a very important issue. When the delegation were sent out, were they told that they were expected to undertake certain inquiries and that their Report would be confidential?

No, they were not informed that they should make a Report. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said quite clearly that they were not being asked to make a Report.

Why were they sent?

They were sent out on a good-will mission in order to report to my right hon. Friend personally their views on conditions in the Island and what they thought should be the form of the future government.

Is the Minister suggesting that the report of this mission is of such a character that this Committee cannot see it?

I did not suggest anything of the kind. As a matter of fact, there are three Reports and not one Report. They were reports to the Secretary of State and not to the House of Commons, and quite obviously a Report to the. Secretary of State is couched in quite different terms from what it would be if it were to be laid before the House of Commons and open to the public.

This is an astonishing device.

This is rather important. We have already had from the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) a resumé of what at least one of the Reports contains. If the reports were confidential were the members of the delegation informed that they were not to show other hon. Members their conclusions?

That was not the position. I think the Prime Minister explained, in reply to a Question, that they were at liberty to show their reports if they thought fit, but there is a good deal of difference between showing a report to a colleague in the House of Commons and publishing it to the world.

Could copies of the Reports be placed in the Library?

I think it would be better if the position were left as it is at the present time.

Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State or the Lord President of the Council told the House of Commons that hon. Members themselves were authorised to show those Reports to hon. Members—I have seen two of them—and, at the same time, that when a Debate took place in the House they were at liberty to tell the House of Commons what their recommendations were? In fact, in the Debate they did tell the House, and it is in Hansard, what their recommendations were.

On a point of procedure. If quotations were made from a document, Mr. Williams, are we not entitled to ask for the document to be laid? The difficulty is that an official delegation is sent out; references have been made to its Report and at the same time it is not official, from the point of view of getting papers laid.

I think the answer is that, if a direct quotation is made it would have to be laid, but that when it is a case of making a speech based upon summaries of opinions expressed in it, papers need not be laid.

Has not the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) already informed the House of Commons in almost precise language what one of the reports contained? I know the Chair is in a difficulty, because this is a most unusual situation. Three Members of the House of Commons were sent out as an official delegation to make a Report to the Minister who sent them out. Reference was then made to the Reports that they have given to the Minister and yet we are not to see the Reports—well, some Members have seen them and some have not. This is creating a muddle in Parliament.

It appears that the possibility of our seeing the report depends upon whether we happen to be, personally, friendly with the Members concerned. If those documents are available to anyone, they ought to be available to all.

May I say that I had a particular friend in this delegation and I have seen a copy of the Report. I do not know how far this is a private document and how far it is not. All I know is that the individual Member left the Debate with a complete sense of frustration and said: "For Heaven's sake have a look at it yourself." I am in a difficult position.

I think we are all in rather a difficult position. Under Rule 154,

"If a Minister of the Crown quotes in the House a despatch or other State paper which has not been presented to the House, he ought to lay it on the Table."

Are we entirely correct in saying it is an official document? Is it not something in the nature of a traveller's letter? As far as I can understand it, the members of the delegation were not under any obligation to submit anything in writing at all. They could have done it by word of mouth.

I said it was more or less an official document. It is hard to define absolutely what is an official document. I do not think I need go further on that point, but I would like to say that if the exact words of a document are officially quoted, then it should be laid on the Table. But some reference to a document by Members, as part of the argument of their speech, is very different.

I fully appreciate your difficulty in the matter, Mr. Williams. I realise that it is not possible for you to say that this comes under the heading of a State paper and therefore ought to be laid on the Table of the House. It is a unique situation as far as I know. Three Members of this House were sent out to Newfoundland and came home and presented a report to the Minister. I am using the word in a broad sense since they made three reports to the Minister. They then made some references to their reports in the House and some Members have seen them. The Parliamentary Secretary has just informed us that certain of the recommendations contained in the report have been carried out but we do not quite know what they are.

I did not say they had been carried out.

Well, despatches have been sent about them. This oblique way of making reference to a document which is half-hidden and half-public shows the undesirability of the whole procedure. Would it not be much simpler, and in the public interest, if the documents were laid on the Table for all hon. Members to inspect? Surely there is no State secret about them, because they have been quoted from in the House and shown to hon. Members. How, then, is it improper to lay them on the Table of the House so that we can all have the same advantages as some hon. Members now possess?

On a point of Order. Would it be in Order for me to move to report Progress, in order to give the Government the opportunity of considering the despatches further? We are asked to vote £850 but how can I, not having been allowed to see these documents, make up my mind whether we have had £850 worth of value?

No, the hon. Member cannot do so in the middle of a speech.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said the report is half public and half private. I do not think he is giving due consideration to the discretion of Members of the House and, so far as I know no hon. Members have actually quoted from the report. Not that that would affect the case but, as I have said before, the delegation was not asked to make a report when they went out on this particular mission. They were asked to report to the Secretary of State and that is the action which they took. It is true they put their views in writing.

May I interrupt? Even if the papers cannot be laid, what is the serious objection to placing the reports in the Library, where they would not be accessible to the public but only to Members of this House, upon whose discretion the hon. Gentleman has said he can rely?

There is no reason why they should be placed there. I do not think we need depart from the procedure followed so far, by which hon. Members have shown their reports to a certain number of their colleagues in the House.

That is the very point. We are asked to vote £850 for this mission. Some hon. Members have disclosed the fact that they have seen the reports. Do I understand that my hon. Friend is inclined to agree to the suggestion that copies should be placed in the Library; or is he declining absolutely to allow hon. Members to see reports which are now in writing, which have been presented to the Minister, and have already been discussed in the House and yet asking us to agree to the expenses?

The reports have not been discussed in the House.

Then how can my hon. Friend ask this Committee for the funds, if he is not prepared to tell us what was in the reports?

Give us a reason.

I was unable to be here at the start of this discussion, but I gather that hon. Members are under some misapprehension. When I suggested sending out three Members of the House to Newfoundland, I expressly said that I did not propose that there should be any report, and I sent out these Members in order that they might make themselves acquainted with conditions in Newfoundland and in order that we should have hon. Members in the House who had that particular knowledge to assist me—as one who had only been able to make a short voyage to the Island—to see the general picture. I explained that there was no question of making an official report. Members of the delegation were free to give me anything they liked of their impressions, either verbally or in writing. They were free to do exactly as they pleased without being under any of the usual restrictions in visiting another country. The matter was informal, and they duly came back and sent in three accounts. Those were not in any sense official reports. It would be quite improper, from the point of view of the Members concerned, and of those whom they met and talked with on this basis, that, thereafter, these should be made official documents. As I understood at the time, the suggestion of sending out these Members was very generally welcomed and the House was informed that there was no question of the delegation being anything in the nature of a commission making an official report. Therefore the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is quite wrong in thinking that in older to know whether this is a just amount to be spent or not, he must see all the reports, because the object of sending these Members out was not to have an official report.

They made one.

That really did not happen. They did not make either an official report or an unofficial report to this House; they did give in writing their observations to me, but that is not an official report at all. The hon. Member based his point on the fact that some money was being spent and that he could not judge it, unless he knew these reports. He would be quite right if a commission had been sent out to make a report, but the delegation was not sent out to make a report. The report they made to me was incidental to their verbal communications to me.

May I put this point? I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that this delegation was not sent out to make a report. The fact that the members have done so, is their responsibility and has nothing to do with us. Suppose one accepts that. Nevertheless, we have the fact that the minds of some Members have been informed by reading that report or reports, whereas the rest of us are completely uninformed, although we are asked to vote this money. I can understand that when one orders goods, the goods may not come up to scratch, but we have never had a sight of the goods.

The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman appears to be quite reasonable. It is clear that this delegation was not regarded as official. Still, he must recognise that there were peculiar circumstances which arose after the return of the delegation. They, themselves, asked for a Debate. They intimated to their friends that they were anxious to have a Debate, and they also intimated—this I know personally—that they were anxious to disclose the report or reports submitted to my right hon. Friend. There is no doubt about that. It is well known. Then what happened? They showed the report to certain hon. Members, but other hon. Members, including myself, have not been able to see the report. Why should there be this distinction? All hon. Members are being asked to vote this money. The Government are not going to a few hon. Members who have been privileged to see the report and asking their consent. They are asking the consent of all. Surely, it is reasonable—as reasonable as the explanation which has been given us—that we should say: "If we are to vote this money at any rate put the report in the Library."

I should like to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. He used the words "informal" and "unofficial." There is this difficulty. It has been said that the reports will not be laid upon the Table and several speakers have said that some hon. Members have been privileged to see the reports, while others have not. I want to ask this question. To what extent is it incumbent on the people who write reports to give copies to any hon. Members who ask for them? The three hon. Members having been sent out to Newfoundland, it is quite right to vote money for their expenses. Nobody grudges that. But reports having been made, is it incumbent on the members of the mission to let their colleagues in the House see those reports?

I raised the general question because it seemed to me that we were becoming involved in the question of laying State papers on the Table. What the right hon. Gentleman has said does influence me at least. If it is the case that the hon. Members who went out on this mission communicated the conversations they had in the places they visited, and the views expressed to them, on the understanding that their reports were confidential to the Minister, that seems to throw an entirely different light on the matter. It would be extremely unfair, when confidences had been obtained, to broadcast them to the world. If the report was intended to be confidential, it seems to me that this Committee cannot now break the confidence of the people who made the report. But I do think that the whole procedure ought to be carefully reviewed.

I think the Committee is fully seized of the position. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), it is not incumbent on me to lay down what is the duty of individual Members. I explained that one of the reasons for sending the mission was that we thought that, when they came back, they would be able to help hon. Members to come to a decision on a very difficult and complicated question. I really must leave this point to the discretion of those Members, but I do say, quite definitely and clearly, that this is not an official report that should be laid as a State paper.

Does not the misunderstanding seem to have arisen from the use of the word "report"? The use of the word "report" gives the impression of something official. The right hon. Gentleman used the word "account," which I thought was very suitable, for the information which these visitors to Newfoundland gave to the Government. In those circumstances, these Members have desired to let other Members of the House participate in the information, but the word "report" which has been generally used through this Debate is a total misnomer, and gives a totally wrong impression of the information.

The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) said he was quoting from one of the reports that there was to be a period of 10 years before there was any question of the restoration of self government in Newfoundland. That is not the view of His Majesty's Government. As I said in my speech before Christmas, it is the intention of the Government to take up this question immediately after the war, and in fact to take steps, now, to ascertain the views of the people of Newfoundland, so that they may be in a position to decide for themselves what form of Government they wish to set up. I made it quite clear that we would not intervene in any way so far as their decisions were concerned. It was suggested that some form of convention might be the best means of coming to a decision. There is no justification for the statement that the Government wish to wait 10 years. Then the hon. Member said something with regard to the intelligence and character of the people of Newfoundland. I entirely agree with what he said, and I believe we shall be able to arrive at some means by which they shall have self-government and shall be able to make Newfoundland a happy country under their own rule. He also made an offer to speak in the camps in North Scotland. I should like to consider his offer, but this is a question which concerns more political parties than one. He also raised the question of the loans made to this country. I should like to make it quite clear to the Committee that the loans made are the surplus of the Newfoundland revenue, and they can be recalled at any time.

How did they manage to get a surplus?

The reason why they have a surplus at the present moment, is due to the fact that a great deal of work has been done on American and Canadian bases.

The Minister himself seems to be getting rather wide of the question.

I would like to assure the Committee that the loans can be repaid at notice.

How does the surplus come here—in what form? Do they send their goods?

I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Major Thorneycroft) whether we were taking any action on the views expressed by the three Members, and I can give an assurance that we are. I should like to turn for a moment to the question of the Empire Societies War Hospitality Committee. The Committee was formed at the outbreak of the war to co-ordinate welfare work and hospitality for men and women in the Forces from the Dominions and Colonies. The work of the Committee has greatly increased since the outbreak of war, and a number of clubs have been established in various parts of the country. An extra £5,500 in addition to the £24,000 already provided for these services is now required. This Committee is under the Chairmanship of Lord Milne. The accounts of the Societies are not audited by the Government but they are audited by outside accountants.