I move, as an unopposed motion—

Mr. M. L. MALAN seconded.

The Minister has just told us that for reasons of economy—and we are delighted to see this spirit of economy actuating the Minister—he is not going to have the Estimates reprinted. I hope he can assure the House that there will be a sufficient supply of copies of the Estimates not only for new members but for all those who may not have copies handy. I think it will be a very serious difficulty in considering these Estimates if there are not enough for every member to have a copy. I want to refer also to what took place yesterday on the second reading debate, particularly in regard to the speech that was made by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze) as to reduction of coal rates. We object to the way in which the Minister treated that speech. We want serious consideration in this House to serious proposals and not election propaganda. Let the Minister get off the election platform and deal with such matters on their merits. The proposal that coal rates should be reduced is a matter that has been occupying the interests of this House and people outside for quite a long time. What does the Minister say? He turns round and says, “You want to reduce the coal rates and put the rates on the farmers.”

I asked where did he want to put the rates?

The Minister can say things without expressing them categorically. We know what happens—it will be broadcast over the country that the South African party is in favour of raising railway rates to the farmers. We know that kind of propaganda. You can snatch a few votes in that way, you can even win an election, as we know by experience, but seeing the Minister tells us from the seat of authority that they are there for five years, he will have plenty of time to prepare propaganda, and we ask him to treat these questions seriously and not make little propaganda points out of them. It is a serious question. The Minister told us that the rates on export coal were no higher than before the war. That may be, but what I know is this, that South Africa has lost its overseas coal market. Bunker rates are much higher than they were before the war, 100 per cent., I am told; and we know the shipping of the world avoids South African ports because of the high rates on coal.

What company?

I am not going to say what company.

Then why do you make that statement?

We know shipping companies everywhere complain of the high rates they have to pay for coal in South Africa, and that means they will avoid our ports. We know the P. and O. Company have recently diverted a couple of boats and I do not know that the Minister can say the high rates on coal were not a factor. I will ask the Minister if he will admit this, that low bunker rates would be an attraction for ships to come here.

That is another story.

Well, it is a story I hope the Minister will give some attention to. We ought not to have bunker rates 100 per cent. higher than they were before the war. When we bring up a question like this, why does he try and make a tuppenny-ha’penny propaganda point out of it?

I asked you a question.

The Minister asks us! He is there for the purpose of answering these questions.

But he is not complaining.

Of course he is not complaining, but we are complaining that the Minister takes so little interest in his occupation that when we bring forward a reasonable proposal he says, “How are you going to do it?” That is his job. What I complained of about the Minister is that he is first and foremost a politician. He is an administrator of railways by accident, but by taste and predilection he is a politician, and every time he can make a political point he will let administrative interests go by. Take this Witbank rate. Can the Minister justify that? I say considering the loads they get from Witbank to the Rand, it is one of the dearest coal rates to be found anywhere. And why? Because the mines are the milch cow of this country.

What percentage do they pay?

A great many do not make a profit at all, but they give employment and they buy millions of pounds worth of stores even if they pay no dividends. The hon. member has not forgotten the old prejudice against the mines. They are the milch cow of the country, but when it is proposed to do anything for them, you talk about capitalists and profits. When proposals of this kind are made we expect them to be treated in a different manner from that in which they were treated by the Minister. These are things the country has to face. If the Minister can find no way out, the country will find a Minister who can.

My hon. friend has said much of what I intended to say, but I want to refer to one matter. The Minister shouted across the floor that, “We want facts,” and yesterday he said that as usual I was wrong. The Minister, when he referred to a certain bulletin issued by himself, said he was going to prove that I was wrong, and that the South African party had issued similar bulletins. During the debate he mentioned three instances, and promised to give me the references, which he failed to do. He referred to a bulletin of December, 1920, which I turned up, and it was supposed to contain a similar note to the bulletin issued before the last election. Usually we find a reference on the cover that it is the general manager’s bulletin, but on this occasion it was a special bulletin with a special note telling the public that it is not the general manager’s bulletin, but one issued at the request of the Minister of Railways and Harbours. I challenge the Minister now to give me a reference to a single other bulletin like that. I turned up this bulletin of December, 1920, and I found it contained the departmental, and not the Minister’s, reply to requests put to the department by certain railway officials and by the industrial federation. They met at Pretoria on the 13th, 14th and 15th of that month, and the reply was headed—“ By direction of the Minister of Railways and Harbours I append the official reply of the Administration to the demand discussed at the conference held at Pretoria on the 13th, 14th and 15th instant between the Minister of Railways and Harbours and representatives of the Railway and Harbour artisans assisted by their federation and the Unions affiliated thereto.” Besides that it was issued by the general manager in the same terms as the reply given to these men after that conference. It is therefore not in the same position as the bulletin issued by the Minister on the last occasion. Then he gave me another instance—a special bulletin on rates and fares, 1920. There is no special bulletin. On the index you will find: page 15, Employment of Returned Soldiers—the usual reference you find in every bulletin. On page 7 of No. 5 we find: recent increase in rates and fares on other railways—not our railways, as the Minister said. On page 19, bulletin No. 8, we find: railway rates and working costs. He said we issued this when we were lessening railway rates. It is an extract from an oversea journal of fares on the underground railways of London. We find in bulletin No. 12, revision of railway rates and fares, October 1st, 1920, which takes effect on that day; it is stated that it is the most comprehensive revision which has been made in South Africa and that it may be of public interest to review briefly the main principles which have determined the scheme. The next note I have of the Minister is, “Financial Position, 1921.” Again he said that we issued that for the same purpose as he issued his bulletin. I find that in the general manager’s bulletin No. 24 the reference to the financial position is of the same sort as you will find in the bulletins month by month and year by year. The last reference he gave me was with regard to the grain elevators, 1923-’24. The only reference I can find is that it is in the usual form you find month by month. Those are the only references one can find in all those bulletins, and in no case is there a special bulletin issued as was issued by the direction of the Minister to make party propaganda as in this bulletin to which I referred yesterday. I am not going into the matter further. This is a reply to what the Minister said yesterday.

There are one or two matters concerning the railways I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister and the House. I would like to deal with the housing of the poorly paid railway employees. Since the introduction of the so-called civilized labour policy on the railways we have had a great number of these people taking up their residence in Durban, and I can assure the Minister they are living under the most deplorable conditions. The introduction of this community is looked upon with great misgiving by the people of Durban, as by reason of their low rate of pay their standard of living must of necessity be on a very low basis. The town council, of which I am a member, has done a lot to improve the housing conditions of Durban in recent years, but finds itself quite unable to provide houses which the low paid railway employees could afford to pay for, quite apart from the question of finding suitable land within close proximity of their work. I was a member of the Joint Employment Committee representing the town council of Durban, and I had the opportunity of perceiving the conditions under which some of these people are living. I am sure that if the Minister realized how these people are living he would be willing to do something to improve their housing conditions. Members of this committee found that families of railway employees were living under overcrowded conditions—one family per room—which is a shameful condition of affairs in a town like Durban. In one house there was a family in each room, and cooking, eating and sleeping in one room. I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to the housing of these people. I would like to refer to the question of a new railway station for Durban. The present railway station was built 30 years ago, and the traffic of Durban has increased at least tenfold since that time. The Administration has recently erected a new platform for the main line trains. They have been forced to do that because the platforms of the main station are not sufficiently large to accommodate these trains. The new platform, however, is situated in the old wood and iron goods-shed, which can only be described as a disreputable barn. There is no roof in some places, and there are no sanitary conveniences. It is a disgrace to the department for visitors to the town to arrive at such a station. I hope the Minister will give consideration in the coming year to the question of a new station for Durban. One of the burning questions in Durban to-day is the interruption of street traffic by the Point railway line. The traffic along certain main streets is held up 70 times a day. If that were to happen in Adderley Street and other main streets of Cape Town I don’t think it would be allowed to continue long, but the people of Durban are long-suffering, and have borne with this disability for a very long time. They now ask that this line be moved at an early date. I admit that there are great difficulties in the way of the elimination of that line. There are different views as to the best way of doing away with it. In view of this divergence of opinion I suggest to the Minister that he appoint a commission to enquire into the whole question of the railway, and in appointing such a commission, I think it is absolutely necessary that its members should have perfectly unbiased views. I say that because there are different interests and different ideas in the town, and it is difficult to come to a satisfactory arrangement. The commission could be authorized to take evidence, so that all the different interests may have an opportunity of stating their views, and I think the members of the commission could be expected to arrive at some decision which would be satisfactory, more or less, all round. If the Minister sees his way to adopt this suggestion of an enquiry, I would also urge that the commission be given authority to enquire into development at the head of the bay. There are great possibilities in the way of development of the trade of the harbour in that direction. I realize that there are ample opportunities in Durban bay for wharf extension, but one of the chief difficulties we have is the shortage of land suitable for industrial purposes in the neighbourhood of the wharf. There are great opportunities for development if the Administration will take a wide view, and make the necessary preparation for the future development of the bay head. I earnestly commend this idea to the Minister. At the head of the bay there is a large amount of flat land awaiting development which is suitable for industrial expansion, and which can be given wharf frontage by means of canals. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the points I have raised, and if he can furnish me with any information in his reply on the debate I shall be very grateful.

The second reading of this Bill is of considerable interest to my constituents, and I am returning to the charge hoping to interest the hon. the Minister to consider the matter in this respect. He seems to think that I have not expressed sufficient appreciation of the work which the late assistant manager has done at Port Elizabeth. I did not know that that had any great connection with the matter. Appreciation has been expressed in regard to that in the proper quarter, but I have much pleasure in expressing appreciation of the great services of the assistant manager in the past, and I can only say that if the Minister has an equal regard for the affairs of Algoa Bay and an equal interest in the affairs of the port, I shall be extremely pleased, and I cannot pay the assistant manager a higher compliment than that. The trains arriving on the main line at Port Elizabeth take an average of 16 miles an hour, and it is not reasonable on the main line between two important centres, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, that the main line trains can be running at such a rate. The train to Grahamstown takes seven and a half hours to complete the journey, which seems ridiculous, especially when a motor car can do the distance in four hours. When I asked that the Minister should go into this matter and see if it is not possible to accelerate the service, the Minister brushed the matter aside, and would not say that he would look into the matter or make inquiries, which I do not think is a reasonable position for him to take up. There may be other reasons, but they are not patent to the ordinary man, and if there are, I think the Minister should tell us.

My constituency was honoured with a visit from the Minister about three months ago—it happened that there was a general election on at the time. I can assure the House that on the platform the hon. the Minister is quite as eloquent and effective as in debate and socially he was a great success. He was welcomed and his welcome was none the less great because at the time he was displaying a great interest in the harbour improvements at East London. You may not be aware that East London is advancing very fast. We have large oil carriers coming and discharging petrol in great quantities on the west bank. The harbour improvement which is now going forward is only part of a larger scheme and it may be of interest to the House to know that when it is completed by a turning basin through the excavation at the east bank, this will be a great improvement to the harbour of East London. At an early date this should enable the Union Castle mail boat to enter the harbour. The Union Castle have been approached in the matter and as soon as the difficulties have been removed and the turning basin completed they have definitely promised to bring mail boats into the harbour. I think it is a pity the Minister did not make reference to this important matter, because I can assure the House that it is a very important matter, and one which will have an important bearing on the port of East London. I hope that the good impression that the Minister made on his recent visit will be confirmed and that some announcement will be made as to the date on which these harbour improvements will be completed. I think I am correctly informed in saying that what remains to be done is only a fraction of what has already been completed, and the excavation of the east bank in order to complete this turning basin is a comparatively small matter. These matters are of very great importance to East London and the Union generally. When these improvements are effected we shall have a port second to none in the country, and it will be the means of adding greatly to the attractions of the country and adding, incidentally, to the revenue of the department, and I hope that the Minister will not boggle at the very trifling expense involved.

I am disappointed at the reply the Minister gave to my plea of yesterday for a reduction in coal rates. When I made that plea I was thinking not so much of the owners of the collieries, the coal and other mines and of the industries affected, but of the people who find their occupation in those collieries, mines and industries, and of the people who might obtain their livelihoods if a reduction of the coal rates allowed an expansion of those industries, and especially of the working of low grade mines. I do not look upon this as a party matter at all, and I trust that the Minister will also close his eyes to any party interest in this matter. The people who find their occupation in these industries number perhaps as many of his political supporters as of ours. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has drawn the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is not the function of a private member to devise ways and means for securing an equitable coal rate, but all the same I have a couple of suggestions to make. Since 1924 our expenditure on railways has gone up by leaps and bounds, and if the expenditure were reduced to the 1924 level a reduction in coal rates would be rendered possible.

How would you do it?

I have no quarrel with the policy of employing civilized white labour on the railways, but the additional expenditure thereby involved should fall on the general revenue. I suggest that a portion of the general surplus should be devoted to paying the extra costs incurred by the employment of civilized white labour on the railways. It is very difficult to find what this extra expenditure is, but apparently it is well over £500,000 a year. I was sorry to hear the Minister attack the authority whom I referred to yesterday and to hear him assert that the writer had written his book to order. That is an unjustifiable reflection on a young man starting his career. If an impartial authority finds that these coal rates are too high we should take his words to heart. He has made out an irrefutable case for reduction of railway rates, and I trust that his words will be considered and suitable remedies found.

A good many of us were somewhat shocked at the light and airy way in which the case made out by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze) was brushed aside by the Minister the other afternoon. It is a great mistake to suppose that we are concerned only with the heavy coal rates proving a burden on the mines. The whole of the population of the Rand depends on the mines for its existence; a large portion of the country also depends on the trade of the Rand, and therefore the question of the prosperity of the mines is also the question of the prosperity of all that long chain of municipalities extending from Springs to Randfontein. That stretch of country contains one of the most important communities of South Africa, the prosperity which can seriously be affected only at the expense of everybody else in South Africa. So let us have no more of these jests of the Minister that the mines can well bear the cost. Everything depends on the cost at which the mines can be worked. A very large quantity of rock is being wasted because the ore content will not pay working expenses—expenses which depend very largely on the railway rates on coal, which are disproportionate to the rates paid in other parts of the country for the conveyance of other commodities. The question of transportation is governed by the South Africa Act, but the entire Budget of the Minister seems to be based on a flagrant disregard of Section 137 of that Act, which provides that the Union railways, ports and harbours are to be administered on business principles, especially having regard to providing the means of cheap transport and to the settlement of a mining and industrial population in the inland portions of the Union. From this extraordinary return of unpayable branch lines we see that they involve the country in an annual loss of about £600,000, in striking contrast to the profit of £500,000 made by the carriage of goods over one small line from Witbank to the Rand. Can any business man reconcile such a condition of affairs with the most elementary business principles?

Mr. Jagger did.

Is the Minister going to boast that his policy is that of following what the South African party did? I thought the bright young men in the Government under the leadership of more experienced members were denouncing that policy of the South African party. They were going to show us how to do it, and they have been busy pointing out the iniquities of the previous administration. Here they perpetrate and perpetuate in a most flagrant and unblushing manner one of the worst features of railway administration. If you refer to Mr. Jagger’s budget and the railway budgets of his predecessors you must in fairness remember that when the South African party government came into power at Union it had to take over a railway system for which it was not responsible, and expenditure was a very difficult thing to adjust. Then came the crisis of the war, and after that the depression. But that has been altered now. Now the sun shines, largely financed, I understand, by some capitalists who are not unsympathetic to hon. members who sit opposite, and under the beneficent influence of the sum we have a large amount of money available for adjusting the finances of the railway administration. All the industries that want bolstering up have been bolstered up at the expense of the industry on the Rand—the mines,—whether it is through railway rates or other measures of more direct taxation. The Minister wanted us to make a positive suggestion. I would venture to make this suggestion, that he takes these estimates hack and reconsiders the whole policy in the light of Section 127 of the South Africa Act, and he will then produce a budget on very different lines indeed from that which is now before us. It would seem that the Minister conceived it his duty as Minister of Railways to get the largest possible revenue he could for his department. The South Africa Act says that the business of the railways is to give cheap transport. The business of the ordinary commercial undertaking is to make profits and to win dividends, but that is not the business of the railways. The extraordinary disproportion in rates between the carriage of one commodity and another is only justifiable if you assume it is the business of the railways to help one industry and depress another, and to fleece one to benefit another. The business of the railways is nothing of the kind. It is a misconception of the whole function of the railway system, and of transportation in the Union which has led to the presentation of these estimates, and which has led the Minister in the cavalier manner which he showed the other afternoon to dismiss the concrete suggestions and criticisms made by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze). It is deplorable that at a time when the finances of the country justify us, we are told, in launching out along fresh lines of expenditure that the readjustment of a system wasting one of the most important assets of the Union, that is the minerals of the Witwatersrand is refused or brushed aside as a matter that can stand over. I suppose it is in vain, but I would again like to point out that the real wealth, perhaps the greatest source of our wealth, is dependent on the exploitation of minerals. We are dependent on that to maintain our finances, and I hope the Minister in future will have more regard to Section 127.

After listening to the hon. member who has just spoken, it seems we are going to have the mining industry dragged into the forefront of debates. I want to tell the hon. member that what he speaks about this afternoon is largely what has risen out of a position which the mines have created for themselves. The hon. member is suggesting the Minister must get a greater price for coal by reducing the rates on coal. He forgets the gentlemen he is speaking for have created this position. It was never intended to make a profit on coal. That coal bad to be produced at the cheapest rate to bolster up the mining industry, and to-day they are asking that these rates should be reduced at the expense of the railways. Coal has been priced so low that it does not pay. The coal companies have not paid dividends in the past but my hon. friend there makes his dividends through the gold mines. It would make no difference if the government reduced these railway rates tomorrow by 1s. or 2s. The pit mouth price would go up immediately as it has done in the past. When we were competing against Welsh coal, as soon as we reduced rates the prices automatically went up at the pit mouth. It is the greatest fallacy to say that the coal industry is concomitant with the mining industry. It is an adjunct of the industry of the Witwatersrand. Take the Coal Owners’ Association. What is their position? Are they asking for anything? They are quite satisfied to pay this price at the present time because they know the gold mining industry is making its profit. The coal industry is not expected to make any profit. The hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze) has come to the House with a great deal of what we call, the “new broom spirit,” and he wants to sweep up things. I am glad that he has changed his view with regard to prolonging the life of the mines. This Government, since it has been in power, has done more to assist the mining industry by non-interference than the previous Government by trying to bolster it up. The Minister has tried to run the railways on business lines as laid down in Section 127 of the South Africa Act. Can the hon. member opposite tell us why a discrimination should be made between coal and base metals? We are developing faster on those lines than South Africa has ever done in the past, and yet hon. members opposite have not a word to say about the base-metal industry. Their cry is hollow.

The hon. member for Roodepoort (Col. Stallard) has spoken of Section 127 of the South Africa Act. I want to lay stress on a different portion of it, on which he has not laid stress. These are the words I ask hon. members to remember—

If the hon. member will take the trouble to investigate our rating system, he will find that the whole of it has been built up on a basis of high-rated and low-rated goods. Let me say quite frankly that I am not responsible in the first instance for the basis on which our tariff rests. We have heard so much about business principles. My predecessor, Mr. Jagger, carried on the railways for a number of years; did he alter the basis of the rates? We do give the South African party credit for having done some sensible things. I ask the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotze), the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and the party opposite again; if you want a reduction in coal rates, do you know that a reduction of half a crown or more per ton would mean a considerable slice off our revenue? Where do you propose to get that revenue from? I did not say yesterday, and do not say now, that hon. members opposite advocated a higher rate on agricultural produce, but I ask again as I did yesterday: if the hon. member advocates that the rates on coal should be materially reduced would he and other hon. members opposite also support the increase of rates on agricultural produce? What is the hon. member’s suggestion now? It is to reduce our expenditure to the 1924 level. Is he seriously suggesting that with our increased tonnage running into millions of tons? I understood this afternoon that he is very much interested in the workers of the Rand. In a short time he will have an opportunity of laying his fingers on particular items, and I ask him to give us the items which he wants reduced. We heard the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) pleading for a full eight-hour day. Was he speaking for the party opposite when he did that, or when he asked for a wage of 10s. a day and the restoration of the 1923 rates of pay? Hon. members cannot have it both ways. They must attempt to make up their differences and not speak with two voices as they have been doing.

60 voices.

There are so many voices from that side that no wonder the country did not know what the opposition wanted. Then the hon. member has trotted out the old argument. He says he was not against the civilized labour policy—which I must say is an advance—we have one South African party member now who is satisfied with that policy: but, of course, there is a “but”—the consolidated revenue must pay.

We have always said that.

Is even the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) converted? It is really most helpful to know that hon. members opposite have now come to that conclusion. If the consolidated revenue has to pay, the suggestion is, I suppose, that the difference between the pay of labourers and native labourers must be paid from general revenue?

What about increasing the taxation on the gold mines?

It may come; but what I want to ask my hon. friend opposite is, has he seriously considered the matter. Either we are to adopt the policy which has been adopted in Central Africa and Kenya of appointing natives to those higher positions at a much lower rate of pay than we are paying here, or we are to go on with our present policy. Where would the hon. member stop? Will the hon. member stop at station masters? The hon. member has not given sufficient thought to this subject. We say that civilized men in the Union, European or coloured, must take their proper place on our railway system.

It is not charity.

No, it is not charity, it is merely good business in the interests of our country. I now come to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I was surprised to hear his remarks with regard to shipping and bunker rates. The hon. member forgets that we recently reduced our bunker rates by 1s. per ton so that we have not been unmindful of the interests of the coal mines. We are in close touch with the mines. We are always prepared to consider any reduction which it is possible for us to make. We shall be mindful of them as we are of the interests of the other industries of this country. The hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) returned to the charge. I am bound to say he did so in a very moderate spirit. I shall respond in the same way. I don’t know whether he had the bulletin No. 14 in his hands at the time he was speaking, but he appears to think that this document which was published in the beginning of 1929 dealing with the whole question of civilized labour, was not drawn up by an officer of the department. This document indicated that the original had been drawn up in Afrikaans, and a free translation was submitted.

My complaint is that that document was propaganda, pure and simple.

That document was drawn up by a departmental officer in the ordinary course. Under the present regime we have senior officials who are perfectly capable of drawing up such documents in Afrikaans. The hon. member will probably be surprised to hear that quite a number of our official documents to-day are drawn up in Afrikaans. The hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Acutt) dealt with the question of housing in Durban. We placed on the Estimates last year a sum of £50,000 for housing in Durban, and we are now completing that programme. I make an appeal through the hon. member to the municipal council of Durban to do more in this regard to house the people who are employed in our railway service. I think the Durban borough could do far more in that regard. Then he discussed the whole question of harbour development. I shall welcome any suggestions made by the responsible men of Durban with regard to this question. It is a vexed and a difficult one. If hon. members for Natal, and more especially from Durban, will get together and give us their definite view’s with regard to the development that ought to take place, I shall be only too glad to receive them, and to give the matter attention.

What about the railway station?

That is also one of the matters upon which I shall be glad to receive representations. As to the point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh), surely hon. members ought to appreciate the fact that matters of that sort should be brought to the notice of our officials. It is a matter for our general manager and system managers. Our officials should first have these representations brought to their notice. The general manager, who is a practical railwayman will do all that is possible. I shall certainly bring the hon. member’s representations to the notice of the general manager as the business head of the department. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) has referred to the fact that we have provided an oil site at that port, and I am hopeful that East London will be satisfied with this.

What did you tell them about the turning basin?

When I addressed a meeting in East London I told them I was not there in an official capacity, but in a political one, and I made no reference whatever to a turning basin.

What did you tell the Chamber of Commerce?

The Chamber of Commerce invited me to lunch, which I accepted on the clear understanding that I was not there in an official capacity. I might tell the hon. member that when Ministers of this Government travel politically they do so as private individuals.

How many promises did you make?

None. There has been a great change in this respect compared with the action of members of previous governments. I wish to say that we have provided the necessary money for an oil site, and when this work is completed the further question of a turning basin will be considered.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Hon. members will notice that the Bill is very short, but the amendment in connection with fruit export, which is here proposed, is very important, We have learnt during recent years that amendments are very necessary. In connection, for instance, with certain fruit which is sent to Brazil, and in connection with which, we warned the exporters, there has been an unfortunate experience. The exporters would not listen, and bad fruit got into the Brazilian market and the public were frightened. They said that if that kind of fruit were sent by our farmers they would take no further interest in our fruit. Great damage can be done in this way to our overseas market, Hence we propose that the department shall be empowered, by means of legislation, to prohibit the export of certain kinds of fruit. There are, e.g., certain kinds of apples which are freely bought in Brazil but other kinds they do not want. If we allow the latter also to be exported we spoil the market for the kind of apple which finds a ready sale there. Hon. members will possibly say that there are too many regulations, but if it is not to be done by regulations we shall have to introduce amendments almost every year, and the law will require constant alteration. I therefore think the department should have the power of making regulations from time to time, but I can assure the House that on any amendment of importance the representatives of the fruit farmers, the cooperating bodies will be consulted. It is, therefore, very clear that we only wish to act in the interests of the fruit farmers. A second amendment which is proposed in the 1914 Act is, that the department shall not be obliged to inspect at least five per cent. of the fruit exported. The department has by now learned which people pack their fruit well, and which cooperative societies see to good packing. The question arises why it is necessary in such cases to open five per cent. of the boxes, to handle the fruit again, possibly cause bruising, and in that way cause damage to the exporter. The law provides that at least five per cent. must be examined, but we now want to give the inspectors the right, if they consider it sufficient, to inspect three per cent. or still less of the fruit. In certain cases it may be necessary to examine five per cent., but what is the use in the case of people whom we know to be good packers, people who know that the, market must not be spoilt by bad fruit. The fruit exchange has been consulted about the amendments and considers them to be urgently required, so I have taken the earliest opportunity to bring the Bill before the House.

I do not rise to oppose the Bill, but am glad that the Minister admits that it contains important amendments. It practically puts the handling of the fruit export in the hands of the Government, and in connection with the handling of all classes of fruit the Government will have full control. I hope that the Minister will be able to say frankly that the fruit farmers are behind this Bill, but I should like a public statement by the Minister. I think the fruit exchange has not in the past entirely had the confidence of all fruit farmers, and that its views sometimes differed from those of the fruit farmers. I should therefore like to know whether the fruit farmers of South Africa as a whole stand behind the Fruit Exchange in these amendments. I should prefer the Minister not to take the next stage of the Bill to-day but to give the farmers in the country, through their societies—some of which co-operate with the Fruit Exchange, and others which are quite distinct—an opportunity of considering the Bill. I only saw the Bill yesterday, and sent it at once to an association in my constituency to get their views. I should like to be certain that the fruit farmers in general are satisfied with the amendments, but I support the principle of the Bill.

There is certainly no one in the house who will have any objection to the principle and object of the Bill, because, with the increase in fruit production, the Government must see that our fruit export is put on a satisfactory basis. Everyone appreciates the action of the Government in this direction. My objection to the Bill, however, is in sub-clause (2) of the Bill. I reads—

The object of the Bill is to control the export of fresh fruit and to prevent indifferent fruit spoiling our overseas market; but the sub-clause introduces an entirely new principle, inasmuch as it does not mention the nature or grade but the locality where it is grown. Now it seems to me that if the locality is emphasized, the principle of the Bill is neutralized. Both quality and place of production cannot be taken into consideration. I hope the Minister will clear up the point, because it is possible that it may lead to certain areas being preferred. I do not say that the Minister intends that one bit, but it may happen that certain areas will be favoured, while others will not receive the same treatment for export. Not only would that be a regrettable policy, but it may cause friction amongst the growers.

I have no doubt whatever that it is necessary to deal with the question of fruit export in a particular way, but the Minister has not given us very much information on the, subject. I wish to deal with the Bill from the point of view that it is a striking illustration of the kind of legislation we have been getting from the present Government—a tendency to grapple with difficulties by short cuts and by the easy and lazy method of leaving it to the Minister concerned to make regulations. This Bill is a very striking example of this very bad tendency, the whole matter being left entirely in the hands of the Minister for the time being, the Minister being given the most autocratic powers, and is practically made a Dictator. The powers of the European statesman who recently decided against his Ministers having holidays are nothing compared with the powers entrusted to the Minister of Agriculture on this Bill. The Government should deal with matters of procedure, but the powers proposed to be conferred on the Minister are so wide-reaching that if exercised by him without any control—and there is no vestige of control in the Bill—he may ruin people who have embarked their capital in, say, a fruit farm; for instance, the Minister may issue regulations prohibiting the export of any variety of fruit by reason of its having been grown in a particular locality. Suppose there are a dozen people engaged in fruit growing in a valley which is supposed to be good for the cultivation of citrus fruits, the Minister may say to the people in one-half of the valley, “You may export,” but he may give permission to the people in the other half of the valley to send their fruit overseas. Thus people who are endeavouring to build up an industry may be ruined merely by a ukase of the Minister. I do not think people realize the enormous extent to which year by year we are having this kind of legislation introduced by which we are giving into the uncontrolled power of the Minister of the day the rights of people and the rights of properties. Take the matter of regulations. I had the honour of sitting on the Food and Drugs Bill Committee last session. There again, I had to protest against the drastic powers vested in the Minister of the day for the purpose of achieving a very laudable object, it is true, but without Parliament having any right of correction and without the people most concerned having any voice in the matter. In all cases where private rights are involved, the people concerned should have an opportunity of seeing the draft regulations and of putting before the Minister the views and objections which they may have. I wish to continue making the protest which many of us have made before against these autocratic powers. It seems to me entirely contrary to the spirit and to the traditions of the people of this country that we should make ourselves party to legislation which places these powers in the hands of a Minister against all the principles of freedom that we have been brought up with.

I think the Minister has a special case in view, but to meet an exceptional case of that sort, this is giving the Government drastic powers. I want to know, too, whether this has come from the deciduous fruitgrowers only, or from the citrus Exchange as well, and whether the Minister is prepared to make it apply to deciduous fruit only, or must it apply to all fruits? And whether the farmers and the co-operative societies were consulted before this was brought forward? I think the Minister knows the case we all have in mind which is the cause of it. It strikes me it is a little too loose. There is sub-clause 1 of Clause 1 and it does seem to me it gives powers to differentiate, and if you have a Minister not administering the Act very carefully, you may have cases where there would be hardship on individuals in a locality. Two years ago the regulations were relaxed in favour of a certain area in the Transvaal where oranges of a low grade were allowed to be exported, and the effect was that our name on the markets of Europe for citrus was damaged to a great extent, and it took some time to re-establish our good name. It strikes me it would he possible under this to allow differentiation in localities. You could prohibit export of any variety at any time and it does give very drastic powers. I agree in these matters there must he power left in the hands of the officials and a good deal must be left to regulation, hut there is too great a tendency towards allowing autocratic powers and not providing sufficient safeguard. Is there a definite demand for this measure from one section only, and if so, from what channel is it made and is the Minister prepared to say that citrus is not included? The Minister might give us more reasons for the Bill than he has done up to now.

I just want to bring a matter to the notice of the Minister, though it does not actually come within the provisions of this Bill. I hope, however, that it can be introduced during the committee stage. I refer to the consumption of our fruit on the ships leaving South Africa. I thought a regulation might he made in connection with the matter, hut I find the Bill does not empower it, and I therefore want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to amend Clause (2), so that the fruit for consumption on the ships shall be subject to the same inspection as fruit exported. I have unfortunately found that fruit on the ships of the Union Castle Company, advertised as South African fruit, is of poor quality and this caused complaints among the passengers. I understand that the Union Castle Company took considerable time before deciding to stock South African fruit, and if there are complaints about the fruit, then the company might decide that the fruit was unsuitable. I therefore think that inspection is desirable.

I do not want to oppose the Bill in any way, because I think the Minister has acted for the best for exporters, but in sub-clause 1 and sub-clause 2 we are giving very drastic powers. They may hinder the development of the fruit trade. Any planter to-day may not be certain in laying down an orchard for fruit export. I hope the Minister will not take the committee stage too soon, so as to give fruit growers some time to consider his proposals. In section (2) I entirely agree that the Minister is quite correct to bring that in. It is no longer necessary to inspect a minimum of 5 per cent. There are exporters who have been exporting fruit for five and ten years, and have never had a box of fruit rejected. They know it is a waste of time to have 5 per cent. inspected. In our Fruit Export Act of 1914 we were very careful to give the Government only limited powers—in connection with the condition of the fruit—where such fruit might be a danger to the rest of the consignment. Here we are going very much further, and we are prohibiting a variety of fruit. Does that mean class or grade?

I understood the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) to say that the measure should apply to fruit supplied to any ship for consumption on board. The difficulty is that when once you start on this road there is no knowing where you are going to arrive. It seems to me that the same arguments which are now applied to fruit may apply to our wines, and the Government may say that no wines are going on board ship before they have passed a test, and the same thing may apply to hotels.

It may do some good to the hotels.

Whatever the Prime Minister may think, my experience is that Governments are most unsuitable bodies to control industry and production. These powers should be exercized only with great circumspection. So far as I could understand the Minister, and I apologize for my weakness in this respect, this legislation is being put on the statute book to remedy what was an exceptional case. Certain shipments went to Brazil which, in the words of fruitgrowers, spoilt our market there, because the fruit was of the wrong variety, although the quality was all right. The Government step in and say they will supply the want of knowledge, and not allow a man to supply a foreign country with fruit which, in its estimation, is not of sufficiently good class. I am uncertain if the fruitgrowers recognize the very large powers they are handing over to the Minister and his officials. Under the Act of 1914 there is no schedule of countries which are exempted, and those which are not. I take it that the intention was that countries adjacent to the Union are exempted. Under the Bill the Minister can, by the stroke of a pen, wipe Rhodesia off the exemption list. I do not suggest while the present occupant of that seat is there he will do anything so silly, but it seems to me a very great weakness when legislation is put on the statute book which has such a possibility, and we ought to think very seriously before we pass legislation like that. When the Bill goes into committee the Minister may see certain ways in which certain restrictions may be put on the Fruit Control Board. I feel that we ought to do everything we can to help the hon. the Minister in controlling fruit within reason, but I think we may be handing over to the Minister such wide powers that at some future time the very people who have asked him to take these powers will be the first people to regret it.

The hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) seems so terribly concerned about the powers the Minister is taking under the Bill. The hon. member knows that there is_ almost no Act that does not provide that the Minister can make regulations under it. Why, then, is the hon. member so much concerned about my ruining the farmers by the regulations. He need not be afraid of that; I can assure him that I will not injure the farmers, because I am a farmer myself. He can rest assured that I will always make the regulations after consulting the fruit farmers and the Fruit Exchange. But let us see what the Act of 1914 says. We see that Section (7) says that the Governor-General can make regulations about the time and place of despatch, the packing, time of delivery, condition of the fruit, and the percentage to be inspected, which shall not be less than five per cent. Here, then, we want to help the farmers in the Bill and the hon. member is so terribly concerned that it will not be in the interests of the farmers. This provision has actually been asked for by the people who represent the fruit farmers. The people who have asked for it are associations of deciduous fruitgrowers. I now briefly want to reply to the question of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) whether we cannot apply the regulations to fruit used on ships. My hon. friend has already heard the objections of the hon. member for Mowbray to the request that the provisions should be applied to fruit used on ships. I want to point out to hon. members that you cannot compel anyone to eat a certain class of fruit. The difficulty is that if we were to try and compel the ships to use a certain kind of fruit there would be a danger of their bringing enough fruit from their own countries, or other countries in their cold storage for the outward and homeward journeys. It would therefore be better to enter into negotiations with the steamship companies to induce them to buy better fruit. At any rate I am not at present prepared to take action unless a motion is introduced and passed. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) was replied to when I said that the deciduous fruit farmers had asked for the alteration, when the hon. member asked whether the Fruit Exchange only wanted it. It is not only the Exchange, but also the fruit farmers who want to prevent bad fruit being exported, but there is no law to prevent it and therefore the people ask for the prohibition of the export of fruit which injures the market. The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) referred to the danger in sub-clause (2) which provides that fruit from certain localities can be prohibited. Hon. members know that owing to climatic conditions in our country, and various other circumstances, fruit like apples, for instance, are quite different in flavour in certain parts, to the same kinds of apples in other parts. If, then, a certain kind of apple suits the public taste in some country or other, why should we, if they do not want the other sort, allow the market for the former to be injured? I think that the hon. member will see that he need not be anxious. The Fruit Exchange and co-operative societies will be consulted about regulations. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) asked whether all the farmers are in favour of this amendment. It is impossible for me to say. Has any Act been passed by this House which please every inhabitant of the country? There may be individual fruit farmers who hold a different view to that embodied in this Bill, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that the great majority are behind the Fruit Exchange and in favour of these amendments. The hon. member also asks why we were in such a hurry with this Bill and did not give the country a chance of considering it. As hon. members know this will be a very short session, more particularly for financial business. I do not know, therefore, if there will be an opportunity later of dealing with the Bill. I therefore want to ask hon. members to take the second reading at the committee stage now, and I then shall ask leave to put the third reading lower down on the agenda so that it will come up later, and hon. members will have an opportunity of consulting the fruitgrowers.

Then it will be too late for amendments.

If there are so many objections, the Bill can be withdrawn. I have not the least doubt that the farmers support it, and I was specially asked not to wait till next year. The hon. member for Mowbray said that the Ministers want to make things so very easy for themselves and to do everything by regulations, but almost all Acts give power to make regulations, and I do not know whether the hon. member represents fruit farmers. Otherwise I cannot understand his being so concerned about the matter. Why does the hon. member go out of his way to talk about this matter in which his constituency is not interested?

Do you not speak about other matters than agriculture?

I do not speak only about agriculture, but when I do, I speak on something I understand. We must not talk merely for the sake of being heard.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

Surely this is a very drastic power to give the Minister. The Governor-General can, without notice to anybody, issue a regulation prohibiting a certain class of fruit to be exported from any district in the Union. Is there no notice to be given to people that they should not grow that particular class of fruit? Surely there should be some provision for a little notice, otherwise the whole of their trees may be rendered useless by such a prohibition, and it might do serious harm to certain classes of fruit growers. I am in favour of having strict control of fruit export, but that control should be limited to quality and condition. I think this clause is too drastic-altogether.

I think the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) is wrong. If he goes into the matter carefully he will at once find that even a small quantity of poor fruit sent overseas will spoil the reputation of our country. A Minister who realises his responsibilities would have a thoroughly good reason for taking such a step. The hon. member knows that it causes much trouble to build up a name for a country’s products overseas, and we know how much trouble it has given to make certain kinds of South African fruits popular. If poor fruit is exported and our name for fruit is spoilt overseas, then the hon. member will be the first to regret the fact. We are therefore pleased if the Minister can prevent it. I also feel that the democratic principle of our form of government must be maintained, but that has nothing to do with this matter. It is only a question of our watching to properly protect the markets which we have built up and are now extending.

I regret the Minister has taken up the attitude he has over my objections to the clause. I am just as much entitled to talk about agricultural topics as I am to discuss any other subject, and if I state anything that is not worthy of consideration the House will treat my remarks accordingly. The Minister is not going by these dictatorial methods to prevent our discussing the Bill.

You are twisting his words.

I intend to move an amendment on the lines of one adoptel by this House to the Foods and Drugs Act and there is not a single word in that Act which gives untrammelled powers to Ministers to prohibit the export of any fruit or to enable the Minister to ruin people. I move—

This amendment will not interfere with the Minister’s powers to frame regulations, but it will give the people concerned an opportunity of pointing out facts which the department may not have realized, and so the amendment may evoke criticism which the Government will welcome. Fruitgrowers should have an opportunity of knowing what the Minister proposes to do, and the Minister will be able to decide whether their criticisms are, or are not, well-founded. Surely that is not an unreasonable amendment.

The conscience of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) is troubling him because I said that he ought to leave it to the fruit farmers to oppose measures of this kind. He at once feels guilty and that is why he loses his temper so quickly, but I would advise him to learn to control his temper and to realize that others also have a right of contradicting him when they know that they are right. The hon. member now moves an amendment to the clause, but I want to say at once that I cannot accept it. In explaining the effect or of his amendment I want to mention a possible occurrence. If e.g., in a certain part of the Transvaal a disease appears amongst apples, and three months notice is necessary before a regulation can come into force, then it means that the apples could be exported in the meantime. Then the harm is done and it will cost the country thousands and thousands of pounds, and possibly ruin our fruit industry. It is the hon. member’s knowledge of fruit, which will damage the fruit industry so tremendously if he introduces an amendment. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) also took up the cudgels for the fruit farmer. I do not say that he has not the right but he is exaggerating when he says that the measure is terribly drastic. No Minister will act impetuously and in any case he will be liable to be called to account by Parliament. The hon. member says that too much power is being given to the Minister, but any regulations issued during the recess are laid on the table of the House so that the Minister who does anything to the detriment of the fruit industry has to answer to Parliament. Therefore there is no such terrible danger. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) asked me to delay the final stage of the Bill a little, and I will therefore postpone the third reading. I assure the House that if the fruit farmers consider the bill unnecessary or against their interests, I shall be prepared at once to withdraw it. Do not let us wreck the Bill because there are a few members—let me say it openly—who do not like the Minister of Agriculture. I ask the House to take this clause as it stands.

I am very sorry that the Minister is not prepared to accept this most reasonable amendment. Unfortunately the Minister, as a rule, is not very reasonable and this afternoon he is giving us another illustration of his restiveness under criticism. The Minister has been in office since 1924, but during the intervening five years he never thought it necessary to introduce this Bill until just now. Why then all this hurry this afternoon? People should go to London and see how the South African fruit is sold at Covent Garden market. When the Food and Drug Bill was before the House last year the Minister of the Interior, who was in charge of it, gave the undertaking that he would consider and consult all interests before these regulations were passed, but here power is taken to introduce any regulation at any moment. Why this hurry? Why should not the people concerned have the opportunity of being consulted? The Minister’s attitude is that if he thinks fit to do a certain thing, he will do it. In view of that warning I do not think we should put this power into his hands. We should give everyone concerned the opportunity of placing his views before the Government, Then there is the Governor-General. Who is the Governor-General in this case? It is the Minister. He is going to do exactly as he pleases. These powers should not be placed in the hands of anybody, and I trust the Minister will follow the advice given by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close).

As usual the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) has put the cart before the horse. We know he usually talks on things he knows nothing about and that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he has to withdraw what he says. It is very noticeable that the only objections to the Bill have come from three lawyers, and their speeches clearly show that they know as much about the subject as the devil about holy water. The position is that the fruit farmers know what it cost to win a good name for our fruit on the European markets, and the Minister now wants to take precautionary measures to keep up that good name. If three months notice of that regulation is required it might damage the fruit because, e.g., if a disease appears among apples, and the regulation cannot be immediately issued then it means the apples can be exported in the meantime and damage our market. I consider the amendment a hopeless one, and a proof that its mover and his supporters know nothing of practical farming.

I want to congratulate the hon. member who has just spoken.

Confine yourself to silk stockings.

I would like to point out to the hon. member and to the Minister that the man who has complete command and entire control of the fruit industry, the man appointed by the present Government, is a lawyer who has never grown fruit for market in his life.

He is a practical farmer as well.

The Government takes up the position that you may choose a lawyer to control the fruit industry, and yet when criticism from this side comes from any member of the legal profession it is held to be of no value. I would like to bring this question back to quieter ground. I recognise there is something in what the Minister says that it is very difficult to wait three months before putting regulations into force, but cannot we give the fruit grower some chance of putting his views before the Minister before the regulation is fixed? Would the Minister accept an amendment to the suggested amendment by the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) to the effect that the notice to be given shall be one month so that fruit growers shall have the opportunity of ventilating any grievance they may have against any regulation which is suggested by the officials in charge of the control of fruit?

The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) now says that we are making an attack on the lawyers. He has missed the point and not understood what was said. There was no attack on lawyers but it was said that hon. members who did not represent fruit farms and did not themselves grow fruit wanted to criticize the most. They complain whereas the fruit farmers want the Bill. The hon. member says that the people who represent fruit farmers are not practical farmers. Is Mr. Roux, the chairman of the Board of Control, not one of our most practical farmers? Why then is the charge made against the good name of Mr. Roux as a practical farmer? The hon. member comes back to the regulations. I stated clearly at the second reading that we would consider all the various interests when regulations are issued and that the fruit farmers would be consulted. What more do hon. members want? Have they no confidence in the Government? Does the hon. member think that I as a farmer will act against the interests of the farmers?

The Minister does not seem to realize the point. It is not a question whether we represent fruit farmers or whether we are fruit farmers, but the question is whether we should give this dictatorial power to the Minister—not Gen. Kemp in particular, but the Minister. This can be debated on its merits without the heat imported into it by the Minister. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. Conroy) began to lecture us because we were not fruit farmers.

Because you do not know anything about it.

I do not want to plead tu quoque. But we might ask how much does the hon. member know about fruit farming?

Come to my farm and see.

The question is whether we should give the fruit farmers an opportunity of knowing what the regulations are which may be applied. As to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), which I am prepared to accept, no more time will be lost than is lost under the Minister’s suggestion. All I want to suggest is that no matter what power the Minister wants to make regulations the people concerned should have an opportunity of stating their criticisms of the proposed regulations.

There are now about four very learned lawyers keeping the debate going by talking on behalf of the fruit farmers. I read in the Bible that great learning sometimes brings people to madness, I wonder if it is not a kind of madness that we are now having to listen to. A number of advocates want to teach our farmers what we must do regarding fruit. I think the hon. members would at once say to me if I spoke about nice law points: “But my dear friend you know nothing about it.” That is the case with the hon. members to-day. Everyone trusts the Minister of Agriculture and I can trust him entirely. He will uphold the interests of the farmer’s, and he is now to be taught that a man should have three months opportunity for exporting his bad stuff to England or elsewhere, in order to have an opportunity of ruining our whole fruit market. Others again talk about one month, which is also enough to ruin the market. The Minister wants to do the right thing and immediately stops the export of bad stuff, and so possibly even obviates anything going wrong. Let hon. members give our farmers an opportunity of debating agricultural matters. We are not here to approve everything the Minister introduces, but we want to support all he does correctly.

The working of the subsection is very ambiguous. You are going to prevent the export of a variety of fruit, not the fruit as a whole. When a disease breaks out in apples you may be able to export one variety. I would like the Minister to give some explanation.

I think I have been very plain on this point. I do not know what I can add. We have, for instance, several varieties of apples, and if we take one variety which it is not advisable to send to Brazil or any of those countries, then the Government has got the right, if it is clear that the export of that kind of apple will spoil our apple market, to prohibit that special variety from going out of the country.

With reference to this matter I think the amendment of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) is quite impracticable. We have for instance certain kinds of fruit for which the export season is possibly only six weeks in all, and the hon. member asks for three months time to deal with the matter. I should say that the Minister would act wisely if he listened a little to those who think an opportunity should be given to the farmers, the producers to express their views. We are concerned here with a provision that certain areas can be prohibited from exporting certain fruit, We know how the soil varies in South Africa. In one place we have bad soil and often there is good soil a few miles off with the, result that fruits of a different kind can be produced close together. It might easily occur that a departmental head not acquainted with things, might apply, regulations to the whole area and that innocent farmers may suffer. Will not the Minister be prepared to accept an-amendment in the form that the farmers in a locality where a prohibition is issued shall be consulted? We as farmers want to protect ourselves but we also know that the Minister cannot be everywhere at once and often has to leave things over to departmental heads who are possibly not well acquainted with them.

I move, as an amendment to the amendment—

I feel that the Minister might accept some method by which the farmer would be given a chance of making his voice heard. The Minister has explained what his reading of the word “variety” is. Will he also explain to the House what he understands by the word “class.” Does he mean “grade”? Does he mean that by regulation he can at any time stop the exportation of a certain grade of fruit? If he is going to control the export of certain grades of fruit he should make it perfectly clear that that is what he means. It is a very important thing for the grower to know before the actual date of export what grade will be accepted. I should like to hear from the Minister definitely whether the word “class” in this Bill is synonymous with what we understand by the word “grade ”,

May I suggest to the Minister to postpone the matter till to-morrow. We are not quite sure about the points mentioned by the Minister, e.g., as to the meaning of “varieties ”, arid the three months notice. We shall probably have plenty of time tomorrow? Can it not therefore be allowed to stand lover? The House will probably adjourn fairly early to-morrow and the Minister can have the matter disposed of then. Do not let him push the matter through now, but let us first be clear because there is a misunderstanding about certain points.

May I just make it plain that I have done my best to get the Bill passed because the farmers themselves are in favour of its passing. If hon. members opposite will not allow (he Bill to pass, there may possibly be no further opportunity this session to deal with it. The budget will start to-morrow and then possibly there will be no more opportunity. If the Bill does not go through, the farmers, each time, have to allow five per cent, of their ’ consignment off to be inspected, and they will consequently suffer damage. The farmers will understand that it is not my fault if the Bill fails to pass but because hon. members Opposite Oppose it. If we get no further opportunity of discussing the Bill, I hope the fruit growers will understand who is the cause of their sustaining loss. I have, made the Bill very clear, and hon. members had better choose now whether they want to assist the fruit farmers or not.

I am sorry that the Minister has adopted that tone again because it should be perfectly clear to him, as a reasonable man, that this side of the House is in no way trying to stultify his actions. We said from the start that we agreed to the principle of the Bill, and we did not oppose the second reading, but we do want some more information. I want to know that there will be no injustice done to the fruit growers. Speaking on their behalf, I deprecate anything that will tend to divide the fruit growers. I asked the Minister if the citrus growers were asking for this, but he has not given us any definite reply. I am making this because he has said that he is going to give us an opportunity of not opposing the farmers’ interests.

I have already answered the question of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), but he repeats it. I said that the deciduous fruit farmers had approached me but not the others, but that I would consult the farmers before issuing any regulation affecting them. The hon. member for Worcester (Mjr. Heatlie) spoke about “subsort,” but that does not mean “grade.”

What does the word 11 class” mean? Does it mean “grade ”?

It means “sort.”

No, we have “sort,” “sub-sort,” and “class.” What does “class” mean?

“Class” means “sort” of fruit, like apples or oranges. I may say that the Law Officers inserted the word, and this is another case of lawyers wanting to repudiate other lawyers. The object of the Rill is explained to the Law Officers and they select the phraseology. They make it very clear that “sort” does not mean “grade,” as the hon. member for Worcester states.

I want to point out to the Minister that there are many farmers outside who have never seen this Rill, and while I trust the Minister and the department also, I do not see why we should go and give the farmers the idea that we want to rush this legislation. At present the inspector is subject to certain restrictions, but now absolute power is given to the Minister to prohibit the export of fruit. I can assure the Minister he will have full co-operation and assistance from this House if he would allow this matter to stand over until Monday or Tuesday next. I am sincerely sorry that the Minister should maintain the attitude lie has, and I do not think it is in the best interests of the fruit, farmers. I think he should agree to report progress now and take the matter up later.

I hope the Minister will not agree to the request. The hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stutfaford) made a splendid defence of the advocates, which reminds me of the advertisement of a certain firm in Cape Town, “We are dyeing to please you.” The hon. member must, however, remember that the Bill was being introduced at the farmers’ request. What right, then, has the hon. member to say that it ought to be extended because the farmers have not been consulted. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Wolfaard) also ought to know that he will consult the farmers before he issues the regulation. One hon. member, in opposing the Bill, said the British public wanted to buy the best fruit, but his remarks showed that his powers of argument were weaker than his powers of observation. The very object of the Rill is that the best South African fruit should be put on the market.

I foresee great possibilities of trouble unless something reasonable is done to consult the wishes of the people whose interests are so vitally affected. The few days’ delay that will be involved by ascertaining the views of the fruit growers will not hamper the carrying out of any new regulation.

Before issuing regulations I always consult the representative of the people concerned. What more the hon. member wants I do not know.

First part of amendment proposed by Mr. Stuttaford, viz., to omit “three months” put and agreed to; second part, viz., to substitute “one month” put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Close, being incomplete, accordingly dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading on 5th August.