§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether—
- (a) they have taken cognisance of Lord Casey's recently published views on migration;
- (b) they accept that the attitude of the Government is a factor of consequence in the minds of prospective migrants;
- (c) they should not therefore attempt to stimulate the flow of migrants to the Commonwealth by utilising a larger proportion of the sum voted annually by Parliament under the Commonwealth Settlement Act.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have of course taken careful note of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Casey. With regard to the second,pant of my noble friend's Question, I should not like to dogmatise about the factors influencing prospective migrants. Only the individual can take the final decision. This must to a great extent depend on personal circumstances and on prevailing economic conditions, both here and in the country of settlement. There is no doubt as 'to the Government's attitude. It has, and continues to be, one of encouraging migration to other parts of the Commonwealth.
As regards the last part of my noble friend's Question, Parliament last year voted some £178,000 for oversea settlement purposes, and this sum was fully spent: the hulk of it went to the Australian assisted passage scheme, and the rest went to the various voluntary emigration societies. But the Commonwealth and Empire Settlement Acts, under which the money is voted, expire in May, 1962. The question of their renewal is now being considered as part of a general review of the Government's emigration policy. This review will, of course, take account of the scale of expenditure voted under the Acts.
§ LORD BARNBYWould the noble Duke not agree that it is a matter of concern that the total United Kingdom proportion of the immigration into the Dominions is falling so that it reduces the degree of sentiment, tradition and loyalty to the Crown. Secondly, would it not seem that some mechanics for contributing towards the cost of housing British immigrants into, for instance, Australia and New Zealand would be a small sacrifice compared with the large sums being made available to extra-Commonwealth overseas countries and also the large burden falling upon national or municipal taxpayers in the United Kingdom? Might I also remind the noble Duke, who mentioned that £178,000 was spent, that that sum is a small part of the £1½ million voted or made available by Parliament under the Acts.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend when he says that the rate of emigration to Australia is falling off. The provisional figures for last year, 1960, show that there was an increase on the previous year; and when the final figures are reached it is likely that the figures for 1960 will prove to have been higher, at something over 44,000 than for some years past. On the question of providing finance for housing our emigrants to Australia, there are both legal and other difficulties in tackling such a question. On the final question, I must point out to my noble friend that he is incorrect in saying that £1½ million was voted. The figure of £1½ million represents the ceiling of money which can be voted for assisting emigration figures by way of schemes. It is not the amount voted; it is the maximum that is legal to be voted; and in point of fact the amount voted last year was £178,000.
§ LORD BARNBYIn thanking the noble Duke for that reply, I perhaps inadvertently said that it applied to Australia. I thought I said it applied to the Commonwealth as a whole, because the case for Australia is not the case for Canada, which falls within the Commonwealth. Also I thought I said that Parliament "made available", not "voted".
§ LORD CASEYMy Lords, may I ask, in extension of what the noble Duke said, if one is right in believing that only a very small proportion of the total amount of £1½ million, which Her Majesty's Government are empowered to spend on migration, has in fact actually been spent? Might I also ask the noble Duke whether he is aware that there is a problem of housing in Australia, although migrants from all countries are treated in respect of housing on exactly the same footing as Australian citizens? Might I also ask the noble Duke whether he is aware that the Dutch and Italian authorities have initiated housing schemes in aid of their own nationals migrating to Australia, and, further, whether it would not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to consider housing schemes for their own British migrants migrating to Australia on something like the same conditions as the Dutch and Italian schemes, or in some other direction?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREMy Lords, as I have already said, the problem of providing finance for housing of United Kingdom emigrants to Australia presents certain legal and other difficulties, the legal difficulty being that it is ultra vires the Commonwealth and Empire Settlement Acts that money should be provided for housing of our emigrants: it does not come within the terms of the Acts. I would also say that the problems confronting the Dutch and the Italians are not the same as those which face this country. In Italy there is considerable unemployment, so it is in their interest for people to leave the country, while in Holland they have a shortage of land for their own population. I can only repeat what I have already said, that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of emigration for citizens of this country to all parts of the Commonwealth.