EMPIRE SCHEME

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 28 April 1922, Page 5

EMPIRE SCHEME

I SETTLERS FOR DOMINIONS,

BILL BEFORE COMMONS.

SY CABIiE—PBESS ASSOCIATION—COPYRIGHT

LONDON, April 26. In the House of Commons, Colonel L. C Amery, moving the second reading of the Empire Settlement Bill, pointed •out that a large proportion of the exservice men who emigrated under the «srlier overseas settlement scheme probably have emigrated of their ewn accord if the war had not broken •out. A considerable percentage of the *ex-service men thus sent out were progressing well towards substantial prosperity, whereas if they had remained \he majority would certainly have needed employment "benefits. The 'cosfc of their passages, therefore, was weßl spent. The present Bill -enabled the Colonial Secretary and the Overseas Settlement Committee to co-operate with both the overseas Governments Tesponsible ;aud private organisations in an approved emigration scheme. It should be remembered that Britain had a surplus of 1,750,000 women, while a shortage' of women in the ©ominion was prejudicing their social life. The first year's Imperial expenditure was limited to £1,125,000, while £2,000,000 would make possible the assisting of sixty to eighty thousand persons yearly before long. He believed the House would regard the amount .as quite inadequate, but in view of the .present financial difficulties, and with the object of gaining experience, he had prepared a sub•Wfitantial instalment of the larger future Imperial expenditure was contingent upon the Dominions undertaking considerably larger expenditure on land settlement. The direct settlement of men on the land must be the foundation of any policy of the economic regeneration of fhe Empire. After the ■first year the Imperial expenditure -would be £3,000,000 annually, of which about £1,000,000 would -be devoted to the provision of passages on a half-and-half basis with the Dominions. Colonel Amery commended the Bill as the first step towards the Empire's economic recovery, and as an economical and unprovocative measure of Imperial defence.

Mr J. R. Clymes (leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party) pointed out that while some might support the Bill •under an impression that emigration i would relieve the burden of unemployment, as a matter of fact the Bill did not touch the root cause of unemploy- I -ment. He fesnseQ. '.that 'Colonel Amery would be disappointed at the ultimate consequence of the Bill's working. He could not accept Colonel Amery's conclusions that at -was advantageous to neglect trade opportunities in Europe in order to cultivate closer economic ! trade relations with the Dominions. He noped no attempt would be made to ! subsidise private agencies like shipping companies, which were merely pecuniarily interested in emigration. He asked whether Dominion Labour organisations had "been 'consulted. Sir DonaM McLean .;(deputy-leader of the Liberal Party) said he hoped free passages to ex-service men would remain open another year, and that the fraudulent emigration agents drawing - fanciful pictures of conditions really not existing in the Dominions would be ■^ swept away. The removal of land restrictions in Britain would mitigate the need for the present measure. Sir Newtoa Moore (formerly AgentGeneral for Western Australia) expressed disappointment at the smallness t>f the first year!s expenditure. Sir Frederick Young said the Bill offered only a slight immediate contri- , iration towards the solution of unemployment. Eventually, if a long view > prevailed, it wouia prove a great factor in that connection. He stated that Australia afforded ?great opportunities for settlement if expenditure was confined to schemes definitely offering emigrants a proper livelihood. Mr J. Hood favoured an extension of "boy emigration. Colonel Wedgwood said Labourites could not be enthusiastic regarding the emigrating of people to Australia when they could more cheaply be enabled to take up small holdings in Britain. Major the Hon. E. F. Wood, replyTng to the debate, admitted that the Bill was not a panacea for all industrial ills, but it would ease the situation by giving people opportunities of remaking their lives elsewhere, and it would benefit home trade and .commerce. The Bill was read a second time.