HC Deb 16 February 1937 vol 320 cc1139-48

Order for Third Reading read.

10.53 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Marquess of Hartington)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

This is a short and simple Bill, and it will be unnecessary for me to occupy the time of the House for more than a few moments in view of the fact that the Bill has been discussed on the Financial Resolution, Second Reading and subsequent stages. The reason for this Bill being before the House is that the present Bill, under its terms, would expire in the course of the next three months, and if it did expire the Government would be unable to take any part in assisting migration. Although there may be minor differences, the House is generally agreed that the Government should be able to take part in assisting migration, and it is necessary for that purpose that the Bill should be renewed. When the question of renewing the Bill came before the Government, it was decided to make two alterations, both of which have been the subject of some criticism. The first Amendment is that the money which the Government is entitled to spend is reduced from £3,000,000 per annum to £1,500,000. Disappointment has been expressed in some quarters that this reduction has been made, but I think the House will understand that the first Bill was in the nature of an experiment, and no one quite knew what would be the necessary expenditure.

We have now had some years experience, and we know that in the maximum year, in which migration took place on a very considerable scale, the actual expenditure was just over £1,250,000. I think the House will probably agree that close budgeting, where it is possible, is desirable, and in putting forward the figure of £1,500,000 we are putting forward a figure which we believe to be sound and reasonable and to have some relation to the practical possibilities. The criticism has been made in some quarters that it would have been desirable to maintain the old figure, or even to increase it, but in my submission that would only have brought us, as politicians, into ridicule and contempt. It is more sensible to deal with the actual possibilities, and we are now dealing with the real figure which we may require to ask Parliament to expend in a given year.

The other alteration is that the Government seek power to increase the contribution which they make to voluntary societies from a 50–50 basis to a 75–25 basis. This power is being sought because it has been found that in certain cases societies doing admirable work have been curtailed in their activities, especially during the lean years which have just passed, by the restriction of subscriptions received by them from the charitable public. The excellence of the work that is being done by a voluntary society is not necessarily proportioned to the appeal which it makes to the public, and it is the case that societies have found their excellent and beneficial activities curtailed by the fact that they cannot raise so much from the public. In that case, however much the responsible people may wish to assist them from Government funds, they have been limited by the Act of Parliament. Certain hon. Members have suggested that my right hon. Friend had some sinister motive—that perhaps he wished to use this extra 75 per cent. for kidnapping children and condemning them to a life of drudgery overseas. I do not believe that he had any such motive, but, even if he had, it would have been possible for him to follow it on the 50–50 basis. We believe that the work of the Overseas Settlement Board could be carried on more efficiently if we had power, as circumstances required, to make a grant of 75 per cent. from the taxpayers' money as against 25 per cent. raised from the public.

There have been minor criticisms of the Bill on points of detail, but on general principles I believe the House is agreed that it is desirable, if and when the position becomes favourable, as I believe and hope it may, that there should be some resumption of migration. I believe, also, that the House is agreed that it is desirable that the Empire should be more fully populated by people of British stock. We have been criticised on the ground that we cannot do anything in regard to real big-scale migration by limiting ourselves to small-scale migration within the scope of the £1,500,000. If large-scale migration becomes a practical possibility again, and we can find sufficient numbers of people in this country who want to take up land in the Dominions, and also a Dominion Government willing to accept them in large numbers, we shall then have to deal with the position.

Mr. MacLaren

What about the land at home?

Marquess of Hartington

If the hon. Member will survey the land at home and find out the population per square mile on that land, and realise the vast areas which are under-populated or not populated in the Dominions, he will realise the importance and need of a well regulated migration scheme. If large-scale land settlement returns and we can produce a watertight scheme, a scheme fulfilling' our requirements, then it will be for the House to find the necessary money, but unless and until we can find such a scheme my right hon.. Friend is right in bringing forward this Bill, with its provision of £1,500,000. The House agrees with the general principle of the Bill, and although there has been criticism of minor points of detail, with which my right hon. Friend has dealt, I think the House is prepared to accept the Bill.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Lunn

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words" upon this day six months."

May I first welcome back the Noble Lord after his very long journey, and, I hope, a successful one, to South Australia for the celebration of its centenary? I hope also that his visit will mean that we have knit together the bonds of Empire more closely than before. I say that especially after listening to the last Debate. I was shocked to hear the large number of wreckers there are in the House. I had no idea that there were so many men who do not believe in cooperation in the Empire. Nearly every speaker wished to support the break-up of the Empire. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) for saying that if you want to hear speeches regarding co-operation in the Empire you have to come to this side of the House. We on these benches are as anxious as, even more anxious than, any hon. Members we have heard to-night to establish co-operation with our brothers and sisters in the Dominions overseas.

Regarding Empire settlement, I can say truthfully that I am a supporter of it under proper conditions. If proper conditions can be established and we can see opportunities of a livelihood for our people who go overseas, I have not the least objection to Empire settlement. Had this Bill been like the Act of 1922, there would have been no division upon it. My objection is to a particular feature of this Bill, and I am glad to have the opportunity of registering another vote against it on that ground. From the beginning of these discussions I have foreseen what is likely to happen if this Bill became law.

Prior to the introduction of the Bill an Inter-Departmental Committee inquired into the future of migration and made a number of recommendations with many of which I agreed, and with one of which I did not agree. That recommendation is now contained in the Bill, as a result of the Secretary of State having presided over that Inter-Departmental Committee. It was to the effect that instead of the 50–50 arrangement which we had for 15 years there should be a 75–25 arrangement when dealing with certain classes of migration through voluntary societies. I believe that the best co-operation with the Dominions is co-operation between the Government in this country and the Governments over-sea. I do not believe we ought to hand out money to voluntary societies for the purpose of transporting human beings from one end of the world to the other. By this Bill we are to provide 75 per cent. from this country to enable voluntary societies to carry, out one of these recommendations. That is to see that children who may be neglected, children who may be orphans, children who may be in poor law institutions can be sent oversea and used as little child slaves in many cases. I opposed mui tsai in Hong Kong and I am opposed to restarting this system which we had already abolished.

I want this House to have an opportunity of voting against the restarting of such a scheme of sending young children abroad in that way. We had this system of sending for 18 years and many thousands of children were sent overseas to Canada, and as a result of the report of 1924 the Canadian Government and the British Government both felt that there was no argument for a continuance of that system and it was abolished. Now the present Secretary of State desires to restart it, and recommends that it should be restarted. If I wanted an argument in support of my case I can find one in the words which the Secretary of State used in his last speech in reply to my argument upon it. He said: The type of migration to which the hon. Member and his party object is, not the migration of children in any circumstances but the migration of children under a system which means that they are boarded out in families in the Dominions. He has pointed out that in the past this boarding-out system was condemned by a Commission which travelled in Canada, and that it has resulted in many unsatisfactory cases in which children were treated as drudges in families. I would not contest that at all. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the whole of my case. He continued: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that in the past that system did result in some cases in which children led a rather unhappy life in the homes where they were boarded out; and that experience would naturally make the Government think very carefully before deciding to approve in principle of the recommencement of any such scheme. There are very weighty arguments against the Government deciding to participate in any such scheme again, and they may very well come to the conclusion that they will not participate in such a scheme, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance to-day.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1937; col. 1498, Vol. 319.] Because the right hon. Gentleman cannot give that assurance which I think he ought to give, that he will not recommend his Government to restart a scheme in which there are no safeguards and no inspection in the interests of the children, I oppose the Bill. For these reasons I hope that a Division will be taken and that the House will vote in favour of young children born and bred in this country not being sent to any part of the world, in the Empire or outside it, to be used, as the right hon. Gentleman admits many of them were used, as little drudges. We ought to regard them as human beings.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Annesley Somerville

It was rather difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman should accuse us of lack of a wish to co-operate with the Dominions and at the same time oppose a Bill which provides a means of co-operating with the Dominions. He is in favour of migration and settlement under proper conditions. That is our wish on this side, and we anxiously desire to co-operate with the Dominions in producing those conditions. A few months ago, Sir Bryan Fell, the late distinguished head of the Public Bill Office in this House wrote to the "Times" to call attention to the growing practice of curtailing the power of discussion and amendment of Bills because of the narrow drafting of the Money Resolutions on which they were based. This Bill is an excellent example of that growing habit. It is based upon a Money Resolution which provided for only two points. One was the extension of the 1922 Empire Settlement Act, and the other was the alteration of certain financial provisions. The result was that our Amendments were severely ruled out of order. One in particular that was put down by my friend the Member for Hallam (Mr. L. Smith) and myself, which provided for an Empire Development Board, was ruled out of Order. That is a measure which has been anxiously desired ever since the Commission of 1917 reported in favour of it, that Commission being the result of the Imperial Conference of 1911.

This Bill provides for schemes of settlement and development. The Secretary of State will persist in tying us advocates of settlement to settlement on the land. There are many wider schemes of development. He has told us that we must not expect much result from settlement on the land, one reason being the increased application of mechanisation to agriculture, but in Canada a very large number of fanners have turned from tractors to horse labour again for two reasons. It is better for the land and also much less expensive. I would ask him to recognise the fact that in Western Canada there is a considerable number of small, mixed farms which are paying their way. There are schemes of development that many of us advocate—we regret that the Secretary of State has in such schemes tied himself to the 50–50 principle—such as engineering works, the development of existing harbours, the construction of new harbours and all forms of transport and afforestation. They might be encouraged by a real Empire Development Board, suggested by the Secretary of State. Such schemes would naturally give employment to large quantities of labour both at home and overseas.

There was a Departmental report published by a committee of which my right hon. Friend was chairman, admirably written, but it was a standstill, a marking time report and I regret that this is a marking time Bill. This is not the moment for marking time. It is possible to go to the Dominions in a large and generous spirit and ask them to develop our great Imperial possessions, and I hope and believe that my right hon. Friend sees in front of him great opportunity in the coming Imperial Conference, and that in common with the representatives of other parts of the Dominions he will discuss this development of the Empire in a large and generous spirit and create a new era of real Imperial development.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher

I want to raise a question that I have already raised with the Minister on one or two occasions. I do not think the House can pass this Bill without something being said about it. If we send people across the seas to the Dominions, we should not send them

there and then say that we wash our hands of them. There are at the present time many people who are absolutely stranded in the Dominions as a consequence of death or some other circumstance over which they have had no control. Will not power be taken to ensure that in special cases the Minister can bring people home when they are stranded, helpless and destitute, as a number of cases are at the present time? I have brought cases before the notice of the Minister, and it is absolutely imperative that power should be taken by the Minister for that purpose.

11.19 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald)

I know that the hon. Member is very interested in that question, and I think, if he will read the report of the discussion which took place on the Committee stage, when he was not able to be present, he will see that I dealt with the question. To put the position in one sentence, I said on that occasion that the whole question is now being considered, with a view to seeing whether some provision can be made. Until that consideration has been completed, I cannot possibly say any more on the subject.

Question put, "That the word now,' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 98.

Division No. 82.] AYES. [11.21 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Cary, R. A. Eckersley, P. T.
Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Ellis, Sir G.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G, J. Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Albery, Sir Irving Channon, H. Emery, J. F.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (S'kn'hd) Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Apsley, Lord Caiman, N. C. D. Errington, E.
Aske, Sir R. W. Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Assheton, R. Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Courtauld, Major J. S. Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Craven-Ellis, W. Everard, W. L.
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) Critchley, A. Findlay, Sir E.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Crooke, J. S. Fleming, E. L.
Beit, Sir A. L. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Blindell, Sir J. Croom-Johnson, R. P. Furness, S. N.
Boulton, W. W. Cross, R. H. Ganzoni, Sir J.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Crowder, J. F. E. Gluckstein, L. H.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W. Cruddas, Col. B. Granville, E. L.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. Culverwell, C. T. Grant-Ferris, R.
Bracken, B. Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Gridle, Sir A. B.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G. De Chair, S. S. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Doland, G. F. Grimston, R. V.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Donner, P. W. Gritten, W. G. Howard
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Dugdale, Major T. L. Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Bull, B. B. Duggan, H. J. Hannah, I. C.
Burgin, Dr. E. L. Duncan, J. A. L. Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Butler, R. A. Dunglass, Lord Harris, Sir P. A.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Eastwood, J. F. Hartington, Marquess of
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) Moreing, A. C. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Morris-Jonas, Sir Henry Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Hepworth, J. Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester) Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Munro, P. Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Holdsworth, H. Neven-Spence, Major B. H H. Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Holmes, J. S. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Owen, Major G. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Hopkinson, A. Palmer, G. E. H. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Horsbrugh, Florence Patrick, C. M. Spens, W. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) Peake, O. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hunter, T. Peat, C. U. Storey, S.
Jackson, Sir H. Perkins, W. R. D. Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H. Petherick, M. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.) Pickthorn, K. W. M. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Keeling, E. H. Porritt, R. W. Sutcliffe, H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Procter, Major H. A. Tate, Mavis C.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Radford, E. A. Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Kimball, L,
Lamb, Sir J. Q. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Latham, Sir P. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak) Ramsbotham, H. Titchfield, Marquess of
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Ramsden, Sir E. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Rankin, Sir R. Turton, R. H.
Lloyd, G. W. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Wakefield, W. W.
Loftut, P. C. Rayner, Major R. H. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Lumley, Capt. L. R. Reid, W. Allan (Derby) Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Remer, J. R. Warrender, Sir V.
M'Connell, Sir J. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Waterhouse, Captain C.
McCorquodale, M. S. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Wells, S. R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) Ropner, Colonel L. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
McKie, J. H. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Maitland, A. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Rowlands, G. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M. Russell, A. West (Tynemouth) Womersley, Sir W. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Russell, S. H. M. (Daman) Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Salt, E. W. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham) Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Scott, Lord William TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) Seely, Sir H. M. Sir George Penny and Mr. James Stuart.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consatt) Hayday, A. Pritt, D. N.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Adamson, W. M. Hills, A. (Pontefract) Ritson, J.
Ammon, C. G. Hopkin, D. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) Rowson, G.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Sexton, T. M.
Barr, J. John, W. Short, A.
Batey, J. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Silverman, S. S.
Bellenger, F. J. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Simpson, F. B.
Bevan, A. Kelly, W. T. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Broad, F. A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T, Smith, E. (Stoke)
Bromfield, W. Lathan, G. Sorensen, R. W.
Brooke, W. Lawson, J. J. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Brown, C. (Mansfield) Lee, F. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire) Leonard, W. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Burke, W. A. Logan, D. G. Thurtle, E.
Cape, T. Lunn, W. Tinker, J. J.
Cassells, T. Macdonald, G. (Ince) Viant, S. P.
Cocks, F. S. McGhee, H. G. Walkden, A. G.
Dalton, H. McGovern, J. Watkins, F. C.
Day, H. MacLaren, A. Watson, W. McL.
Dobbie, W. Mainwaring, W. H. Welsh, J. C.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Marshall, F. Westwood, J.
Ede, J. C. Messer, F. Whiteley, W.
Gallacher, W. Milner, Major J. Wilkinson, Ellen
Gardner, B. W. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Garro Jones, G. M. Muff, G. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Green, W. H. (Deptford) Oliver, G. H. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Paling, W. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Grenfell, D. R. Parker, J. Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Parkinson, J. A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Potts, J. Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mathers.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Price, M. P.

Lords Amendment considered accordingly, and agreed to.