Lords Sitting of 27 April 1950

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Viscount Furness—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl Poulet—Took the Oath.

ARAB PALESTINE, JORDAN AND ISRAEL
4.5 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the following Question, of which I have given them private notice:— namely, whether they have any statement to make about the reported declaration by the Jordan Government with regard to the union of Arab Palestine with Jordan.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, I have a statement to make and I must crave your Lordships' indulgence as it is rather long. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been officially informed by the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of the union of the Kingdom of Jordan and of that part of Palestine under Jordan occupation and control. The Jordan Government in this communication have stated that an Act providing for this union was unanimously adopted on April 24 by the Jordan Assembly, which is composed of representatives of both these territories, and received the royal assent on the same day. His Majesty's Government have decided to accord formal recognition to this union. They take this opportunity of declaring that they regard the provisions of the Anglo-Jordan Treaty of Alliance of 1948 as applicable to all the territory included in the union. This action is subject to explanation on two points.
The first of these points relates to the frontier between this territory and Israel. This frontier has not yet been finally determined. The existing boundary is the line laid down in the Armistice Agreement signed between Israel and Jordan
1212
on April 3, 1949, and is subject to any modification which may be agreed upon by the two States under the terms of that Agreement, or of any final settlement which may replace it. Until, therefore, the frontier between Israel and Jordan is determined by a final settlement between them, His Majesty's Government regard the territory to which the Anglo-Jordan Treaty is applicable as being bounded by the Armistice Line or any modification of it which may be agreed upon by the two parties.
The second point relates to Jerusalem. The part of Palestine which is now united to the Kingdom of Jordan includes a portion of the area defined in the resolution on the internationalisation of Jerusalem adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1949. His Majesty's Government wish to state that, pending a final determination of the status of this area, they are unable to recognise Jordan sovereignty over any part of it. They do, however, recognise that Jordan exercises de facto authority in the part occupied by her. They consider therefore that the Anglo-Jordan Treaty applies to this part unless or until the United Nations shall have established effective authority there. His Majesty's Government's obligations under the Treaty are of course subject always to their overriding obligations under the United Nations Charter. His Majesty's Government wish to add that they have no intention of requesting the establishment of military bases in peace time within the area of Palestine now united to the Kingdom of Jordan.
His Majesty's Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows: first, that His Majesty's Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it; secondly, that His Majesty's Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these

1213
boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements or of any final settlements which may replace them.
In announcing these two acts of recognition, His Majesty's Government wish to reaffirm their conviction that the problem of Palestine is capable of solution by peaceful means, given good will and understanding on the part of all the parties concerned. It is their earnest hope that the steps they have now taken will help to create stability in the areas concerned and will therefore make a contribution towards the peace of the Middle East as a whole.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL [H.L.]
4.11 p.m.
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
Clause 27 [Saving]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON) moved to add to the clause:
"(2) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that in relation to proceedings in which the sheriff has jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of this Act there are the same rights of appeal and of remit to the Court of Session as there are in relation to the like proceedings in which the sheriff has jurisdiction otherwise than by virtue of the said provisions."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under certain provisions of this Bill new grounds of jurisdiction are conferred on the sheriff—for example, under Clause 6 he is given jurisdiction to entertain an action of separation and aliment if the pursuer is resident within the sheriffdom. His usual jurisdiction is determined by reference to the defender. Doubt has been expressed whether in these cases there is the like right to appeal to the Court of Session against the sheriff's judgment or the like right to have the case remitted for trial in the Court of Session as is available in similar types of case coming before the sheriff in the exercise of his ordinary jurisdiction. The doubt is based on the ground that similar jurisdiction is not conferred by the Bill on the Court of Session. It is not thought that there is any real ground for
1214
doubting the competence of the Court of Session to entertain appeals or remits in these cases, but as the doubt has been raised it is thought better to set it at rest by an express provision in the Bill, rather than to leave it to be the subject of litigation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
4.13 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords I should like to say a word upon this question. This Bill enables actions of great importance to be raised in Scotland in new circumstances where there would not otherwise have been jurisdiction. One of them is an action of separation and aliment, corresponding to divorce a mensa et toro. Under the Bill, the initiation of these actions is confined to the sheriff court. In normal circumstances one would expect that an action of this importance could competently be raised in the Court of Session, but I recognise that there are difficulties involved—which I need not specify—in making that Court competent. In this particular case I regret those difficulties; I think it would have been much better if they could have been overcome, but in the circumstances, which are known to me, I do not wish to take exception to the omission of the original Court of Sessions jurisdiction. Of course, if an action of such importance cannot be raised originally in the Court of Session it is vital that there should be a right of appeal.
In existing sheriff court procedure there is a convenient method by which the case can be remitted, where there is a suitable occasional court of the Court of Session, before anything is done in the sheriff court, so that the inquiry takes place in the Court of Session. That is not a procedure which one would expect to contemplate very often, but it would be very convenient on occasion. As the noble Lord said, doubts were entertained. I shared in them, particularly with regard to the competence of remitting under the Bill as it previously stood. I think it is very much to the good that those doubts have been resolved, and especially that they have been resolved in what appears to me to be the right way. Therefore, while I have expressed certain regrets that this Amendment does not go far enough,

1215
it is a considerable improvement on the Bill as it stood.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COLONIAL AND OTHER TERRITORIES (DIVORCE JURISDICTION) BILL. [H.L.]
An Amendment reported (according to Order).

COMMONWEALTH MIGRATION
4.15 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON rose to call attention to the progress of migration within the British Commonwealth and Empire; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first debate we have had on the subject of migration within the British Commonwealth and Empire for over eighteen months, and I feel it may be of some value to review the progress that has already been made to assist migrants who leave this country and go overseas within the British Commonwealth, and to examine some of the obstacles to migration which must now have become apparent after five or six years' experience of migration since the war. It may also help us to carry a stage further the formulation of measures to overcome those obstacles. I believe that by so doing we may fortify the strong bonds that bind the members of the Empire together. Furthermore, I feel that a debate such as this has value in showing that we in the United Kingdom take an active interest in the problems that confront members of the Commonwealth far overseas, who sometimes believe, I think, that we pass over some of their difficulties.
I propose to confine my remarks this afternoon largely to the migration needs of Australia, but by so doing I should not like to give the impression that I feel the needs of other Dominions are less important. This is a matter which affects the whole of the British Commonwealth. I wish to talk about Australia because I visited that country last year, and one of the reasons why I went there was to study the migration problem; and I understand that other noble Lords intend in the course of the debate to cover the needs of the other Dominions and countries of the Commonwealth. I should
1216
like to say a few words about what I found in Australia, because I feel they may be pertinent to this debate. First, I was struck most forcibly by the loyalty and affection of the Australians for both this country and the people living here. It was really inspiring. As your Lordships may know, when Australians refer to this country they speak of it as "home." The Australians give a tremendous welcome to anyone visiting Australia from the United Kingdom. The people of the United States are well known for the hospitality they show to strangers, and the Australians have nothing to learn from them. They take a great interest in United Kingdom affairs, an interest that might be almost disconcerting to some people in this country if they but knew about it. Before the war it was thought that Australia, like a number of other countries, was apt to be somewhat insular in her outlook. Other noble Lords who have been there since the war will know that that attitude has completely changed. There has been the most radical change in Australian outlook since 1939. Now Australia takes a tremendous interest in international affairs, and I believe she is determined to play an ever increasing part in them. I am sure she will be heard with respect by all countries.
The second point that greatly impressed me about Australia was a certain feeling of remoteness from us. At times they even go so far as to think that we are a little indifferent to what goes on in their part of the world. Australia is a long way away, and probably this feeling may in part be caused by that great distance, but I think it is also caused by the extraordinary lack of visitors from this country. That is deeply felt. One of the first things that was said to me in Australia was, "We are very glad to see you, but why do not more of you come out here?" That was last August. I was also told that since 1945 only one British Cabinet Minister and one Under-Secretary had visited Australia. I was able to tell them that that Cabinet Minister was the Leader of your Lordships' House. We can afford to take a much greater interest in Australian affairs and I am certain it will not be resented. On the contrary, it will be well received in Australia. We have some of our best friends in the world in that country. With regard to migration, the Australian attitude has also greatly

1217
changed. I think it was felt before the war that Australia did not always welcome migrants. Now the contrary is entirely true. New settlers, preferably British settlers, are recognised as Australia's basic need. She must have them because without more people Australia cannot develop her resources and industries. It is now the over-riding national issue and it is discussed with tremendous interest and seriousness by all, from the highest to the lowest, in Australia.
I would leave that point and turn to the more general subject of migration, with particular reference to the role of the United Kingdom. I am certain that the population needs of the Dominions are of vital concern to the United Kingdom. They concern us intimately and we must participate in them as much as we can, first, because we are the chief supplier of British immigrants; secondly, because we are the moral leader of the Commonwealth and our active participation and leadership is essential to any great Commonwealth plan; and finally—though perhaps one may say that this is a selfish reason—because the United Kingdom depends on the strength of the Commonwealth and Empire, and unless Commonwealth countries can increase their strength and populations we ourselves are going to be weak. That is an important thing for us always to bear in mind—although that may sound rather a parochial remark. It would be very wrong of us to stand aloof from or take a passive attitude to the struggle these countries are putting up to get more people. I think it is the task of His Majesty's Government to give every assistance they can to help the movement of migrants, in particular with regard to shipping facilities, obtaining prefabricated houses, either from this country or from countries on the Continent such as the Scandinavian countries, and equipment for manufacturing building materials, such as brick kilns and so on. With regard to road transport—of which, incidentally, Australia is particularly short—I am sure we could do more than we do at the moment in helping to supply their needs. Again, we could help in giving the fullest possible consultation facilities, and by developing information services for would-be migrants. I do not think we should leave it entirely to the High Commissioners'
1218
officers, because it is a big task, and I am sure they would welcome assistance from us.
In preparing my speech for this debate, I tried to find any recent Government publications that may exist on the subject of migration. The most recent I have been able to find, other than speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT, was published in 1944. I want to ask His Majesty's Government (I have given notice of this question) whether they will not consider publishing a new statement upon migration within the British Commonwealth and Empire; whether they will in that statement pay special regard to providing some account of the facilities that exist at the moment for assisting migrants; and what plans they have to assist migrants in the future and to develop existing migration schemes. I am sure that such a document would provide valuable information and would also be a source of encouragement to all those interested in this subject.
I want now to turn to one or two of the reasons why I believe, and I am sure many of your Lordships believe, that migration is an important and pressing matter for us to bear in mind. In the last debate on this subject in your Lordships' House, it was said that migration must be an integral part of Commonwealth policy; and the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmair, speaking in that debate, said that he put it even higher than that. I do not think any of us can deny that the population needs of the Dominions are an essential part of our economic and military struggle for security and strength. I should like to give an instance to illustrate that point. Again I will take Australia. Five or six years ago Australia was linked to the West by a series of military bases in Cairo, Egypt, India and Singapore. There is now practically nothing at all in the way of military posts between the Suez Canal and Port Darwin—that is a distance of many thousands of miles. The fact is that Australia is isolated in the Pacific and unconnected with this line of military communications. Even worse than that as we all know, Burma is in chaos, Malaya is terrorised, and an unfriendly Chinese horde is terrorising the whole of the Far East.
In the last war it did not take the Japanese long to get down to Port Moresby—which is the nearest piece of land to north Australia. It could happen again. Australia must have the population

1219
and the industry to defend and supply herself in a time of emergency. At the moment she has a population the size of greater London—that in a country which is bigger than the United States and has a coastline twice as long as that of the United States. I believe that if Australia were to fall in a future war, the whole of the Pacific and Indian oceans might be denied to us. In my view, it is our responsibility to ensure that that cannot happen.
I should like to go now to the other extreme of the picture and deal with the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has a population which has been increasing steadily at the rate of about 330,000 people a year for the last hundred years and has now reached the figure of about 50,000,000 people. Those 50,000,000 people are all contained in one country which, if you exclude Scotland, is no bigger than the largest privately-owned cattle station in Queensland. That certainly makes one wonder. The fact is that in this small country 80 per cent. of the industrial production potential of the British Commonwealth is now centred. I cannot believe that such over-centralisation is right, because not only does it make us vulnerable to attack, but it makes every single country in the Commonwealth vulnerable to attack. If we fall, there certainly is no hope for them.
Turning to another aspect of this important question of migration, I am sure many of your Lordships will agree that the value of Commonwealth and Empire trade as a means of getting us out of our present economic troubles and bringing us back to national solvency is of no small importance. But the volume of Empire trade must be limited by the size of the markets and the production capacities of the countries within the Commonwealth. We can raise the volume of trade in the Commonwealth to a certain level, but it must ultimately be governed by the size of the populations in the Commonwealth countries with whom we are trading. We cannot increase the volume of Empire trade higher still unless we have more people in the Dominions, so as to increase the size of the Dominion markets and increase their production potential. This was brought home to me in Australia, where everywhere I went it was said that
1220
they were no longer content, as in the olden days, merely to sell raw materials to the United Kingdom and buy back the finished products from us. They are now determined to develop their own industries, and unless we co-operate they will go to some other great country and ask for help in developing them. I believe it is important that United Kingdom manufacturers should realise this. I also feel that it presents a great opportunity for industrialists in this country to expand in the Commonwealth. When we talk about migration, I do not think we should do so merely in terms of people, but in terms of industry also.
I should like to touch on one other point. The Dominion countries, and particularly Australia, are determined to increase their population by immigration—they must do so. If they cannot get the people from this country, they will get them from Europe. I would point out that in 1950 the immigration target for Australia is 200,000 persons, of which it is hoped to get 70,000 from this country and the remaining 130,000 from Europe. That means, even this year, that the number of Europeans going to Australia will be nearly double the number of Britons. I need not emphasise to your Lordships the danger that would occur within the Commonwealth if Commonwealth countries were one day to have the greater part of their population comprised of non-British stock.
I wish now to deal for a moment with one or two of the difficulties and obstacles that stand in the way of migration. In the last debate on this subject in your Lordships' House, it was said that the rate of migration must be governed by the absorptive capacity of reception countries. That is certainly true, and we should all agree with it. But I feel that there are two kinds of restrictions governing the absorptive capacity of those countries. First of all, there are the natural obstacles such as climate, disease, racial habits and over-population. I do not believe that those obstacles can be easily overcome. But the second kind of restrictions are the artificial obstacles, which can be overcome, such as shortage of accommodation, shortage of shipping and lack of employment capacity. In the cases of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, there are no obstacles of the

1221
first kind, but there are obstacles of the second kind. It is with those that I wish to deal, and it is those which at the present moment are restricting the flow of migrants and preventing a greater number going out.
With regard to Australia, housing is the greatest obstacle to settlement. In this connection it is significant that all the migrants who have returned from Australia—or the greater proportion of them—are those who went out to Australia unaided; that is, not in the sponsored scheme, but paying their own way and trusting to find accommodation when they arrived. Most of the people who came back were from that group; there have been very few returned migrants in the nominated class. That clearly points to the fact that the people who went out to Australia without assured accommodation before they left this country found the housing difficulties greater than they expected, and were unable to find homes. I believe that out there the building rate is just about keeping pace and gaining a little upon the arrears. The arrears from the war years include something like 350,000 houses. The great bottleneck to house production in Australia is the shortage of materials and such things as bricks, tiles and fittings. Incidentally, I believe that in New South Wales last year they were short of 80,000 baths—though it is true that people have the seas to bathe in! There was also a shortage of people to make the bricks and tiles, and I believe that that is where the great bottleneck occurs.
In order to be able to accommodate properly many new migrants, it is necessary for Australia to supplement her own house production and to bring in from outside prefabricated houses. That is what the Australian State and Federal Governments are concentrating upon at the present time. I believe that that is where we can help, first by providing the brick kilns and so on to make the materials for the housing, and secondly by helping with prefabricated houses. Here I should ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given them notice. It is: What assistance are they giving the Australian housing mission, which is in this country at the present time?
I should like to deal for a moment with the other great obstacle to migration, that of shipping, which is sometimes
1222
put forward as being the chief restriction on a greater flow of migrants. I understand that at the present moment the shipping available to Australian migrants is just about equal to the number that are going out there, but the picture will be entirely different in a few months' time, because the Australian Government intend to bring out 70,000 Britons this year. There will be a shortfall of some 1,000 berths in the shipping available to carry those people. The Australian Government have eleven migrant ships, and their total carrying capacity in one journey is about 11,000 people. That means that during a year of about three trips they can carry about 35,000 migrants. The commercial lines which are running to Australia, and which have a carrying capacity of a little more than that—about 15,000 in one trip—provide, I believe, only a few hundred berths a year for migrants going under the assisted passages scheme. So, taking all the berths which will be available in the commercial lines and migrant ships—about 40,000–it looks as if there will be a large margin to make up if the whole 70,000 are to be taken out to Australia this year.
The United Kingdom Government can help here by providing ships, and it is extremely important that they should do so. I believe they can help in this way, because in February of this year there were just over 14,000 unemployed in the shipyards of this country. That has risen from about 8,000, the figure given at the time when we had our last debate on this subject. Could not those men be employed upon converting ships for carrying migrants? Secondly, I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether the "Aquitania," instead of being broken up, could not have been converted to carry migrants. I should have thought that that would have teen a worth-while use for such a ship, and a worthy end to her days.
Housing and shipping are the two great bottlenecks to new settlement in the Dominions, but I believe those bottlenecks can be overcome by resolute action and the will to do it. I now come to a point of which I have given His Majesty's Government notice, and upon which should like to make a suggestion. I believe that Commonwealth migration can be successfully handled only with the

1223
co-operation of all the countries concerned in the Commonwealth, and by using the combined resources of all those countries. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would be prepared to approach the Australian, Canadian and, a little later perhaps, the New Zealand Governments to obtain their reactions to the possible appointment by each Government of representatives on a Commonwealth Migration Board. This Board, in the first place, would be a consultative and advisory body, having the object of maintaining close consultation on all migration matters between the Governments concerned—that is, the United Kingdom Government and the reception countries. Secondly, they could co-ordinate shipping and housing resources; and thirdly, they would exchange information which would be useful for migrants. I believe that such a Board would have a valuable effect in co-ordinating the efforts of the various Dominions who want migrants, and would obviate a certain amount of rivalry which must inevitably exist for the available services, such as shipping and so on.
Now I come to my last point, the question of industrial migration. It is essential in my view, that industry should play its part in migration: first, because it is only British public industry which can build up the undeveloped territories of the Dominions and, secondly, because I believe that there can be no large-scale migration unless British industry lends a hand in taking some of the people out. I believe that people can be taken out and settled far more happily and easily if houses are built for them, if arrangements are made for them, and if they go as part of an economic unit—we will say as the staff of employees of a single company. The houses can be built for the whole lot and properly organised with the resources of the company. I believe further that many people who at the moment only play with the idea of going out to Dominions, and who feel that the difficulties are too great for them, would make up their minds to go if they were offered a job in a company which was either moving out or expanding to one of the Dominions. Such a company might be able to offer them a job there and, incidentally, would help to take them out.
I tried a few months ago to work out some sort of plan by which a company could move out to the Dominion, with all its plant, and so on, and its staff—or, rather, a complete complement of its staff and all their dependants. I talked about it in Australia—perhaps a little too much, because I did not enjoy much peace afterwards: people are very keen on something of that kind, and they were interested to know about it. Such a scheme would, I believe, be worth considering. Suppose that a company concerned in the brick-making and building industry decide to move out to Australia, with staff, dependants, and so forth. The first stage would be for a sort of pioneer group of some of the people working in the company to go out first, taking prefabricated houses and machinery to a prepared site where there was factory accommodation, or at any rate a big building in which the machinery could be put. They would then install that machinery and begin to make the bricks to build the houses; and as the houses were built the rest of the employees and their dependants could go out. Such a scheme could apply equally to a company in any other kind of industry, but they would have to use prefabricated houses, instead of brick-built houses, because the brick-building potential of Australia would not be sufficient to cover them all.
A scheme of this sort, I believe, was tried about eighteen months ago, when a textile firm went out from Yorkshire to Victoria, taking all their people and their looms. One Christmas they were all working at the looms in Yorkshire, and the next Christmas they were working at the same looms in Victoria. I believe that eventually some sort of system like that must be devised and perfected, so that the whole of this migration movement can be expanded and made the really great movement and assistance to the strength of the British Commonwealth which it can be. I beg to move for Papers.
4.43 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I feel very thankful that I am the first noble Lord taking part in this debate to have the chance to tell the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, how grateful we are to him for giving us the opportunity of discussing this important Commonwealth problem, and how much we enjoyed

1225
listening to his well-informed and well-delivered speech. I think it was particularly valuable as a fair statement on the Australian attitude and policy in relation to migration; and it enabled us to see very clearly what, in fact, Australian needs and requirements are. I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me if I tell him that he was misinformed about one small matter which was alluded to by someone when the noble Lord was in Australia. He said, I think, that he was told that only one Cabinet Minister and only one Under-Secretary had visited Australia since 1945. I was there myself in March, 1949. At that time I was a Minister of Cabinet rank; and I know that another of my noble friends, who was also a Minister of Cabinet rank, visited Australia a short while previously. I correct what is obviously a minor point only because I should not like the impression to get around that the late Government were less convinced than other Governments that consultation at ministerial level between the Commonwealth countries is a most important aspect of Commonwealth policy. The late Government was far from remiss in this matter; and although I cannot say this definitely without an opportunity of verifying my facts, I should not be surprised to find that more Ministers have visited Australia since the war than in any corresponding period before the war. I should like, before I proceed, to congratulate my noble friend Lord Holden on his first opportunity to reply to a debate in your Lordships' House. I know what an ordeal that responsibility is. I know also that we are all looking forward most keenly and with the utmost pleasure to what he may have to tell us.
The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, dealt with one of the senior partners in the Commonwealth, and I have no doubt that other noble Lords will follow in his steps. For my part, I shall confine myself to some of the junior partners in the Commonwealth—some of the Dependencies of the United Kingdom who have problems very similar to and no less urgent than those of the self-governing countries. I can assure the House,
1226
from my personal knowledge of some territories which suffer the cruel hardships of over-population and of other territories which need immigrant labour to develop their resources, that the leading official and unofficial personalities in the Colonies concerned are keenly aware of the problems which we are discussing this afternoon, and are doing their level best to arrange for a flow of population in the required direction, outward or inward. I found at the Colonial Office the utmost willingness on all occasions to give advice or to intervene with other Government Departments whenever they were approached on matters of this kind by Colonial Governments who asked them to do so. I think the authorities at home and in the Colonies deserve credit for their fine example of friendly co-operation in this field, and for the real determination with which they are trying to overcome the great difficulties which this problem presents.
I should like to say something about under-population in the Colonies. The Borneo territories—Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo—appear to be the only wide open spaces that one can find in British South-East Asia. With a population of not more than ten persons per square mile, they are still practically empty. The local inhabitants are far too few, backward and uneducated to take full advantage of the considerable resources of these territories in minerals and timber, and of a fertile soil which will bear a variety of subsistence and cash crops, once the jungle is cleared away. I remember flying over the Klias Peninsula, just north of Jesselton, with the Governor of North Borneo, who pointed out below us an area large enough to grow sufficient rice to feed the whole population of the Colony, leaving over a substantial surplus for export.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, in view of the Royal Commission which has been arranged for five o'clock, I think it would be your wish to adjourn now during pleasure.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Post Office and Telegraph (Money),

Army and Air Force (Annual),

Dundee Corporation (Administration and General Powers) Order Confirmation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

COMMONWEALTH MIGRATION
5.10 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it seems perhaps rather a far cry to go from providing money for the Post Office to cultivating rice in Borneo, but both are the responsibility of Parliament, and I make no apology for asking your Lordships to return, in spirit, to North Borneo. I was alluding to the large area in that Colony which could be made available for the production of rice. The importance of producing more rice as a means of improving the extremely inadequate diet of the peoples of South-East Asia, and to relieve us of the necessity of providing dollars for some of the rice which is imported into our Colonies, needs no emphasis from me. But this is just one example of the wealth which British Borneo could produce with a larger and more skilled working population. I fear that unless we are able to show that we, ourselves, are well able to develop these territories without outside assistance, we shall find it hard to resist the demands of densely populated Asian countries which would like us to help them to relieve the pressure of their surplus populations. Here, in Borneo, is an opportunity for migration and settlement on a considerable scale, but I am sure that we should first make certain that the people we let in from outside will treat the local inhabitants as friends and equals, and that their loyalty to the Colony, the Mother Country, and the Commonwealth is likely to be beyond question. Those are two conditions which should be attached to the admission of outsiders on any considerable scale.
1228
For that reason, I believe we should be extremely ill-advised to admit, as permanent residents, a large number of Chinese, whether they come from China proper or from one of our own Dependencies in South-East Asia. The Chinese are not good mixers. They would tend, in Borneo, to become a ruling race, as the Malays have done in Sarawak. As your Lordships who have travelled in that part of the world well know already, their first loyalty, however far removed they may be from their native land, is to the Government of China. This is a particularly inconvenient attachment at the moment, because the Chinese Government is now a Communist Government, and no one would wish to introduce Communism into Borneo. When I was there two years ago, Communism was non-existent. Most of the Chinese community now living in North Borneo are earning comfortable livelihoods in Jesselton and Sandakan. In politics they are pro-Kuomintang and strongly anti-Communist. But if we were now to admit a large number of Chinese peasants to clear the jungle and work in the fields, the story might be very different indeed. I am sure the Government will agree that it should be one of the aims of our foreign and Commonwealth policy to safeguard the island of Borneo—which, as your Lordships will remember, was used by the Japanese during the war as a stepping stone to Australia and the Southern Pacific—from the risk of Communist infiltration.
I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply on behalf of the Government if he can say whether there has been any relaxation in the restrictions on the entry of Chinese into North Borneo and to say what the intention is in regard to the admission of Chinese labour. I believe he is likely to say that further settlement of Chinese immigrants in large numbers will not he permitted. That would be a very satisfactory statement. I feel that an assurance of this kind would be particularly useful if it could be made by a Minister in a public speech on the floor of this House. But even if the Chinese have to be ruled out as settlers, it should not be difficult, I think, to recruit additional workers from other places with a surplus population. The densely populated Indonesian Republic is not far distant as distances go in the Pacific.

1229
There is already a small Javanese settlement in North Borneo, and the newcomers have done extremely well and are getting along admirably with the local inhabitants. But I am sure we should all prefer the settlers to come from one of the overpopulated areas within the Commonwealth rather than from a foreign country. I should like to ask my noble friend if he will be good enough to tell me whether consideration has been given to the possibility of emigration from any of the West Indian Islands to Borneo. It would be a long distance, but, in many, respects, West Indians would be extremely suitable. I think they would find conditions of life in Borneo congenial to them. After all, they are agriculturists, they live in a somewhat similar climate and there is not a big difference between the average man's standard of living in the West Indies and the standard of living in Borneo.
I should like now to turn to the other aspect of migration—migration as a means of easing the pressure of overpopulation in some of the colonies with which I am acquainted. I do not believe that there is any area in the Commonwealth which suffers more cruelly from over-population than the Islands of the West Indies. A steadily falling death rate is increasing the population of the British Caribbean at a rate which will double its numbers in fifty years. Unless we can do something to relieve this pressure, the present unsatisfactory standard of living is bound to fall, unemployment and under-employment will rise, and housing conditions, which are for the most part deplorable but gradually improving, will get even worse. I fear that there is no prospect of even temporary relief by the employment of West Indian labour in the United States or in Central or South America. Permanent settlement in foreign territories in the American Continent is out of the question. This leaves fie mainland territories of British Guiana and British Honduras the only hope of a local outlet for the surplus population of the Caribbean Islands. Your Lordships will remember that the Evans Commission went out to examine the possibilities of settlement in these territories, and produced an extremely valuable Report. The Commission estimated that the two territories might absorb about 100,000 men, women and
1230
children within ten years, of whom 60,000 would go to British Honduras, and 40,000 to British Guiana. But even if this programme could be carried out from A to Z, it would account for such a small proportion of the total surplus population of the area that the need for other outlets would be no less urgent than it is at the present time.
My own impression, after travelling extensively in both territories—British Guiana and British Honduras—is that it will take very much longer than ten years for anything like the 110,000 immigrants foreseen by the Evans Commission to be absorbed. This impression is borne out by the recent study made by the Colonial Development Corporation and by the Governments concerned of the extensive preparatory work that will be needed before large development schemes involving immigrant labour can be started with a reasonable chance of success. In British Guiana, basic information about the interior of the Colony is still lacking. Ambitious agricultural projects await the results of soil surveys and crop trials. The main project for the employment of immigrant labour is on cocoa plantations on the Potavo and Middle Mazavimi areas in the interior of the Colony. But it will take five years for the cocoa trees to come into bearing—as in the case of all tree crops, the period of waiting is very long—and several more before the crop trials have yielded their results.
Another prerequisite for the development of the interior of this great territory is the building of metalled roads to link up the interior with the coast. At present, goods can be carried inland beyond the navigable limits of the large rivers only by air transport. I was told when I was there about a costly experiment in bringing carcase meat by air from the Savannahs of Brazil and Venezuela to Georgetown. This method of transport for heavy goods will clearly be uneconomic, but the extension inland of the road system in the coastal belt cannot even be started without the data which further topographical and engineering surveys will provide. Immigration will also be retarded by the increase in the local population which has followed the elimination of malaria by the use of D.D.T.
In British Honduras, the prospect of settlement on a large scale in the near future seems no less remote. The main

1231
project recommended by the Evans Commission for employing immigrant labour was an expanded sugar industry in the Northern District. The Colonial Development Corporation, who are obviously the body best fitted to undertake this work, have not at present seemed inclined to take up this proposal, although no doubt they will reconsider the whole matter in the light of recent events. The devaluation of the dollar currency in British Honduras and the welcome allocation to the Colony of a share of 18,000 tons in the British guaranteed market for West Indian sugar have completely altered the commercial outlook. Now, for the first time in the history of the Colony, this important industry has a chance of making real progress. I should like, if I may, to congratulate my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the Government on their political foresight in offering this allocation of sugar to British Honduras. Even more important than future benefits which it will give to the economy of the Colony is the immediate impact of this gesture of good will from the Mother Country on local public opinion.
But, of course, even if this sugar project is now proceeded with, it will be a number of years before labour from outside the Colony is required. In British Honduras, as in British Guiana, a vast amount of road building will be necessary before large schemes of agricultural development in the interior of the Colony can be made practicable. Moreover, the decline of the important forest industries of chicle and mahogany is causing serious unemployment. It looks as if the number of local unemployed will provide sufficient labour for all schemes of agricultural development and public works that are likely to be in hand in the near future. I fear that the inescapable conclusion that any objectively-minded person will draw from these facts is that the sound economic development of both territories will be a slow and a costly business. It will demand a willingness on the part of public and private enterprise in these Colonies, and on the part of the Colonial Governments, to spend much more time and effort on preliminary and preparatory stages of economic development. We in this country, for our part, must be willing to spend more public money without looking for an immediate
1232
result. But if all concerned, both here and out there, have enough patience and good will, there will be the immense satisfaction of having developed these backward areas on sound lines which will bring about lasting benefit to their inhabitants and will offer unrivalled opportunities for migration and settlement to their island neighbours.
I should like in conclusion to say a few words about Malta. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch has not been a member of your Lordships' House long enough to feel the confidence that is required to address the House on this subject, because he is far better qualified to do so than I am. The problem of migration is vital to the future of Malta. I think everyone will agree that emigration offers the only hope of a reasonable standard of living and employment for the people of Malta. The economic outlook for Malta is extremely disturbing. Two-thirds of the adult workers depend for their employment directly or indirectly on the dockyards, and on a reconstruction grant given by us after the war which is rapidly running out. The prospect of unemployment is made even more serious by the expanding population of the island: it is increasing at the rate of 8,000 persons a year. So far, the best year for emigration has only just kept pace with the annual rate of increase in the population. The target for next year is 12,000 emigrants. I am sure the Government will do everything in their power to help Malta to achieve and sustain an annual outflow of emigrants at least at this level of 12,000 a year.
5.26 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I do not think we could discuss a more important topic than this at the present time. I should like to limit my remarks to the Dominions and to our relations with what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has called the great self-governing countries. In their case the problem is one of under-population. It is easy to blind ourselves to the fact that the nature of Commonwealth relations is changing. I have not been in the Dominions since before the war, which I know is a disadvantage, but I am sure the trends that I sensed then have since been accentuated rather than the opposite.
As my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron so ably and brilliantly showed,

1233
the major issue is that of industrial immigration and of how Dominion industry in future is going to fit in with that of the Mother Country. It is an extremely knotty problem. Every country likes, if possible, to remain in the circumstances to which its people have been accustomed. This country has been the main workshop of the British Commonwealth and I see no reason whatever why we should not continue to be one of the main workshops. But I believe that it will be a completely false picture, and one out of perspective, if we think we are going to remain in the old position in relation to the Dominions. These countries developed as primary producing countries, and they have done an excellent job on this footing. But as they grew up, it was only natural that they should want to do their own industrial work. This presents a serious problem for our industry which, in the nature of things, would like to remain as it has been. We should like to continue to import vast quantities of food which the overseas Dominions produce for export. We should face the possibility, though I know it is difficult, that in the long run we may not be able to survive with 50,000,000 people living in this country. Moreover, there is the question whether the retention of such a population is desirable.
I should like to link this whole question with the farming issue. The traditional picture of the Commonwealth—though this is rapidly ceasing to be true—is that it consists of wide open spaces; the immigrant, it is assumed, naturally goes to a farm. If he is fed up with city life his opportunity may be out there. In my view, however, emigration from here to the Dominions—particularly to the South-West Pacific Dominions of Australia and New Zealand—will probably in future be largely industrial. The good land is probably already settled and being farmed, and it is fitting that this should be so. But is it not possible that this country and the Dominions can solve together a problem that none of them could solve on their own—namely, the problem of balance between occupation in industry and occupation in agriculture?
I do not want to express too forcibly my views on what ought to happen, and on what scale. It is possible that in terms of the Commonwealth, we are discussing an issue of the greatest importance. In
1234
the course of leading the industrial revolution, not only in the Commonwealth but in the world, this country has grown completely lopsided, and a good many of our present problems are tied up with this lopsidedness under the changed and changing trade position largely brought about by the war. If we are to secure a more even balance of occupation this country is definitely over-populated, quite apart from the question of whether we can survive with a 50,000,000 population—which depends on improving our export trade to a level greater even than it was before the war. I saw in New Zealand before the war a strong instinct towards urban development. I do not think that is an idea confined to a Socialist Government (I do not know what effect on immigration into Australia and New Zealand the fact that they no longer have Labour Governments has had), but I think this is a bigger issue than any one Government, either here or there, can tackle. The Dominions should have larger home markets. It is not just an over-strong sense of insecurity that will lead them to have far larger populations.
The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, mentioned the difficulties of shipping. I wonder how important the refrigeration ship will remain as regards Imperial trade? Is it not possible for ships bringing food here to make just one trip to take people to the new places? The skill of our people lies in urban techniques rather than in agriculture. If emigration is to take place on a large scale it will be much easier for people to move from industry here to industry in new places, rather than that attempts should be made to persuade the emir rains to become farmers. Opinion in New Zealand of people who want to start on farms when they come from cities is not very high. Any movement at all is worrying to people, and to move half way round the earth and start a new life is extremely difficult. If emigration is to come about on a large scale—which I am inclined to feel should happen—then the emphasis must be on emigration to industry. That would mean that agriculture here would have a chance of recovering from the industrial revolution, during which we looked to our ships, rather than to our ploughs for our salvation. It is not surprising that farmers here are dubious as to what will happen. They know that things are different in war time, and that

1235
for several years after a war they are only, slowly let down. I do not think we shall let down the British farmer again, and most certainly it is the last thing we ought to do; yet it is obvious that there is a great amount of opinion which would be prepared to do so, in the interests of cheap food from abroad, if more of it became available.
An increase in Dominion population, I should imagine, would mean a lessening of trade within the Empire. I gathered that Lord Fairfax implied that an increase of Dominion population might be accompanied by an increase of trade between the Mother Country and the Dominions, but I should imagine that it would mean a lessening of trade in that direction. I also disagree on the point that immigration to the Dominions should be limited to people from this country. I am sure that in Western Europe there are a great many people who would like to go to Australia, New Zealand or Canada. With regard to the percentage of British stock, I would point out that we know that at the present time only 49 per cent. of the population of Canada are people whose ancestors' homes were originally in this country. I do not think the community is made any less British, because these are people who have been absorbed into a fundamentally British way of life. I know it is particularly difficult for Australia and New Zealand, who have such high percentages of British stock, to change their ideas—naturally they want new Britons in their country. But, surely, they ought to be prepared to mix their population a little more.
I thought it was a brilliant idea of the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, that people should emigrate under the wings of a firm. That, after all, is what early settlement was like. People on one ship were a cross-section: they decided that they wanted certain carpenters on the ship, and they set about building their homes. The tragedy of the present position is that the pioneering spirits among people arriving in New Zealand or Australia—perhaps particularly there—meet almost as much red tape as we have here. It is not merely a question of landing, hacking down some piece of bush, making a home and sowing some corn which you hope will come up next year.
1236
I should like to raise the whole question of urbanisation in the Commonwealth—the drift to the towns. That is not only something we witness here, but something which exists in the primary producing countries, and is part of their desire to change their nature. I secured a job on a New Zealand farm only because of the drift to the towns. The farmer was carrying on a farm of 250 acres with no help whatever. It was a great opportunity for me, which otherwise I should not have had, and I was brought very much into his counsel. It was a case, as he said, of "the glitter of the other job." Even though towns like Auckland, Wellington, Sydney and Melbourne are not by our standards very large—and particularly Auckland and Wellington—they are, nevertheless, an attraction. There was a talk on the wireless the other night by a professor of geography at London University about the tendency for us not only to go to towns, but to go to the biggest towns; and he referred to the fact that Los Angeles has now graduated to the 1,000,000 mark as if that were an excellent thing in itself. We need to think deeper than the mere question of size.
If a large number of people go from this country to the Dominions—and emigration will have to be encouraged by the Government—in one sense this country becomes less powerful. I think that it is the population of the Commonwealth which is vital, and I do not think greatness is governed by numbers. We do not refer to New Zealand as otherwise than a great country because she has only 1,500,000 people. Therefore, my plea is that we should think deeply about the whole question of the relationship of agriculture to industry, and in thinking of migration realise that it is not a question of the open spaces being exactly what they have been in the past.
5.42 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, has raised this matter this afternoon. I think it is of great importance, and high time that we had a debate in this House on migration. I may say that I agree with nearly everything he said. If I go over some of the same ground with regard to Australia, I hope noble Lords will forgive me, because I have lived in that country for eight years,

1237
before, during and since the war, and on one or two facets I may be able to throw a little useful light. I should also like to say how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Holden, is to reply, and I am sure that we are all delighted to see him in his new position on the Front Bench. If there is a noble Lord in this House who is filled with human kindness and courtesy, it is the noble Lord, Lord Holden, and I ant sure that we shall get a very courteous and helpful answer from him to-day.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, when he speaks in such a moving way of hospitality and loyalty in Australia. Indeed, I may go so far as to say that it follows almost inversely that the further you go in the "outback," the greater it becomes. Some years ago I visited a small Australian town at the time of the annual show, and I was persuaded rashly to enter for the steer-riding contest. I think I remained upon the steer's back for precisely twenty-four seconds. But it had another reward, for which I was not prepared: I became a sort of local hero, and the long day and night ended in the local hotel—the bar of which should have closed at 6 p.m.—at 2 o'clock in the morning, when the uniformed police sergeant hammered the bar and said: "I don't think there is anybody in the town who has not had a drink with the Commander. If there is, speak up, otherwise we will close the bar."
I understand that Australia's aim is 200,000 migrants a year, of which they hope to get 100,000 from this country. I am told that no less than 75,000 sponsored migrants have actually sailed from this country since the war. That is, of course, apart from those who have gone out on their own resources. As the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, has so rightly said, the chief limitations are housing and shipping. At the moment, I think the emphasis is slightly more on housing than shipping, but the indications are that in a short time it will be reversed. I should like to correct him on one point—what the Australian requires is not a bath but a shower. Particularly from the economic and from the defence point of view, I think migration to our great Dominions should have every support from the British Government, and I entirely agree that the migration of industries is of the highest importance. I should like to put one other side of that
1238
matter which the noble Lord did not mention, and that is the moving out of a subsidiary of an industry in this country and its grafting on to an existing Australian industry. After all, if it is a gamble for an individual to go out to a new country with no particular ties, it is perhaps equally precarious for a British industry to start from nothing in the Dominions. But the fathering of a new industry by an existing Australian industry I think would be very helpful. That has been successfully carried out in several cases. I need mention only one, and that is the Fairey Aviation Company, now supplying aircraft to the Fleet Air Ann of the Royal Australian Navy. They grafted themselves on to the Clyde Engineering Company at Sydney. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, also emphasised this point of industrial migration.
I feel quite confident that Australia can absorb the numbers I indicated earlier, provided they are of the right material. Sometimes, however, extravagant claims of the possibilities of development in Australia are made—not in official quarters—which are damaging and unfortunate. I read in the paper the other day that the Dean of Canterbury, on leaving Australia, stated that there was no part of Australia which could not be developed. I do not know whether the reverend Dean went to Central Australia during his short visit, but I should very much doubt it. If he did, I should like to see him trying to develop the Nullabor Plain or the barren mountain ranges in the Northern part of South Australia. I am sure he would have his work cut out and would become very red in the face, in the bargain.
There is one question that I should like to ask our Australian friends, and that is: Is enough being done for the women in the country districts? Many sheep stations now require more men and are Short-handed, but they find that they cannot engage them because there is no domestic help or anybody to cook for them. In the old days the big stud properties, where the best Marino sheep were bred, used to have comfortable quarters where probably ten to twelve jackaroos were housed, fed and trained, and then went out to the smaller places with real knowledge of the highest class of sheep. In the past few months I have written to seven or eight of my friends

1239
who have big sheep properties in Australia, asking them if they could take a young man who was anxious to learn the business of sheep breeding. In each case the answer has been the same: "My wife has to do nearly all the cooking without help." That really means something—cooking for the men at six o'clock in the morning to give them a breakfast before they go out to the paddocks. The answers went on: "We have the quarters on the place, but we simply have not the domestic help to cope with jackaroos." That is a very important point. Another aspect is the question of electric power, which the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, mentioned. In that way, the refrigerator, which is so necessary in that climate, can be provided, and that will make the domestic chores easier. It is a good life for a man in the country, but sometimes, through the possibility of the housewife not being able to cope with the loneliness and difficulties, there may be failures.
Now I turn particularly to an organisation on the committee of which I serve—I refer to the Big Brother Movement. As probably most noble Lords are aware, we send out young lads of about seventeen. On arrival in Australia, each of them is allocated a "big brother," who acts in loco parentis and advises the boy about his finances, possibly asks him to stay with him, and writes to him from time to time. We sent out 2,000 lads before the war, and I am glad to say that we have sent no fewer than 350 since the war. We now have a training farm to which they can go, so as to get acclimatised before they go to their jobs in the country. We have started in New South Wales and Tasmania, and we hope to extend to other States if the finances and the supply of young lads permit. Most of these boys have done extremely well. There is more than one "ex-little brother" on our Sydney committee now; and many of them had excellent records in the Australian Forces during the war. We have already had letters and reports from post-war "little brothers" which show that they are "up to scratch."
I have here a letter from a boy from Peterborough. He has already put into the savings bank £150. He writes:
"I think I have the best boss in New South Wales. I am like one of the family here and I do really like the work."
1240
Another letter is from a Fareham boy. He has already banked £130 since he went in 1948 and has started a nursery garden on his own behalf. His employer cannot speak too highly of him. One more comes from York. This boy went out in February of last year. He has already saved £100. He is contented with rural life and is making extra money during the week-end by trapping rabbits and selling the skins. This shows that the majority of the lads sent out since the War have followed ably in the footsteps of their predecessors. Moreover, industry in New South Wales is asking for "little brothers"; and next week, the first party going out will have ten boys for industry going with it. The type of migrant we are sending is particularly valuable at the present time, because no housing is needed; in each case, the employer guarantees to house the lad when he arrives.
We feel that the movement is doing a good and useful job. But what encouragement are we getting from the Government? I regret to say, very little. We consider that under the Empire Settlement Act of 1922, the provisions of which have been extended to 1952, we are entitled to receive support. We had grants before the war, from the inception of the movement in 1925 up to 1932, when migration stopped because of the depression, and these grants were renewed in the year 1938–39. In 1939 it was agreed that three-quarters of the expenses of the London end were to be borne by the two Governments, British and Australian, up to a limit of £900 per annum.
What has happened since the war? Our Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Huntingfield, and myself negotiated with both the Australian and the British Governments. The Australian Government nave us a grant of £450 for the year 1948–49, but that is the only grant we have had from the other side. Last year, after protracted negotiations, the Commonwealth Office gave us £450–their share of the £900 for one year, 1949–50. We were at least entitled to feel that, if circumstances continued the same, those grants would be continued. Obviously, they must be on an annual basis, since that is the Government's financial system, but one naturally assumed that they would go on. Imagine our surprise and disappointment when, only last week, we received from the

1241
Commonwealth Relations Office a very curt letter saying that owing to the necessity for economy the £450 would not be paid this year. It is really impossible, with the increasing commitments we have, to budget for the future, if our income is to be so uncertain. We have, of course, a number of generous private subscribers, but owing to high taxation and such considerations there has naturally been a falling off. I should therefore like to ask the noble Lord the specific question of which I have given him notice: What is the policy of the Government with regard to these grants, and can the recent decision to cut us off for this year be reconsidered? I hope I have not kept your Lordships too long, but I have a very genuine love of Australia, in which country I spent some of the happiest years of my life; therefore it gives me great pleasure to plead the cause of that Dominion in this House.
5.56 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to take part in this debate. I too have been in Australia and I only wish that I could have taken with me the noble Lord who opened this debate. At the time I should have been able to do it easily, for judging by the particulars given in books of reference the noble Lord was of such an age that I could have carried him on my arm. I went all over Australia, with the exception of the isolated island just to the south, and I can fully confirm everything the noble Lord has said about the great hospitality given to one as a visitor to Australia. I can cordially recommend any other noble Lord who wishes to experience great hospitality to visit Australia. It is true that there are certain dangers in that hospitality—they have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. I confess that, although I consider I am usually a normally courageous man, I did on one occasion flee. At the time I was in an Australian hotel; and when I saw the large number of glasses laid out I felt some trepidation. I knew that the custom there is that you have not only to pay for but to drink the contents of all the glasses. I fled the scene—not, let me say, on pecuniary but on physical grounds; I know that I could not stand up to it. But there is no doubt that the Australians are extraordinarily
1242
hospitable and altogether delightful people.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, was followed by my noble friend Lord Listowel, because the problem of migration is no longer the kind of problem which it was in earlier days, when migration was more popular in after-dinner speeches than in the actual carrying out of any policy—and I say that of all Parties. Speeches of the most generous and full-blooded nature used to be made about the desirability of migration, but in point of fact, under the Empire Settlement Act of 1922 (which, if I remember aright, was an Act brought in by Mr. Amery) very little money was allowed to be spent, at least for a very long period. What it is now I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Holden, can tell us what amount of money is now being spent on migration. In the early 1920's, some time after the Empire Act was in operation, there were a number of people going to Australia. Some of them were received; some of them were finding interesting employment, and some of them were having an extremely hard time, because the arrangements, either in this country or in Australia, were not well made. That was the time when the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, was Prime Minister of Australia. It was he who extended that great hospitality to me. I observe that he is not here to-day, but I am sure he would confirm what I am saying.
Another thing about Australia, which the noble Lord who opened the debate has mentioned, is that Australia was then, and is now, comprised largely of an industrial civilisation, a town civilisation. The great proportion of all people in Australia live in towns. Many of them, I remember when I was there, had never seen a kangaroo, except in a zoo. I myself went North by air, a most adventurous thing to do in those days because the aeroplanes used were converted Bristol fighters from the First World War. I thought it was curious that rain should be leaking from the top. What really was coming down was petrol, which was rather dangerous—though as I was the only passenger perhaps it did not much matter. But when I went up to the North of Western Australia, to the vast sheep stations which existed then, and which I presume exist now, I saw masses of kangaroos; on one

1243
sheep station alone there were 80,000. Yet a great many people in the towns had never seen them, or emus, which are also plentiful.
The point is that since those days we have broadened our horizon with regard to migration. We have not only to deal with supplying the needs of the white population but we have also to deal with the Colonial territories, and in some ways the problem there is even more urgent than it is in the Commonwealth. For instance, the West Indies are grossly over-populated. The standard of life of many of the people there is low. Their standard of health, although improving now, is not good. Of course, I am referring to the islands of the West Indies, but in British Guiana and British Honduras also difficult conditions prevail. There the need is for more population. It has been well known for twenty to thirty years that they have badly needed more population, but it is difficult to do anything about it.
There is also the question of the vast populations of the tropical belt in Africa. If you take a belt right across Africa, from West to East, you have there a population of about 45,000,000 people. The populations of these vast territories in Africa in the past were kept under control by the agency of nature, through diseases. At the present time, by reason of the tremendous advance in medical knowledge which has taken place during the last few years, and particularly under the stimulation of the needs of war, we have found means of completely controlling malaria. That was brought to my attention when I was visiting Salonika recently, some time before our troops left that area. Salonika in Greece during the First World War was synonymous with malignant malaria, and almost all the troops who went there, if they had malaria, had malignant malaria. The disease rate and the death rate were very heavy indeed. When I went there a year or two ago, there were no cases of malaria at all amongst the troops. I recently had a talk with the chief medical officer of the Colonial Office who has been visiting a number of territories, including those of the Overseas Food Corporation. In many of those areas in the interior of that tropical belt of Africa to which I have referred, malaria and a good many other tropical diseases had been eliminated. That will mean that in all those areas
1244
there will be a great increase in population.
What are we going to do with them? It is a serious problem. We certainly cannot refuse to extend the benefits of medical knowledge that we have to those people merely because it is inconvenient to provide them with means of subsistence. That would be an inhuman and Hitlerite way of acting. Therefore it is essential to provide them with places in which to live. I fully appreciate the reasons why the Australians wish to continue their policy of a white Australia but, if they are to maintain and justify that in the future, they will have to secure a very great increase of white population. That is one of the reasons why I consider it desirable that there should be that increase in population. I remember consulting economists in the matter when I was in Australia years ago, and one or two authorities agreed that the maximum population that Australia at some time in the future, at a date unspecified, could of itself support from its own resources was something like 40,000,000. As no doubt your Lordships know, although Australia is almost exactly the same size as the United States it has an unfertile interior, and only those with the prolific imaginations of people who are not properly oriented could imagine life on the sandy interior of the Nullarbor Plain and other places in the interior of Australia. No doubt, with scientific irrigation even in those areas something might be done, but at present it looks as though it will be a long time before those areas can grow enough to support even a few people.
The problem is made very urgent by the fact that the world is shrinking so rapidly. It is not confined to this country; it is not confined to the British Commonwealth. And that reminds me, the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, said that people in Australia complained that there was nothing between the Suez Canal and Port Darwin. They seem to have forgotten Pakistan and India, both places extremely important from the defence point of view. They seem to have forgotten Colombo, which I visited fairly recently and which is not a station to be neglected from the point of view of defence. They also seem to have forgotten Singapore—in fact, the noble Lord mentioned that Singapore was no longer

1245
very important. At all events, he did not think much of Singapore. Also they seemed to think that Hong Kong was of no importance. I went there especially for the purpose of looking at the medical side of the military formations. I did not gather that impression at all. This station is important and of the greatest use.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: I should like to correct the noble Lord on one point. It was my suggestion, and not something that was suggested to me in Australia. I take the responsibility for that opinion.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: I hope the noble Lord will look into the facts a little more closely and revise his opinion, because it gives a wrong and incorrect view of the defence arrangements of that vast stretch of territory. I do not think his impression can be described as being really accurate.
We cannot solve this great problem of the distribution of population in the world in accordance with the needs of the population and with the capacity of different countries to absorb it. I do not think we can solve that problem on the basis even of such a great confederation of nations as the British Commonwealth of nations and our Colonial possessions and dependencies. It is an immense problem. I agree with the noble Lord that as this is the leading group of nations we owe a special responsibility to the world. We have great opportunities and possibilities before us. One of those possibilities is to show what we ourselves have done in the past by migration; and what we can do in the future with regard to the redistribution of the population in such territories as those referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. We could also call a conference under the auspices of the United Nations on this question of the redistribution of world population. I believe that to be a matter of the most urgent importance, because unless we do that we shall have the pressure of tremendous populations such as we have in China. I know the difficulties that exist in the redistribution of the people in China, the difficulties at the present time in the West Indies, and also those in Australia with regard to absorbing other populations. Australia is absorbing large numbers of Italians and only a comparatively small proportion of people from
1246
this country. I do not believe that this problem can be solved except on the 'basis of a conference at United Nations level. I hope that one result of our discussion this evening will be that the suggestion will go out that such a conference should be called to help to solve one of the world's greatest problems.
6.12 p.m.
LORD BADEN-POWELL: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Fairfax for introducing this Motion, which concerns a subject of the greatest importance in these days of so much uncertainty. I should like also to say how glad we shall be to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holden, address us at the end of this debate. Migration to the Colonies has, of course, been going on steadily for very many years, but never perhaps on the same scale as at the present time, particularly since the end of the war. Let us for a moment consider why it is that people suddenly decide to uproot themselves from the sort of life which they and their ancestors have hitherto led in this country, to take up residence in some far-flung corner of our Commonwealth and Empire. One does not have to look far for an answer to that question. These people are restless after the war, or may be dissatisfied in one way or another with conditions in England—be it the high rate of taxation or the restrictions with which they are perpetually confronted. It dawns upon them that if they go abroad they can have a better chance of life, and at the same time be of some benefit to whatever under-developed part of the Empire they may decide to make their future home.
Many such people, however, possibly because they lack the true pioneering spirit and find conditions "out there" very different from those they have known here all their lives, are disillusioned and soon return to England. All seem attracted by the prospects of wide, open spaces and unlimited sunshine; but do they realise that a great deal of both brain and brawn is necessary if those wide, open spaces are to be made into productive farmland, or covered in part with thriving towns and villages? 'The wise would-be emigrant, having carefully weighed up all the pros and cons, and found out all he car about his future homeland, will probably turn out to be the best type of settler as he has at least

1247
the ability to think and act for himself. Many of our Colonies, still more or less in their infancy, cry out for immigrants of the right type, who are prepared to emulate the determined efforts of the earlier pioneers and are not afraid of constant hard work.
The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, has already given us some interesting facts and figures concerning migration to Australia, and we have heard some enlightening information on the subject in respect of other parts of the Empire from the five noble Lords who have so far spoken in this debate. May I, then, impose for a few minutes upon your Lordships' time to tell you something about present-day migration to the self-governing Colony of Southern Rhodesia? As some of your Lordships are aware, I have myself lived and worked in that rapidly developing country for some fifteen years and, until I left there last May, was able to observe at first-hand the progress of immigration. It is significant that during the last ten years, and more especially since the end of the war, the European population of the Colony has more than doubled itself and to-day numbers about 125,000, which is slightly less than that of a town the size of, say, Huddersfield. The white population of the capital city, Salisbury, with which the noble Marquess of that name has such a close connection, has actually trebled. During the war years, large numbers of Royal Air Force personnel received their training in Southern Rhodesia as part of the Empire Air Training Scheme. I regret I am unable to ascertain just how many of these men have, on demobilisation, found their way back to the Colony, but I have reason to believe that many have done so and are, indeed, still doing so. Furthermore, all who served out there in whatever capacity will have told their friends and relations here about life in that young and rising country, with consequent publicity value to the Colony itself.
By virtue of wise and careful selection of immigrants in reasonably limited numbers, Southern Rhodesia has had, and is still enjoying, a steady influx of settlers of the right type, in all walks of life. The principal limitation upon the number of immigrants admitted—and they are entering the Colony at the rate of about 1,000 per month—is the universal
1248
problem of housing. In consequence, preferential admission was at one period accorded to large numbers of men in all branches of the building industry, to their own advantage and to that of the Colony as a whole. Such men are, in fact, still excepted from most of the present immigration regulations, their entry being sponsored individually by the National Building and Housing Board. All the six municipalities in the Colony have extended their boundaries, and widespread building operations are constantly in progress within them and, to a lesser degree, the smaller centres. Despite such large-scale building work, however, housing is still a major difficulty, and hotel and other accommodation, except for very short periods—and that after booking well in advance—is almost unobtainable. Once this problem has been surmounted, it seems there will be no other reason for limiting the regular inflow of new immigrants. There is ample opportunity for anyone with energy and initiative, and at present there is virtually no unemployment amongst Europeans. All the unskilled and most of the semiskilled labour is done by Africans, which means that all European immigrants should be thoroughly competent in their own particular trades or professions if they are to hold their own against any possible African competition.
At this stage, I feel it might be of interest if I were to quote you a few immigration figures. In 1939 3,338 persons entered the Colony, but last year that number rose to 14,155. Even that figure, however, was a decrease of 3,000 on the 1948 total, which was an all-time record. An analysis of the 1949 total is interesting: 7,641 were British, born in the United Kingdom; 5,173 were British, born in the Union of South Africa; and 550 came from other parts of the Commonwealth. Those born in foreign countries numbered 207, and 121 were naturalised persons. Aliens, Asiatics and coloureds numbered, respectively, 404, 53 and 6. Of the 1948 immigrants, those who came direct from the United Kingdom out-numbered those from the Union of South Africa by nearly two to one. Industrial classification of the "gainfully employed" immigrants during 1949 was as follows: public service, 2,238 (including 1,082 Royal Air Force, 1,012 entering Government service, and 144

1249
others, mainly municipal employees); manufacturing, 990; building and construction, 794; commerce and finance, 727; transport and communications, 678; agriculture, 508; professions, entertainment And sport, 370; mining, 194; personal service, 187; and other industries 53. "Not gainfully employed" immigrants, who numbered 7,416, were mainly dependants. In the Rhodesian Parliament, on April 18 this year, the Minister of Finance, in his Budget speech, said:
"In view of the rapid progress in the building of factories, shops and offices, the record import of industrial machinery in 1949, and the continued expansion of the Rhodesia railways, the building industry and farming industry, and with unemployment virtually nil, it must be obvious to the House that a heavy influx of immigrants will be required during the present year to fill urgent vacancies in all walks of life in the Colony. It is quite impracticable to import capital without, at the same time, importing labour."
Your Lordships will realise from what I have so far said that there are enormous potentialities to be realised in Southern Rhodesia. The colony is 150,133 square miles in extent—nearly the size of Germany—and there is thus ample space for many thousands more people. With the steady influx of immigrants at the rate of a thousand a month, the financial resources of the Colony are also growing. Let me quote a few figures on this point. In 1923–24, the revenue of Southern Rhodesia stood at only £1,500,000, increased five years later by another £1,000,000. In 1938–39 it stood at £3,500,000, and by 1948–49 had increased to £13,575,468. The Colony financed her not inconsiderable war effort entirely from her own resources, and was, indeed, even able to develop her administration and civilian services at the same time. This all points towards the extremely wise and far-sighted policy of the Southern Rhodesia Government, under its most able Prime Minister, Sir Godfrey Huggins. In conclusion, I should like to sum up all I have said this afternoon, by quoting Sir Godfrey, who, on one occasion, said:
"Southern Rhodesia is no place for men and women without skill of either hand or brain, nor is it a place for people who expect to be molly-coddled through life. But for those who are independent and self-reliant, prepared to stand solidly on their own two feet, it is a grand country. We believe that there will be development and expansion in all directions in Southern Rhodesia. offering opportunities for far more than our present limited European population; and for the man
1250
who is prepared to work and 'take a chance' there will be ample scope—so long as he bears in mind that, although we have many amenities, on the whole this country must be regarded as still in the pioneering stage."
6.26 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I should like to add my own words to those of speakers who have already spoken congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, on the speech which he made, and also thanking him for the opportunity which he has given us of devoting ourselves to this subject to-day. I think that anyone who has listened to this debate cannot nave failed to be struck by the very high measure of agreement that all speakers have shown, and struck also by the absolutely non-Party character of this afternoon's discussions. Although the debate has ranged over a great many countries of the world, nobody has spoken of problems in any country of which he has not personal knowledge, and fairly recent knowledge at that.
My noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron, in his opening speech, dealt with the question of how we might strengthen the sinews of the Commonwealth in the spheres of defence, industry and economy through controlling, helping and canalising the flow of emigrants from this country. He spoke of our problem here in the United Kingdom, of our large population and of its vulnerability, and also of the pressure of European refugees seeking an outlet. He went into the progress made, and, in great detail, underlined the difficulties which we face. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Holden, when he comes to reply—and we shall wish him well in this his maiden speech as a Government spokesman—will agree with me that for his first time at the Government dispatch box he has a debate of the first magnitude to deal with.
Before I go any further into the general theme of my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron, I should like to say a word on the interesting speeches which have been made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and by the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest. Both these noble Lords drew our attention to the Colonies. The noble Earl spoke of those which are still under-developed and under-populated, and which have a great future ahead of them if more people can be found to develop

1251
their resources. I am sure he will agree with me, and with my noble friend, that in any kind of movement of that sort which this country might stimulate, the two tests would be whether the country of adoption was willing to receive those immigrants from outside, and whether those immigrants were of such race or such sort as were likely to become good citizens of the country to which they went. He and Lord Haden-Guest mentioned the fearful problem of overpopulation. When you look at it—and it has been much debated in the parliaments of the world—you see little that is not dwarfed into insignificance by the awful problem of populations marching ahead of production. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, cited the cases of various countries where the people are so thick upon the ground that it is hard for them to maintain a reasonable standard of living. He could have drawn the picture in much grimmer lines, and I am afraid the instances which he quoted will be paralleled by others in a far shorter time than he mentioned, in these countries that lie within our purview in the British Commonwealth and Empire. It is hard to see that there can be any other solution to this problem of over-crowding than settlement and migration on the lines of which he spoke.
In the remarks which I have to make to your Lordships, I am going to confine myself to what I suggest we in the United Kingdom can do to assist these other countries of the Commonwealth to build up their strength, by making available to them those of our citizens who wish to go to spend their lives there. As several noble Lords have already remarked, there is a changed outlook in the world. Emigration is now widely accepted among all Parties in this country. It is now widely agreed that the fact that round about five-sevenths of the white British race live in about one-ninetieth part of their territories is a cause for great misgiving, in view of the dangers which we face. The last war has shown the awful hazards with which vast countries with tiny populations can be beset. The last three decades have shown the buffets of boom and slump, the awful catastrophes of nature and the inroads they can make on economies which are based entirely on the products of the soil. No wonder those countries seek our settlers,
1252
and seek a broader basis for their economies in order to strengthen themselves against these dangers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, has rightly said, a new pattern is evolving. The redistribution of the British race is a great challenge to our generation. If we do it successfully, stability may be ours for decades to come. If we do not, then it is hard to see that we can have any future to which to look forward. Lord Haden-Guest said he thought that this problem was the concern of the rest of the world, and one of such gigantic scope that it could not be settled below U.N.O. level. I do not entirely disagree with that, but this afternoon I should like to confine the discussion to that part of the world in which we can actually change the destinies of mankind.
As I have said, most people now entirely agree with the idea of migration. But it would be a dull world if we all thought alike. I am sometimes astonished to hear men, highly thought of in other spheres, put forward false and flimsy arguments to oppose this conception. One is that this island is either defensible or it is not. If it is defensible, it is argued, let us all stay here; but if it is not, let us all quit and leave it. I think that is a very flimsy argument. Another argument is that if we find ourselves on the eve of an atomic war, we must quickly get rid of several millions of our population to the distant parts of the Commonwealth. What could be worse rubbish than that? We shall only too likely be faced with an atomic war, and there will be no eve and no dusk; we shall be plunged from daylight to darkness if we are not fully prepared, and prepared a long time ahead. Others object to this conception because they say that if we encourage emigration on a large scale, we lose to this country more and more of those who produce, and leave fewer and fewer to support more and more who are either too young or too old to contribute. There is no substance in that argument, because every Dominion with whom we have made arrangements in this sphere has agreed to take a cross-section of our citizens.
To-night we are discussing mainly how we are going to assist the other countries of the Commonwealth by the flow of our citizens to become their citizens. It is always important to remember that migration never has been, and never will

1253
be, a completely one-way flow. It is a "tide in the affairs of men" which has both an ebb and a flow. In 1930, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa felt the slump rather later than we did; but when they did, many of their young men came to Britain to seek their fortunes, instead of the other way round, and those who came out-numbered those who went. Then, when the last war started, more than one quarter of the R.A.F. was Canadian. This is not emigration in the sense in which the word would have been understood ten years ago; it is something different. As the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, said, it is a new concept. It is a strategic re-deployment of our citizens. And this is not only the task of the citizens themselves, but the high task of Governments. It requires long-term planning of a kind which cannot be turned on and off at will like a tap, at short notice.
It is eighteen months-odd since we last debated this subject. The Government then greatly heartened us on this side by subscribing in no unmeasured terms to the view that in this country we should encourage emigration so far as lay in our power, and I should like to hear those same terms of reassurance from the noble Lord, Lord Holden, to-night, if he feels he can make them. There were no lack of volunteers for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Baden-Powell, has given, and for others too. What has happened in the last year? Take Canada, for example. Over 362,000 human souls went to Canada between VE-Day and 1949, and just over 160,000 were from Great Britain. But in the last year a blight has fallen. The figures of emigration from Britain to Canada have dropped 52 per cent. It is not through lack of willingness of people to go, and not through lack of willingness on the part of Canada to receive them.
While by no means belittling the importance of the other countries mentioned, and others still not mentioned, I should like to concentrate on the two great countries of Australia and Canada, because nearly all the problems are to be found within that purview and in such a mammoth size that they can be more easily seen and more easily examined. In Australia the problem of getting British immigrants is twofold, and both of them have been discussed to-night. They are
1254
shipping and housing, and noble Lords who know much more about both those things than I do have spoken on them. What is the shipping situation in this country? I should be immensely grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Holden, would shed some light on it. I gather, purely as a layman, that we lost in the last war 11,000,000 tons of shipping, which repair and replacement has cut down to something like a net loss of 7,000,000 tons. Since then we have been building more ships in this country than the rest of the world put together—a matter for great congratulation. But now ship-building is beginning to taper off. Pools of unemployment are beginning to appear in the shipyards. Where do we go from here? Because for emigration and other needs we regard as vital, we still lack shipping.
In connection with emigration to Australia, I should like to ask the noble Lord this question. When the scheme between our Government and the Government of Australia for jointly paid passages of intending emigrants was made, I believe the ratio was fifty-fifty; does that still operate? As regards housing, I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, has said, but I should like to reinforce his question. We should be grateful to know anything that the noble Lord thinks he can tell us about the progress of the Australian housing mission, now in London.
I should like to focus your Lordships' attention on a country which I know well—namely, Canada. I have spent more than half of my adult life there, or in its service. Here we have a wonderful microcosm of the whole question of the movement of humanity It is the only country in the Commonwealth that has a re-migration problem. A quarter of its citizens were born outside it. A quarter of its citizens now alive, who were born in it, are living outside it. Since 1869 literally millions of people have gone there from the rest of the world, but such is their re-migration problem, largely southwards over the border of the United States, that, since 1869, had no single man gone to Canada and no single man left, the population would be what it is to-day. Immigration into Canada is a pressing problem and one which exercises Canada greatly. As your Lordships know, a Canadian

1255
Minister of Migration was appointed for the first time in January of this year.
The fall in the number of emigrants from Britain to Canada by 52 per cent. last year is no accident. It is due to two things—the currency restrictions imposed by the last Budget but three, and the extensive rise in the cost of transportation since devaluation. I believe the Government cannot have had the slightest idea of the effect of these currency restrictions, because, if they had, I am sure they would not have limited intending emigrants to £1,000 and the amount which they could take in one year to not more than £250. What it means is that the small middle-class family unit has been more or less banned as settlers. Nearly all are single men and women with small resources. Skilled workers and craftsmen cannot be attracted, because they have nearly always saved up more than £1,000. Canada cannot get those skilled in small crafts and trades who would wish to set up in business. A cross-section is destroyed, because a producer who goes out there often cannot get his mother and father, or whoever are his dependants, to follow him, as they have probably worked and saved up rather more than that sum.
As a result, a great many people who would have made their lives in Canada, and put that country as their first choice, have gone to South Africa or Australia instead—no loss to the Commonwealth, but in many cases a grievous loss to Canada. Canada has always tried, in order to ensure an essential balance of people, to maintain a certain ratio of those citizens of this country and those from the rest of Europe. But if those from this country are reduced by this slashing figure, it is only to be expected that she may find herself having to review the number of displaced persons and others that she can take to make up her total. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, cannot be aware of the large number of people who have gone from Western Europe to these countries. Further on this point, there are assisted schemes to Australia and New Zealand, and the British taxpayer plays his part. But he does not have to contribute anything to those who go to Canada—emigration to Canada takes place independently of the British taxpayer's purse. It seems, therefore, a great misfortune to
1256
Canada, who was not asked, and has not come to any agreement by which she receives any outside financial assistance in this sphere, that her flow of immigrants should have dried up in this way. If that affects Ontario where, as your Lordships well know, about one-third of the Canadian industrial population lives, how much more does it affect the prairie provinces, where people could go to start farms, but now cannot take the money to buy a farm. Surely, somewhere there is a possible compromise and room for relaxation of these restrictions.
I should now like to say a few words on the question of transportation. Those who have not sufficient funds to take over to be hit by these currency regulations in the sphere of £1,000 find themselves hit by having to pay a heavy fare. The tourist class single fare across the Atlantic prior to devaluation cost £40; it is now £54. B.O.A.C. used to charge £86; they now charge £120.
To bring my remarks to a conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Holden, has been asked many questions; he has taken a number of notes, and we all expect some interesting answers from him. But what we want to know is: What are the plans for the future? We concern ourselves in this House with what lies within the purview of the Parliament of Westminster, something that we can personally assist or alter. My noble friend Lord Fairfax made a plea for a Migration Board, and that is a plea I would strongly endorse. He has made a most interesting disquisition on industrial migration. That, I feel, is something which the Government could look into with the greatest profit. But it cannot work unless those companies who try it receive some encouragement in terms of currency, in terms of passages, and in terms of other assistance. It is not a question of British industries being reft from this island and divorced from valuable continental markets, but rather of established industries in this country sending out to those countries an off-shoot, and the people who go with it, which may well one day flourish into something greater than the parent tree. A famous Canadian firm of agricultural implement makers, following that principle, has a factory and assembly plant, some of which have grown bigger than the parent unit, in every single Commonwealth country. I should like to hear what information the noble Lord can give

1257
us on the subject of shipping, and on currency regulations. If the Government say they are encouraging emigration, they cannot deny that that is a terrible discouragement. So also is the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, where the grant to the Big Brother Movement is being reduced.
LORD GIFFORD: Removed altogether.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: The noble Lord corrects me. It has been removed altogether. Surely, there is room for relaxation of these restrictions, so that we in this country can say with an absolutely clear conscience that we are giving the all-out encouragement that every one of us wishes to see. We must face these problems now, because they press upon us and will press harder as time goes on.
6.46 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (LORD HOLDEN): My Lords, I should first of all like to say how grateful I am for the many kind remarks that have been made by noble Lords about myself, and secondly to make the more melancholy observation that, as this is a very important debate, I may not be able to allow your Lordships to go to dinner for some time. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, for raising the matter, and to thank him and other noble Lords for their courtesy in letting me know what the main theme of their speeches would be, and for sending me beforehand some specific questions they wished to ask. Before replying, to them, however, I should like to make a few general observations on migration within the Commonwealth.
I would say with emphasis that His Majesty's Government want to encourage and facilitate the flow of migration from this Island to the various parts of the Commonwealth which are calling for further settlement. Since the 17th century, as your Lordships know, the overseas migration of British people has been on a larger scale than that of any other people, and those people built up the countries of the Commonwealth to-day, where British stock is the largest single
1258
element of the population. This has had two distinct advantages. The first is the very happy relationship existing in the Commonwealth, which has produced a solidarity so potent in overcoming our enemies in two world wars. The second concerns trade. There is no doubt that the people of the Commonwealth have a natural inclination to purchase British goods, and the maintenance and growth of this trade is directly related to the size and character of the populations of the Commonwealth. But circumstances in the Commonwealth are vastly different to-day from what they were, say, fifty years ago. Then the present Commonwealth nations were, in larger or lesser degrees, ruled by this country, and were far more sparsely populated than they are even to-day. At the same time, there were constant periods of unemployment in the United Kingdom. To-day these same people are great independent nations, though bound together by many common ties; and we in this country have full employment. Therefore I think that our approach to the problem of migration to-day must be different from what it was in the past.
To go into more detailed considerations, there are two rather separate questions involved in any discussion of the United Kingdom policy towards migration. One is that concerned with the effects of emigration on United Kingdom economy—considerations such as the supply of man-power, particularly in skilled trades, and export of plant and capital. The second is the provision to be made from United Kingdom funds for the specific purpose of subsidising the movement of individual migrants. Since 1922 there has been provision for expenditure of public funds for this purpose, in the Empire Settlement Act of 1922, which was extended in 1937. It is by virtue of these Acts that schemes like the present assisted-passage scheme to Australia have been possible. As your Lordships will be aware, the Acts are due to expire on May 31, 1952. The question of their extension is now coming under review, but it would be premature to attempt to indicate at this stage what the result of the examination of this question will be. It is safe to say, however, that

1259
the United Kingdom will continue, as it has so often declared in the past, to welcome migration of persons from this country for permanent settlement in other countries of the Commonwealth.
The factors which have to be borne in mind are the willingness of individuals to go, and the willingness of other countries to receive them, house them and absorb them into their economies. This is not a matter in which any British Government would bring pressure to bear, either upon individuals or upon other countries. All we can do is to reiterate the value that we attach to this means of strengthening the bonds between the members of the Commonwealth and to facilitate the flow by all means, and to the greatest extent, that our own resources permit. It is well known that many of the skilled tradesmen who are in particular demand in other countries are those whom we ourselves greatly need. Our hope, therefore, is that Governments will seek to take a cross-section of our population—which has been mentioned by many noble Lords opposite—and not merely our youngest and our most skilled people. We welcome the opportunity which we have of discussing with them the proportions and numbers in particular trades whose emigration should be encouraged. But so highly do we value the links afforded by migration that we are prepared to take risks and not to obtrude our own difficulties in particular categories, except in the most compelling cases.
The cost of migration is much higher than before the war, and our financial resources have many other calls upon them. But it remains our policy to welcome and facilitate a flow on the present scale. Migration from Europe to less-developed countries is a topic which is being much discussed in international circles at present—for instance, at Geneva by the I.L.O. The United Kingdom is always ready to take part in these discussions and to try to help them forward. But in our view, and, we think, that of other Commonwealth countries, migration within the Commonwealth is more of a family affair, and we value the more informal and direct atmosphere in which we can treat it.
I should now like to make a few general observations about migration questions
1260
as they affect individual members of the Commonwealth. I should first like to refer to Canada. At present it is not Canadian Government policy to operate Government-sponsored schemes of immigration, United Kingdom migration to Canada is showing a decline, which is probably due not only to the exhaustion of the post-war rush but also to the absence of Governmental assistance and to the present restrictions on the amount of capital that can be transferred from this country to Canada. I think my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir has already referred to the fact that the limit was reduced in 1948 from £5,000 to £1,000, spread over four years. On the economic side, there is in Canada, as your Lordships know, an unemployment problem more severe than seasonal fluctuations can account for.
Migration to Australia is proceeding at an accelerating rate. It is in three categories: assisted migration under the assisted-passage agreement, under which the cost of passages above a small sum—that is, £10–contributed by the migrant himself, is shared between the United Kingdom and Australian Governments; free passage migration, under the scheme whereby free passages are provided by the Ministry of Labour and National Service as a resettlement benefit for British ex-Service men and ex-Service women; and thirdly, ordinary migration of persons travelling under their own arrangements. The Australians have several times since the war approached us to make special ships available, and in response to these requests we have done our best to keep putting more ships on the migrant run. In addition to these special ships there are, of course, the ordinary commercial runs to Australia which carry persons proceeding under their own arrangements, as well as a fair proportion of those travelling under the free or assisted schemes. The expected lift in special ships to Australia for 1950 is 34,500 berths. In addition, tourist berths in commercial ships for assisted independent migration will bring the total to 63,000. I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, more or less said himself.
May I now refer to New Zealand? The New Zealand Government have free and assisted-passage schemes of their own. These were established in July, 1947, and on account of the scarcity of shipping

1261
and housing were limited to single people without dependants. These two problems and the consequent limitation still persist. The accepted age range for general purposes is from twenty to thirty-five years. These schemes are operated by the New Zealand Government on their own. A ship owned by the United Kingdom, the "Atlantis," has been made available to the New Zealand Government and is operated for their migration run by one of their shipping companies. The New Zealand Government, as your Lordships all know, have a traditional preference for immigrants from this country.
About the Union of South Africa, I would say this. There are no migration schemes operated with or by the Government of the Union, although there was a heavy flow of United Kingdom migration to the Union after the war. Now we come to Southern Rhodesia. Southern Rhodesia has admitted relatively large quantities of British immigrants since the war. By regulation, almost all immigrants to Southern Rhodesia are of British nationality. Permission to enter is readily given to persons who either have assured employment to go to or have a capital sum behind them. This sum has been raised from £1,000 to £1,500. In the last five years, Mr. Beadle, the Minister of Internal Affairs, said recently Southern Rhodesia has absorbed 58,000 settlers, raising the Colony's European population from 75,000 to 120,000. This, my Lords, you will agree, is a most remarkable increase.
Now I would pass to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, of which he courteously gave me notice before he made his eloquent and delightful speech. The first referred to shipping: the noble Lord asked what His Majesty's Government are doing to assist the Dominions to get to their own shores those Britons who wish to migrate, and what are the arrangements for providing information for migrants. We have made great efforts since the war to meet the Australian Government's requests for special shipping for migration, and the supply of shipping has been increasing rapidly. There are at present 10 special migrant ships, and there is another in commission. There is also a special migrant ship running to New Zealand. In addition, of course, use is made of the
1262
ordinary liner runs to Australia and New Zealand. There are no longer any special arangements for shipping to Canada or to the Union of South Africa: normal passenger traffic is now considered sufficient to carry the flow. The Governments who have migration schemes do their own advertising and the organisation of the Ministry of Labour and National Service is at their disposal to put them in touch with prospective migrants. The London representatives of Commonwealth Governments are always ready to provide prospective migrants with all the information they may require. Under the assisted-passage scheme with Australia it was agreed that the Australian and United Kingdom Governments would share equally the cost of the passage over and above the migrant's own small contribution. We have, unfortunately, found it necessary to ask the Australian Government to agree, in our present financial circumstances, to a reduction in the size of our contribution for each passage, and they have generously agreed to take part of the burden off us.
The noble Lord asked about a White Paper on Migration. There is nothing new to show at the moment, but we will certainly consider laying a further White Paper before the Empire Settlement Acts come up for review—which, as the noble Lord knows, is in 1952. The noble Lord also asked about assistance to the Australian housing mission. The Australian housing mission were received on April 3 by my honourable friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade, who explained that the Government were anxious to assist the Australians in filling up the empty spaces in Australia. He said that the Ministry of Works were the production authority for export of houses and also for building materials and fitments and would no doubt give the mission all possible assistance. The mission have since had several sessions with the Ministry of Works, who carried out a very large programme of producing and erecting prefabricated houses and were most willing to give the Australians the benefit of their experience. This experience covered such matters as the organisation of the whole project, with notes on the phasing of the programme—that is to say, how far ahead of erection sites must be prepared, and at what stages the different operations begin so that the programme runs smoothly.

1263
The Ministry of Works have also given the mission information on the types of contracts into which they entered and their experience in the actual erection of the houses; and they have been able to contribute a certain amount of experience of scientific research in these matters.
The noble Lord then asked about the use of the steamship "Aquitania," and shipping in general. We have received representations from the Australian Government for still more shipping this year, and we have reviewed those representations with the utmost sympathy and eagerness to assist. But there are no more ships to be had. The future shipbuilding programme in this country is possibly beyond the scope of this debate, and in any case no ships laid down or put in for conversion now would be anywhere near ready in time to assist the movement this year. The use of the "Aquitania" was carefully considered, but it was concluded that the cost and time involved in making her suitable for continued service rendered the project prohibitive. The noble Lord next asked me about the Commonwealth Migration Board. If any of the Governments indicated that they thought that a body of this nature would be useful, we should be happy to consider it. At the moment, however, there is no indication that any of them feel the need for it, or that they are not respectively fully content with the standard arrangements for consultation on matters of common interest.
As regards the transferability of social services, about which the noble Lord next asked, the recommendations of the conference of officials from the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth held in 1947 provided a basis for bilateral negotiations. By a 1949 amendment, the qualifying period under the Canadian Family Allowances Act is now only one year, so that the question of reciprocity or transfer has become largely academic. It has not been found possible to arrange an agreement with Canada in respect of unemployment benefit, because of the possibility of financial adjustments causing a dollar drain which the United Kingdom can at present ill afford. In Australia, all the social service benefits are immediately obtainable by migrants on the same terms as Australian citizens,
1264
except old age pensions, about which negotiations are now taking place. As regards New Zealand, a reciprocal arrangement has been made about family allowances and discussions on other aspects of social security reciprocity are now taking place.
I now come to the last of the noble Lord's questions, which is a most difficult one: the migration of whole economic units. I think the noble Lord will agree that this is a very big and a very difficult problem. Successful attempts to do this sort of thing are in no way unwelcome to the United Kingdom Government, and if businesses can find a suitable site with suitable markets, and can get together a staff willing to travel, there is no reason why they should not get on with it. But it is not a matter in which the Government can properly use much influence; it would be improper to bring pressure to bear either on businesses or on individual employees to move. Any such movement would be subject, of course, to the exchange and export controls which have been established in this country to protect and promote the United Kingdom's own economy.
I now turn to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. This is perhaps a question which is of interest to the Colonial Office, and I hope I shall not be treading on anyone's toes in making mention of it. Lord Listowel asked about North Borneo, and I can tell him that the Colonial Office have for some time been considering possible sources from which labour might be recruited for North Borneo. The British West Indies was not regarded as a suitable source: it is considered that people from the West Indies would not be readily assimilated into local conditions, and that it is undesirable to introduce a fresh element in the heterogeneous society of North Borneo. The noble Earl also asked me a question about the position regarding the admission of Chinese labour into North Borneo. I am informed that the passport and immigration legislation provides adequate safeguards to ensure the bona fides of prospective immigrants. All entrants are very carefully screened.
The second point that the noble Earl asked was in relation to the need of migration from the over-populated parts of the British West Indies, and the possibility

1265
of using migrant labour in British Honduras and British Guiana. The third question was in regard to the Government's attitude towards the findings on migration in the Evans Report. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to answer those questions together. The British Guiana and British Honduras Settlement Commission, under the Chairmanship of Sir Geoffrey Evans, was appointed in 1947 and reported at the end of 1948. As a result of their proposals, the economic development of British Guiana and British Honduras is proceeding, and it is hoped will provide opportunities for a certain amount of migration to those territories from the more densely populated islands of the British West Indies. It is, however, important that the foundations of this development shall be soundly laid, and that there shall be no premature movements of population. It must not be overlooked that at present there is a certain amount of unemployment in British Honduras which must be absorbed before labour is brought in from elsewhere.
Lastly, the noble Earl asked a question about Malta. Under the new Constitution, emigration is the responsibility of the Maltese Government, but His Majesty's Government, for their part, will naturally do everything to assist the Maltese Government if they are asked to do so. They have in the past made arrangements to set aside for migrants from Malta to Australia certain accommodation on one of the migrant ships sailing between the United Kingdom and Australia, and will continue to do so as far as possible. In view of the constitutional position, however, the prime responsibility in this matter must rest with the Maltese authorities concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, made a constructive speech looking very much into the future. It was most interesting. He brought up the population problem. That is a large question, and now is not the moment to discuss it. I agree that as regards this country and the Commonwealth it is a matter of great responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, brought up the question of the Big Brother Movement. This is the answer I must give him. Before the war, we and the Australian Government made a joint grant towards the London expenses of the Big Brother Movement. The
1266
Australian Government have recently decided to discontinue their contribution and, in view of the imperative need of economy, we have regretfully decided that we must follow suit. May I add that should the Australian Government reconsider their decision, we shall, of course, reconsider ours?
Lord Haden-Guest asked how much money is now being spent by the United Kingdom on migration. The direct expenditure on the provision of passages to Australia under the assisted passages scheme and the free Passages scheme for ex-Service men will amount to more than £2,000,000 in the year 1950–51. May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baden-Powell, for his remarks on Southern Rhodesia, on which country he is probably the greatest expert in your Lordships' House? Then the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, asked me some questions which I should answer.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I asked a great many questions under several different headings. Perhaps I can extract a Written Answer from the noble Lord to save time now?
LORD HOLDEN: Certainly. Otherwise it will take me some time to reply now. Perhaps I might say at the conclusion of a rather long speech that I have attempted to answer the points raised but, as in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, I shall be only too glad to write to any noble Lord upon any further point about which he may desire information. His Majesty's Government wish to give encouragement and to provide facilities so far as possible for migration. We believe, however, that mass migration is impracticable and we must bear in mind to-day that we have full employment in the United Kingdom. This may often mean that, when someone migrates, what is a gain to another Commonwealth country is a loss to this country. Indeed, I may say that, but for the Commonwealth and our desire to help its nations in every way we can, we should not today be encouraging migration. However, we have a Commonwealth migration policy, and as far as my Government are concerned we shall do all in our power to make it a success. May I add this? The Government of the United Kingdom have no wish or intention whatever to interfere in these matters with any sister

1267
nation of the Commonwealth. We in this country seek to dictate to nobody but rather to help everyone to the best of our ability in our great family of nations.
7.18 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, it is my great pleasure and privilege to congratulate the noble Lord who has just spoken upon his first speech as a Minister of His Majesty's Government. As he is a personal friend of mine, it gives me a double pleasure to hear him replying to the debate which I have instituted. I am sure that we shall all look forward to hearing the noble Lord speak again in the future. I feel that we have had a most interesting debate. I am glad to know that His Majesty's Government are anxious to encourage migration within the Commonwealth, but I confess that I feel that the attitude which they are taking towards migration is a little too cautious. It appears that they are adopting too much caution, and I hardly feel that they will be very successful in encouraging migration. It is up to the United Kingdom to take the lead in Commonwealth affairs and not to wait for the Dominions to do so. From the way His Majesty's Government approach this question I hardly think that they will be likely to take that lead. Their attitude is rather one of leaving it for the other person to move first.
With regard to the limitation upon the removal of capital to Canada, I am sorry that His Majesty's Government can give no indication that they intend to restore to £5,000 the maximum that may be taken. The reduction is having a direct effect in limiting the number of people who go to Canada, and I should have thought that it might be possible to make a special exception in the case of Canada, which has done so much for us in the past, particularly during the war. I was greatly heartened by what the noble Lord said about the number of berths which will be available to take migrants to Australia. The number of berths with the commercial lines was substantially more than I had thought, and it appears that there will be only some 7,000 short if the full target of 70,000 Britons from this country is realised.
There was one point in the noble Lord's speech about which I was particularly sorry—namely, the question of His
1268
Majesty's Government reducing the contribution which they can make towards the assisted-passages scheme to Australia. Quite apart from the money advantages of that scheme, I feel that there is an important matter of token in this—in showing our attitude towards migration and our feeling towards the population needs of Australia. I am sure that the amount of money involved cannot be very large, and I feel that the reduction of our share of the cost may create a bad impression in Australia. It is a matter of regret that the United Kingdom, the Mother Country of the Commonwealth, cannot pay at least half the full cost of these passages.
With regard to industrial migration, it is not so much a question of His Majesty's Government applying pressure on particular companies to go; that does not come into the question at all, so far as I can see. It is merely a question of encouraging companies to go, and of their knowing that if they do go their action will be smiled upon and that they will receive help from His Majesty's Government. It is fully within the power of His Majesty's Government to encourage them and to let them know that they are doing something of which the Government approve. We have had a most interesting debate, but the hour is late and I should not like to detain your Lordships any longer. I will close by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Holden, again for his very informative reply. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE WATER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la; and referred to the Examiners.
WISBECH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the order made on March 15 last discharged, and Bill committed.
FACULTY OF HOMEOPATHY BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that, by virtue of the powers invested in him by Section 2 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, he had nominated the following fifteen Members of the House to be Members of the Ecclesiastical Committee established under that Act, and to serve for the duration of the present Parliament:

E. Grey,

E. Selborne,

V. Chelmsford,

V. Davidson,

1270

L. Denman,

L. O'Hagan,

L. Meston,

L. Moynihan,

L. Luke,

L. Hailey,

L. Belstead,

L. Ammon,

L. Oaksey,

L. Crook, and

L. Burden.

House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.