HC Deb 15 March 1950 vol 472 cc1210-20

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I wish to bring to the notice of this House a matter of some importance to a section of the people of this country, not a very large section, but, nevertheless, one which ought not to be neglected. I rise in order that this problem may be dealt with, and I hope that it will be met in a reasonable and proper spirit.

An association has been formed in this country of the parents of United States and Canadian brides; young women who were British subjects and who married American and Canadian soldiers during the war or subsequently. There are about 3,500 members of this association, and they have come together to try to assist each other to solve certain difficulties which confront them. In my own constituency there are something like 200 members of the branch of this association for Leicester and Leicestershire.

I wish to explain the problems which have arisen as a result of the war, and it faces most of these brides who married Americans and Canadians. As the House is aware, in the normal course of events parents whose children marry and go to live abroad are able to visit them within the limits of their financial capacity. There are now very few countries where they cannot take with them a basic sum of £50. Indeed, recently that sum has been allowed for the Argentine, which certainly cannot be considered a soft currency country. The trouble facing the parents of Canadian and United States brides is that they are under the disability of disembarking from the ship without a penny piece in their pocket, apart from the £5 which is allowed. Even that £5 they are expected to bring back to this country, or use it to cover expenses on their return journey or after they land in England.

The result is that these parents are not only completely dependent for their maintenance on their sons-in-law and other relatives of the husbands of their children during their stay in the United States or Canada, but, in addition, even have to pay for meals on trains, and have to obtain the money from relatives of the husband with which to get these meals. I believe that in some cases there are some concessions in this respect. But they cannot even have any pocket money while they are visiting their children and, of course, the result is that a very interesting human problem arises.

It may be considered a very small matter in the light of the tremendous amount of money spent in other directions, but to the people concerned it is an extremely important matter. They find themselves in a difficulty which ought to be met in some way, so that they are not entirely dependent in the manner which I have outlined. What I would like is that these parents, when they go abroad specifically for the purpose of visiting their children, should receive an allocation in dollars to the extent of £50, or something approaching £50. I would also ask the Minister, or one of his colleagues, to see what can be done about the question of meal tickets for the journey after landing so that these can be provided in this country for use on railways and buses in the United States and Canada. If parents could be afforded this facility it would be some help to them. The Government might well enter into negotiations with the railway companies concerned to bring about this facility in addition to allowing the £50 in dollars.

The House may ask why this problem is now arising. It is true, that British girls often married Americans and Canadians in the past and went to live abroad. The explanation is simple. Before the war the only people who travelled to America and Canada with their daughters were those wealthy enough to be able to afford that luxury. Opportunities for young men and women from these countries to meet before the war were limited to a considerable extent to visits by people of ample means. During the war many thousands of American and Canadian troops came here. There were more opportunities for marriages to take place between people of slender means. Consequently this problem affects a fair cross-section of our community.

It will be conceded that it is only natural that parents, and particularly mothers, want to see their daughters, their grandchildren and their daughter's homes. It is a natural outcome of the strong family life which exists here and which we all want to foster. To get out to the United States or Canada many of the parents of these brides stint themselves. They save up enough money to pay their fares. The lowest return fare to the United States is about £112. That is considerably beyond the means of many parents. It is necessary to pay a similar fare to visit Canada. Fares, of course, have increased since devaluation. I should like to ask if it is possible for a concession to be made to this group of persons, because there is not really a question of a loss of dollars. They could travel in British ships and the fares would be paid in sterling. We ought to make an effort to reduce the fares to an amount similar to that which prevailed before devaluation.

I wish to refer again to the fact that, only a few days ago, it was announced that from 1st May a basic allowance of £50 per annum could be spent in South American countries. Surely, if this is the case and it is allowed merely for the pleasure of travelling to anybody who desires to visit those countries, it should be possible for parents who have a natural desire to see their children and grandchildren in the United States and in Canada to be given a special concession and to be allowed to take something like a similar amount of dollar currency with them.

There appears to be a misunderstanding, which I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may be able to clear up, about railway fares from the ship to the ultimate destination. Many parents have to travel for long distances after they arrive in New York. Some have to travel right across to the other side of the country and others to the Middle West. I was under the impression that those railway fares could be paid in this country in sterling, but I gather that some difficulty has arisen. I am told by the branch of this association in my constituency that difficulties have been encountered in some cases and that the relatives abroad have been asked to deposit sums of money to cover those fares. I would like my hon. Friend to state, tonight if he can, or to assure the House later, that there is no cause for anxiety in that regard, and that the position is different from what I have been told.

I do not know whether the House fully appreciates what it means to a girl from this country living in a foreign land to have her parents visit her there, even though the people of that land speak, more or less, the same language as she does, but where the conditions are entirely different. Any of us who has visited Canada, or the United States particularly, knows the different type of life which presents itself to a person coming from this country, and how hard it is to accustom oneself to that life. It does not matter how kind are the new relatives and friends whom she meets in the new surroundings, there is not the slightest doubt that the presence at an early date after the marriage of one of the parents is something which brings considerable pleasure and comfort to the girl from this country.

It is true that many of these brides went to Canada or the United States of their own volition, but there are occasions of sickness, not necessarily such serious sickness as would entitle a person to he regarded as being confronted with such exceptional difficulties for which the Treasury might allow dollars, but ordinary forms of sickness, such as that experienced at the time of childbirth, when a young woman longs for the presence of her own parents—particularly her mother—who have saved and sacrificed so much to bring her up. I think an indignity is placed upon the parents if when they go across to visit their children they have, as it were, to go cap in hand to their husbands for every small item they need. After all, when parents visit the States or Canada they really serve as ambassadors of good will. They play no small part in helping to foster an understanding between the nations, which is very necessary for the peace and happiness of the world.

If my hon. Friend would accede to my request for the meal tickets to be supplied and for the £50 to be granted, I am quite sure that the concession would be regarded as something of considerable value by the British young women on the American Continent. We know, of course, of the generosity of the American and Canadian peoples—not only during the war when they opened their doors to our evacuee women and children—and also how extremely kind to the parents who visit them are the sons-in-law and other relatives. I do not think we should impose on their generosity to any extent over and above that which is absolutely essential in providing board and lodging for those who visit them.

I wish to make one or two suggestions as to how this matter could be dealt with. Might it not be possible, in addition to what I have already asked, for a fund to be raised by friends in the United States on which visitors under this particular head might draw? Before leaving England, the visitors could deposit in sterling in a counterpart fund—it has been done in other regards—the amount to be paid out in the United States. I am talking now of something in addition to that for which I have already asked. Supposing that 1,000 persons a year went out to Canada or the United States, they would not normally stay for more than about three months. It would not involve such a very large amount if such an allowance were given for those 1,000 people.

There could be a counterpart fund however to be used for cultural purposes. That is to say, visitors could come here from North America by way of exchange of students, for example, or to give lectures, and so on, who would normally not come to this country. Surely some method can be found whereby this position can be met.

There are other advantages which would accrue to us. First, we should have an exchange of visitors. I am quite satisfied that if these parents went out to the States in larger numbers we should not only get one American visitor in return for each of them but we should encourage the tourist movement amongst the relatives and friends of these American husbands. If this gesture were made it might mean that a fair number of people would come to this country, relatives of the sons-in-law who otherwise would go elsewhere for holidays. I am quite convinced that we should have a very ample return for any allowances we made.

Then there is some little saving in dollars if a parent goes out there. Remember, we are not dealing with very large sums. I see no reason why we should not refer to the fact that if a person goes away from Britain for three months to the U.S.A. there is some amount of saving of hard currency in respect of the food and so on that that person would have consumed had he remained in this country. Looking at the position from any point of view, it is not a very large sum which is asked for.

This is a very human problem. This is a Government—and let us not overlook the fact—who deal kindly with human problems and always have done, and who understand the position of people who have not an abundance of means. The Government have been generous in seeing that everybody in this country obtains what is really necessary for life. This is a human problem suitable to be dealt with by such a humane Government. It is a problem which it is necessary to solve to ensure the happiness and welfare of our young married women who have gone out to other countries so far away, and I hope that it will be regarded with sympathy.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Mellish (Bermondsey)

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) for raising this matter, and I think he has served a very good purpose in bringing this human problem before the House.

In my constituency I have a branch of this association, and I would say to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is to reply, that if he were to come to one of the meetings of this branch he would be overwhelmed, as I have been, by the earnestness and sincerity of these parents. These people are saving up week by week shillings and pence to go abroad to see their children who are now in America, and to see their grandchildren, too; for at the moment they have only photographs of those very beautiful grandchildren, and they are eating their hearts out to go over to see them. Many of them reach the £100 for the fare, and then find that they are yet dependent upon the charity of the sons-in-law.

I do not think this problem is as easy as it may appear on the surface, and I recognise the difficulties of my hon. Friend who is to reply. If the concession were confined to members of the association only, I think we could perhaps overcome the difficulties; although then, no doubt, there would be demands for the concessions to be extended to others Even so, I think we ought to look at the matter this way. We must remember that many of these children are coming here to see their parents, and that they are spending dollars here. This is a two-way traffic. In the long run I think we should gain more than this proposal would cost. It would be a wonderful gesture if the Government could give a lead in this direction to the American Government and ask them to enter into a reciprocal arrangement, as my hon. Friend has suggested.

We must not gloss over the matter, and fail to attempt something just because of this particular difficulty or that. This is too important. I think that those girls who have married and gone abroad have become ambassadors on behalf of this country, and that they have proved to the American people that we British people are not such bad people after all. They have proved that there is a great deal of decency and kindness in our people here. I have seen hundreds of letters addressed to the Association from Americans all over the U.S.A. saying how glad they are to know these girls, how much they have heard from them about our country, and how they admire the fight which our people are putting up today to maintain economic stability. Unfortunately, the Press only talks about the odd girl who gets into trouble over there, and they forget the hundreds of British girls who are happily married to Americans.

We say that parents who want to go over there to see these girls ought to be helped in some way. I recognise that it is not easy for my hon. Friend to deal with this problem, but I hope that he will give these people some comfort by trying to do what he can to help them. They are now in the position that when they have saved £100 they are dependent on the charity of their sons-in-law or other friends, and if we can relieve them of that burden, I think that we shall have done good work.

10.22 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay)

I assure my hon. Friends that I am extremely sympathetic to the claims of these people. It is, as they have said, a human problem, and I am very conscious of that because I have experience of a particular case in my own constituency of a lady who wished to visit her twin grandchildren in Canada and who got into difficulties because of the dollar problem. I am, therefore, very much aware of how this problem affects the individual.

I think that we would all agree that we should not wish a restriction of this kind to be permanent, or for it to be continued longer than we can possibly help. The Government would certainly seek to relax it as soon as the dollar situation enables them to do so. I think it is clear, however, that any relaxation cannot apply only to the parents of girls who married American and Canadian soldiers here during the war, and who are normally described as G.I. brides. I think that for the sake of fairness it would have to apply to all visits by United Kingdom residents to close relatives in the dollar countries, and, according to our calculations, any relaxation of that kind, involving the sort of dollar allowance of which my hon. Friend spoke, would in fact cost an appreciable sum in dollars. It is for that reason alone that we hesitate to go further in this matter at the present time.

My hon. Friend mentioned the concession of a travel allowance to certain South American countries, but that, of course, does not apply to any country whose currency is in the same category of hardness as the North American dollar at the present time. I would make clear that we have, of course, gone some way already to try to meet the difficulty of these people. It is a fact that any such person can at the moment travel to North America providing that the expenses in North America are borne by the relatives in that country. We know that does not entirely meet the difficulty, but it is possible to make a visit on those terms. Secondly, we allow the visitor to purchase here in sterling a railway ticket or aeroplane ticket which takes him or her right through to the destination and not merely to the port of entry into the United States or Canada. My hon. Friend asked whether there was any difficulty about that. So far I know, the general principle is that the ticket can be paid for in sterling to take the traveller right through to the destination. If my hon. Friend knows of cases where that is not being allowed, I should like to see the evidence, to see what I can do.

Over and above all, we of course grant an allowance in the case of compassionate claims or hardship, and one of those claims is for the parent or grandparent over 60 years of age. As my hon. Friend knows, we have fairly recently reduced the limit from 65 to 60 in order to provide some alleviation. In addition, after devaluation we raised the allowance to £35 so as to ensure that no further hardship resulted from devaluation. There is also provision that the parent of the girl living in North America or Canada can pay in sterling the expenses, including the fare, for a return visit from North America to this country, which in itself, since it includes the fare in the dollar area, involves a certain loss of dollars to Britain.

My hon. Friend suggested, as I understood him, that an allowance of £50 per individual should be permitted in these cases for the dollar countries, similar to the allowance which we grant in certain European and other soft currency countries. Our difficulty in doing that is simply the cost in dollars which it would involve. According to our estimate, the cost would be quite considerable. If we extended it, as we should have to, to the case of any visit to close relatives, we estimate—it is very hard to estimate; it is a matter of opinion—that it would cost some millions of pounds worth of dollars.

Mr. Janner

I am very reluctant to interrupt, but in the case of a parent or close relative who does not come within this category it is rather different, because as a rule they are wealthy people to whom the question of payment in the States or in Canada does not really matter. There is no real reason why those people should be granted the concession. Secondly, I should like to have a reply on the question of meals. My hon. Friend says that the fare is allowed right to the destination, but sometimes people have to travel by bus or train right across America, and they have to have money sent to them from their children, or their in-laws, in order to be able to meet the cost of their food. I should be very obliged if my hon. Friend would answer that.

Mr. Jay

As I was saying, we calculate that if we made the concession in the way we should have to make it in order to be fair, it would cost a quite considerable sum of dollars. As for the cost of meals, there is a provision by which persons who are being visited in the North American continent can send the necessary dollars for the purpose to meet the visitor on arrival in North America.

Mr. Janner

That is just what they object to.

Mr. Jay

I know my hon. Friend does not think that is good enough, and that he wants a further concession in dollars. In looking at all these claims to do with dollars, we must remember that only as recently as last autumn this country was in a very serious dollar situation; at that time we were scarcely able to see how we were going to pay for our vital food supplies in the months ahead. The situation has, I am happy to say, very much improved since then, but it would be imprudent, after only a few months' improvement, and with all the uncertainties in the present situation, to go so far as to make further relaxations at the present time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.