Let me say how delighted we all are on this side of the House to hear the cheerful news with regard to Mr. Tielman Roos. We all rejoice that the doctors think he will return to complete health and to his native land. I want to remove a wrong impression, may, an injustice concerning the people of Natal. There is an impression in this House, and in various parts of the country, that the people of Natal resent the civilized labourers being there simply because they speak Afrikaans and have Afrikaans names. On behalf of the people of Natal I deny this. What was resented in Natal was the injustice and the starvation wages, and the conditions under which these people live. That resentment was so great that it was one of the reasons why the urban areas voted against the Government. I rejoice, and the people of Natal rejoice, at seeing in Durban a silver lining to this cloud. We rejoice that the Government have done what they should have done some time ago in erecting houses for these people and putting an end to the deplorable conditions which I need not detail. I congratulate the Government upon the site they have chosen, away from the environment of Indians and natives, and where the children will receive the benefits of education, and month by month will rise in the scale of civilization. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Railways make a statement in this House regarding the promotion of these civilized labourers. He said eight thousand had been raised to a higher grade, and I am sure that information was welcomed by all of us. I have information, however, that in my constituency many of these men who were earning a wage of 8s. a day on which they were able to earn a bonus of 25 per cent, have been de-graded to labourers at 5s. 6d. a day, which carries no bonus. Is my information correct? The Minister is silent.

Give me the alleged facts and I will investigate the matter.

I am inclined to think my information is correct. There are a number of civilized labourers in my constituency. In regard to the conditions of living we have nothing to complain of. What we complain of is the starvation wages which these unfortunate people receive. I have a letter here which I will leave on the corner of my desk so that every member can see it. This man is a married man with seven children and receiving 6s. a day. I leave it to the imagination of members how he lives. But here these men have been de-graded again, and why? We must recognize that the railways, through the abnormal number of civilized labourers employed on our railway make it top heavy. The Government recognized the rates were starvation wages simply for this reason. Why have they not taken the advice I gave last year? There are other avenues along which this labour can be profitably employed at not less than 10s. a day. We will give the Government no peace until this 10s. a day minimum wage is established. I said the avenue for this labour was afforestation. Have we no duty to posterity? Can any member point to one single failure in afforestation by this Government or the previous Government? Let the Minister take his courage in both hands—the country is prosperous—and take 3,000 of these civilized labourers, and carry on this afforestation work. There is another aspect, and the Minister of Finance knows quite certainly it has to come about. We have to nationalize our trunk roads. Every other country has done it. We know that road construction cannot be carried out by the provincial councils as effectively as it should be done owing to lack of finance. The Minister is making provision in the estimates for £1,000,000 in this direction. There again we can keep these civilized labourers in communities and have control of their children in regard to education. Then again the men can be drafted to irrigation works such as Kakamas, and thus we shall be on the way towards solving a great problem which at present is a reproach to South Africa. I know it cannot be solved in a twinkling of an eye, but we must make a start in the direction that I have indicated. If the railways were not so top heavy there would be an opportunity of rectifying the grievances which exist upon our railways, and here let me plead with the Minister on one matter. We know that artizans, who have worked for twenty years in the shops, have received after twenty years’ service 1s. a day extra long service pay. Now that has been taken away from the men. Think more of the sentimental value rather than the intrinsic value. These men feel it very much. I would ask the Minister to reintroduce that. The great drawback for many of these civilized labourers is their lack of education. They feel it. The Government have agreed to give them education, but in doing so the Government have reached the depths of political meanness. Fancy mulcting these men 5s. per month for this education when they are only paid a starvation wage. Why not give this education free? I want to say a word with reference to the civil servants. We know there is discontent, and a great deal of it is justified. A great deal of time has been spent in discussing the 10 per cent. which has been taken off their salaries and advocating its return. The Graham report was published in 1921 when things were abnormal, but since then times have become normal, and it is recognized that there should be a new commission. It is as important to have a contented and efficient civil service as it is to have a contented and efficient railway service, and until this new commission reports, the Government should give the civil servants a living allowance on a flat rate of £40 a year. I need not remind the Government that they have a comfortable majority behind them and that the country is in a prosperous condition. We have taken a first step in social reform by the institution of old age pensions, but the amount is wholly inadequate and should be £1 per week. It is time we should take a second step in regard to social reform. The amount of destitution which I encountered in fighting my constituency was a revelation to me. We know that destitution is minimized to a certain degree by old age pensions, but it is far more prevalent amongst the working classes. I know there are schemes in the public service such as sick funds and there are friendly societies which are doing magnificent work, but it is only the highly paid artizan who can afford to make the weekly contributions to the funds. Our industrial expansion is great and growing year by year. You have a class of artizan who cannot afford to contribute to any benefit society, and they are receiving probably from £12 to £14 per month. When sickness and unemployment overtake them in three or four days they are destitute, and their unfortunate families have to go through the woes of destitution. The artizan falls back on the benevolent society and the strain on these institutions is not light. They do not refuse assistance, but their legitimate field of operations is curtailed by want of necessary funds. In this respect, we can embark on a scheme of national insurance, for which this country is ripe, and it is urgently needed. I hope that in the course of this Parliament, when we meet again, this will be one of the Bills on the programme of the Government. If we take into consideration what has been done in other countries, and I refer to the valuable report dealing with the matter, it states that since the beginning of the twentieth century laws providing for the compulsory insurance of workers have been passed by more than 20 countries, and several other countries have appointed commissions. In a few countries, compulsory schemes are limited to certain specified industries. Of those 20 countries Russia is one, and the employer pays the whole of the contribution. In Roumania, it is the reverse, and the employee pays the whole. In Germany and Austria, the employer pays one-third and the employee two-thirds, but in Great Britain it is a fifty-fifty contribution. There any person earning less than £150 per year is compelled to contribute threepence per week and the employer the same to national insurance, and the Government contributes two-ninths of the cost of the scheme. If we will embark on a scheme such as this it is going to improve our economic situation, because when we have destitution running riot in the land, and my constituency is not alone in the matter, the economic aspect of the country is going to be very much better if you adopt such a scheme. I want to raise another matter of very great importance to this country, and that is the question of the great increase in the cost of our mental hospitals and leper institutions. This is a great question affecting us nationally, not as the South African or any other party, but one of the gravest importance to this country. The amount on the estimates for 1923-’24 was £590,640, and the present estimates on the Table show an amount of £714,198. This is a heavy burden on this country, which is only a small one with a small population, and here we are year by year increasing the cost of these institutions at a rate which we cannot stand. I would ask hon. members to visualize what it will be in another 10 years; the figure will be over £1,000,000. We have 10.300 patients in our mental hospitals. We have got to do something. We have got to stop the source of production. We have to bear in mind that we are in the process of building up a nation, and if we are going to allow things to continue as they are, we are going to inflict a very heavy burden upon this country. How is production to be curtailed? Sterilization is the remedy. There is a great deal of misconception in regard to sterilization. There is a great want of knowledge in regard to this matter. [Laughter.] Really I cannot conceive what hon. members are laughing at. There is a good deal of opposition. People in the churches hold up their hands in holy horror at the very name of sterilization, but it is because they do n ot know what it is. They think it is a mutilation of the productive organs. It is nothing of the kind. Sterilization is not castration. It is a painless operation, if one can say that the prick of a needle is called painless vasectomy, and it does not prevent sexual intercourse, but there is no production of children. The experience of other countries is that persons who are sterilized do not know that they are sterilized. The only effect is that there is no issue in any marriage. It is common sense that when we are faced with a problem such as that that we should tackle it in the only way possible. I know that you cannot force a measure like this unless you have public opinion with you. Other countries have tackled this problem in the manner indicated. Let me refer to a British Association professor who recently made a statement in a psychological address in South Africa—Seton Carr. He said that a family named Jukes cost the State £2,500,000. There were 747 descendants, and every one of them was unfit and had criminal propensities. In 1927, 23 States of the United States passed laws relating to civilization, and these laws are still in operation. In 1926 op to July 25 there were 6,244 operations performed, many of them voluntarily. Many people offered themselves to be sterilized in the following States: California, Kansas, Oregon and Nebraska. Quite recently New Zealand brought a Bill in to deal with the problem. The Bill, as introduced, contained three chapters. The first chapter provided that a register of the unfit be compiled. Before an individual could be placed on that register, he was in every way safeguarded in the matter of fair play. No man could be placed on the register on the certificate of one doctor only. The register was to consist of all those who were mentally deficient, and once on that register they were regarded as minors. They lost the vote, and they were not allowed to marry. Chapter 2 of this Bill was to the effect that any of those on the register could voluntarily offer themselves for sterilization. They were then taken off the register, allowed to have the vote, and allowed to marry. The third chapter of the Bill prohibited those on the register from marrying. The Bill received support from all sides of the House, but the Minister of the Interior withdrew chapters 2 and 3, and the Bill was passed containing chapter 1; that is to say, that all persons mentally deficient were to be put on the register. Why should we not pass such a Bill and why should we not include criminals of the worst type in that register? We are building up a nation, and what we aim at is quality. This problem is becoming greater as time goes on, not only in regard to numbers, but also in cost, and the only efficient way of dealing with it is to bring in a measure similar to the one I have referred to. I hope the question will be taken up by others, because we have got to solve this problem. I know we have got to get public opinion with us, but if we ventilate the subject in this House, and examine it from every angle, then there is a hope of solving this problem, and saving South (Africa from a population of imbeciles and unfit.

In rising to address this House for the first time, it might seem strange that I am doing so not in my mother tongue, but in the other official language of the Union. My object in doing so to-day is because from the outset of my parliamentary service I wish to range myself with hon. members on this side of the House as well as the Government who have been out to obtain national unity and co-operation between the two races of this country. The only way that can be attained is by both sections of the community respecting and speaking one another’s language. It is on that account and that only that I make an appeal to hon. members on the other side of the House, and especially to the younger members, because I think the older members seem to be beyond redemption—to also speak Afrikaans in the future. I can assure them that if they do so, and reciprocate this gesture of co-operation, they will assist and thus foster the building up of a true national spirit, and therefore to help remove the barriers of racialism which have been so prominently displayed by hon. members on the other side of the House. I am only just mentioning this, and I sincerely hope and trust members on the other side of the House will follow in my footsteps. I fully approve of the budget. I have carefully listened to the criticism levelled by Opposition members, and I must admit that there is nothing constructive. I admit it is the duty of members of the House to air their grievances if they have any, but I have not heard from them anything that is constructive or of such a nature that would assist the hon. Minister of Finance in remodelling any future budget on better lines. I admit I have heard two arguments, one that the hon. Minister of Finance has overestimated, and this has been called unsound finance—unsound because you are taxing the taxpayers unduly. Some hon. members on the other side of the House—responsible members—have even said you are taxing the poor by overestimating your budget. When one speaks of overestimating you naturally consider the term estimate. What is an estimate? An estimate is what the word itself indicates. Naturally, as the year progresses, with good administration a more flourishing state of affairs is brought about. That is exactly what has happened, and I must compliment the hon. Minister of Finance for having estimated in the way he has. It would be unsound for any Minister of Finance if he were to speculate with the finances of the country. I can compliment him because he has not done that. There is also another reason which has been adduced by hon. members on the other side of the House, namely, that our expenditure has considerably increased since the present Government came into power. Let us consider this statement, and let us go into details. Hon. members on the other side of the House cannot make wild statements. Politicians sometimes make wild statements, although I have not made any, and I am not going to accuse any individual members on the other side of the House of having done so. In the first instance, the item of increase of the old age pensions, which amounts to £945.000—that item you can expect to be increased in course of time. Is there any member on the other side of the House who has any objection to that increase—dead silence on the other side. Take another item: increase in provincial subsidies. What has been added? £1.167,000. Who is responsible for that? Is that large amount justifiable? I must point out that the increased amount is spent mostly on education. It is an educational grant. Is there any member in this House who can object to that amount? Hon. members opposite also say the interest on redemption charges are greatly increased—to nearly £1,000,000. Only £816,000 is increased on the expenditure side. Hon. members, in dealing with an item of such importance have lost sight of the fact that they have not turned to the other side of the question by the revenue side. The amount, on the other hand, which has been received by the Government has increased to £589,579. So that this should indicate to hon. members opposite the fallacy of the argument which has been adduced by them, that expenditure has been unduly increased since this Government has come into power. I am just quoting a few items to show how hon. members on the other side of the House are against the increase of certain items, and which increase in reality they cannot justify. These members will agree with me, therefore, that the increased expenditure has been fully justified. As far as the budget is concerned I do not wish to criticize it, for I fully approve of it. I want, therefore, to-day, rather to plead for the abolition of the provincial system. I know that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) is out of sympathy with the country districts. He does not know what is going on there, and that is so with regard to all the Cape Town members. But I am glad to see from the newspapers to-day that the voters of Cape Town are at last coming to their senses, and are coming to the conclusion that their representatives here do more harm than good, by adopting a policy of isolation from the rest of the Union. Let me tell the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) that in regard to the provincial system the time has arrived when we should revise the whole system. Sir Edward Walton in his book “The Inner History of the National Convention” fully bears out that the provincial system was an experiment. The time, however, has now arrived to revise that system under which, for instance, we have compulsory education in the Cape up to one standard and up to a higher standard in the Transvaal. The system of road building in the different provinces is quite different, and our hospital systems as far as the collection of funds is concerned is also somewhat different. Let us therefore remodel the whole system on better lines. As far as the provincial subsidies are concerned the Smuts Government was responsible for the Baxter commission, which did much harm.

Who put that report into force?

The Government which did put it into force considerably altered it and assisted the Cape by increasing the amount of the subsidy.

Then why are you dissatisfied?

Because it is an experiment. I was never satisfied as a member of the Cape provincial executive. I said it was not fair to the Cape to receive a smaller subsidy because education is just as expensive in the Cape as it is in the Transvaal, despite what the Leader of the Opposition said. If there is anything that is unfair in the provincial system it is the difference in the subsidy. Natal is always having a grievance, but why should it receive a larger subsidy than the Cape, seeing that it has only 25,000 children at school at the present time?

Do not blame us for that.

I am blaming you because you originated the Baxter commission, and the Baxter report did all the harm.

That is a case of the wolf blaming the lamb.

Your leader stated to the public that he considered education is cheaper in the Cape than in the Transvaal. I say that is an irresponsible statement, and not based on any figures or knowledge. The education grant is wholly inadequate seeing that the Transvaal ratio is 4.97 and the Cape’s 2.5. The North-West Cape is sparsely populated, and as you cannot establish a school of less than six children or centralize as in the thickly populated areas, the grant is entirely insufficient. I hope the Government will take into consideration the advisability of revising the provincial system which has been an experiment and has now outlived itself. It is the general feeling throughout the whole of the Cape Province that something should be done and that we should have more uniformity as far as education, roads, and hospitals are concerned. With regard to the million pounds which the Government intends to distribute among the provinces for road building, the Government is always open to receive advice when it finds it is not correct in what it intends doing. I understand the Transvaal and Cape are to receive £300,000 each, and the two smaller provinces £200,000 each. That allocation cannot be justified on a scientific basis at all; nor can it be justified either on the grounds of the expenditure of the different provinces, their area or their road mileage. The Cape is at present spending £660,000 on its roads, the Transvaal £508,000, the Orange Free State £221,000 and Natal £303.000. You will find on that basis that the Cape is entitled to £400,000, the Transvaal to £300,000, the Free State to £130,000 and Natal to £170,000. If the amount is to be allocated as the newspapers say, then I submit very strongly that this suggested allocation of mine should be taken into consideration instead. The money has to be allocated on a scientific basis, and it must also be spent in a proper way. On the question of the mileage of proclaimed roads. I would say we are entitled to even more. I admit, however, that arguments may be adduced against the mileage basis. According to the mileage basis, the Cape would be entitled to £486,000, the Transvaal to £286,000, the Free State to £143,000 and Natal to £25,000. The Cape has been the Cinderella province of the Union for quite a long time and it is time therefore that we also got some of our just dues as compared with the other provinces. I, however, leave that very confidently in the hands of the Government. So far as my own constituency and the north-west are concerned, I feel the time has arrived when we should have more facilities in the north-west. We have passed through very hard times there. We have had an unprecedented drought, but there is no part of the Union of South Africa which has more possibilities than the north-west. The only difficulty and drawback is that we have not got the railway facilities we should have and which more favoured parts of South Africa have been enjoying in the past, and therefore I would strongly advocate and ask the Government to send up the Railway Board. I know the Minister of Railways will help us because he has an open heart for the people up there who have been suffering from these bad times. I trust the Railway Board will take into consideration the idea of going up there and making an inspection for themselves. The north-west is one of the most fertile parts of the Union, and if we only had railway facilities we should justify anything done to assist us. I would specially advocate a line from Klaver right through Bushmanland to Kakamas. We are increasing our citrus trade in the north-west, and there is no finer part of the country for growing citrus. The Minister should also take into consideration the building of a second line to the north from Ceres, Sutherland, Vanwyksvlei in the direction to Prieska. It is absolutely necessary to open up that part of the country and if that were done, the difficulties we have to contend with at present would disappear. So far as irrigation is concerned, may I also impress upon the House that the time has come when we should utilize the waters of the Orange River as a national asset. The Government are surveying that part, and I hope they will realize what an asset that is and how, by building canals, and taking the water and irrigating the north-west they would succeed to a great extent in solving the poor white problem. In regard to farming, if there was ever a Government which has done a lot for the farming community it is the present Government. Witness the way they have been returned at the recent elections because we appreciate the good work that has been done, and it is so essential that we should have a government in sympathy with the people of the country. That has been clearly demonstrated by the present Government. I can only express the hope that they may long continue to be at the head of affairs and if they continue to serve the people of this country as they have done in the past, I can give them the assurance that they will long remain in power.

I was pleased to hear that the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. C. H. Geldenhuys) has joined the crusade against racialism. I suggest he might extend that to provincialism which is also a great curse to this country. With what he said about the modification of provincial councils, I should think there are many on this side who would agree, but when he suggests that a Government, after appointing a commission, is bound by the report of the commission and even says that the succeeding Government is also bound to follow the lead of that commission, I think it is going further than this House has ever considered. However, as regards his wish that the Minister of Finance should deal with the provision in the Finance Adjustment Act of the Cape educational subsidy we hope the hon. member will be successful with the Minister. I want to deal with another subject, and I should like to concentrate on the urgency of doing something to alleviate the miserable conditions under which the very poor are doomed to live—particularly the urban poor. The principal causes of their misery are the continued high cost of living, the insufficiency of housing accommodation and the practically entire want of education.

Low wages!

In this regard the Government’s policy has hit unskilled labour and hit the very poorest classes very harshly. The very poor man is very much worse off than he was 30 years ago, and he has a more difficult task in making both ends meet. He is not living under the same healthy conditions as then, when life was very much simpler than it is to-day. What I want to ask the Minister of Finance is whether he will deal with some of the excessive customs revenue, and hand back to these people some of the money which he has extracted.

Very little will go back to their pockets; it will go to the merchants.

The Minister is so obsessed with doing something for the manufacturer—and I am a protectionist—that he has entirely overlooked the consumer, and particularly the poor consumer. It is the consumer with a small purse who has been hit. We have the paradox of a rich Government and a people poor, or, rather, it is really cause and effect; it is the effect of the policy of the Government for the last five years. Those of us who believe in protection of industry must see to it that as far as possible the hardship caused by protecting industries should be mitigated to the poorer classes of the community. The Minister has reduced certain duties: on carpets, 10 per cent. It is almost humorous when you consider the poor classes, who do not have carpets. It is beyond their means. The Minister has reduced the duty on gloves, 5 per cent. To me, that does not seem to help any class in this country. Nobody who wants to wear gloves need be considered. Electrical stoves have been reduced 10 per cent., but what about the poor man’s stove? The man who cooks by electricity can get his stoves cheaper, but the poor man’s stove is not to be dealt with at all. Antiques are coming in free, which is a very good thing for the country, and I am glad to see it, but it does not help the poor man. Every other decrease is one to help industry.

Will you suggest something on which I can reduce?

Let me develop my argument. The Minister has put up the duty on condensed milk, and the price of clothing. The only item of furniture which has been increased is the very cheapest form of chair that the wealthy man never uses, and which is the only thing within reach of the purse of the poor man. If the poor man were able to make his voice heard in this House he would be very cynical at the expense of the Government. Both the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Minister of Finance are very fond of asking us what we would do. It has often been pointed out that they are governing this country, and we are not. They have behind them all the officials who can give them all the figures at their disposal. It is very easy to criticize detailed figures, but the position is so serious to-day with the poorer classes that I am going to give certain details which the Minister may very likely be able to criticize, and which his officials, if they are turned on to it, may be able to damage. The customs duties have gone up about three millions in four years. I don’t ask the Minister to give away all the three millions, but only to give some of it back. The Minister takes £85,000 a year from coffee. I want him to try to put his officials on it to see if he can give it back to the country without hurting unreasonably the industrial policy of the Government.

I am taking a farthing off coffee, and that will go to the merchants.

The Minister will have all the opportunity he wants to reply to this on Monday evening next. He might allow us to put our case, and he has asked us to say definitely what we suggest doing.

I hoped to get something that is practicable.

If he can show us any better way of helping these poorer classes, for heaven’s sake let him do it. I am not wedded to the reduction of certain duties. The Minister takes £118,000 from us in tea, £6,000 in the way of infants’ foods and tapioca and things of that kind, and £300,000 from the very poor classes, on cotton blankets. I want the Minister to say whether he cannot change his policy in this matter. The duty on cotton blankets is a most iniquitous one. It is put on to hit the native, and it not only hits the native, which is bad enough, but it hits the coloured man and the poor white man. You are not producing, and you are not going to produce a cotton blanket out of any material produced in this country. In view of the parlous condition of the poorer classes it is iniquitous to take £300,000 out of them in the way of duty oil their blankets. We take £41,000 on household utensils; £9,600 on oil lamps; £50,000 on illuminating oil; and £40,000 on household china and glass, and things of that kind. The total is over £600,000. I don’t ask the Minister to knock the whole of it off. I only ask him to cast his eye down that list, and get his experts to say what they can take out of that list in order to help the very poor man.

I have done so often, but they say it goes into your pocket and not into the poor man’s pocket.

That is a poor sort of argument. The hon. Minister is not aware of the mechanism of an ordinary business. It shows the mentality of the Minister, and the hopelessness of putting anything in front of him to help the very poor. I should like to refer to the next difficulty that the poor man has, and that is to obtain housing. The housing question can be divided into two halves. The first point is to provide the poor man with housing of a reasonable quantity, and reasonably clean and healthy. The next is to provide him with it at a rent which will leave him enough over to pay for the necessaries of life. We have got to such a serious position that we, I think, should concentrate on the first portion of the problem; that is, the provision of enough housing to provide a covering for people’s heads. I want to pursue the same method that I did with regard to foodstuffs and so on, and ask what the Government can do in the matter. I do not want the hon. Minister to take up an antagonistic attitude in this matter. Cannot we in this House put our heads together and do something for these people? Simply because we make a suggestion is it necessary to be acrimonious over it? It seems to me that it is a matter beyond and above all politics, and I ask the Minister to look at it sympathetically. He is at perfect liberty to reject any suggestion I have made provided in place of it he puts up a better suggestion in order to help these people. I do not mind if he counts all these arguments out provided he will put up a case and put up a concrete suggestion to help these people. Take the duties on building materials, and I am trying to avoid as much as possible certain classes of commodities which employ industrial labour in this country. You take £12,000 a year on such items as bath and lavatory fittings; £172,000 a year in builders’ ironmongery; £35,000 a year in stoves; £12,000 a year in glass, the cheaper classes of glass which are used in a poor man’s house. You take £104,000 in paints, and £42,000 a year in unmanufactured timber. I am not talking of manufactured timber. Leave that by all means, but why not give something away on unmanufactured timber, which is a very big item in building? That would be some help. Then I suggest that on the cheaper class of house which is financed by the Central Housing Board, say a house up to £500, why not remit transfer dues and stamp duties? Take a poor man’s house, a £400 house, a house hardly suitable for a European to live in. On a £400 house, which has a bond on it, the Government take £11 11s. in fees for transfer duty and stamps, There is a variety of stamps: stamp on power of attorney, stamp on transfer and registration, stamp for transfer, stamp for approval of diagram, and other stamps. If you are a poor man and want to buy a house you never finish paying Government fees. The poor man should get off as cheaply as possible. On a £400 house he has to pay eleven guineas in fees before he can get hold of it. I suggest that the Government can show its sympathy in a practical way. With regard to the Central Housing Board regulations I would suggest that for loans under £400 money should be loaned at an unremunerative rate. When you are dealing with this very cheap class of house you must think of the man who has a wage of only £2 or £3 per week. With regard to other houses the Government loan up to £750. I do suggest that the Government should give a little more latitude to that class of house. They limit the value of the house to £950 and the loan to £750. Unfortunately when you come to a house of European occupation it will be found that it cannot be built for that sum, but it will run to another £100. When you come to a man who must have a house with three bedrooms and a living room you must have another £100 to pay for a house of that description. Then there is the fencing of the plot, the water connection, and several other small details which make up quite a considerable sum of money for a man to nay who has a good sized family—the sized family every good man in this country ought to have. The Minister can obviate that difficulty in two ways. Base his maximum value of the property on the contract price of the house omitting these small details or putting the amount of the loan and of the building up £100, and that would very greatly help men of very moderate means who are Europeans. The Mayor of Cape Town in a letter to the members of this House the other day, said some things with regard to expropriation of slum properties. If a municipality wants to expropriate a property as unfit for human habitation, the landlord gets not only the site value of the property but compensation for the excessive rents he has screwed out of the poorer classes. By bringing in legislation to remedy this, the Government might help with the housing problem. If the property is declared unfit for human habitation, the local authorities should be able to expropriate on the basis of land site valuation only, and that would enable the authorities to expropriate these properties and rebuild them in a decent way. I dislike suggesting anything which is uneconomic, and I hardly like to criticize the suggestions made by many people who have done good work on this question of poor class houses. They merit a tremendous amount of appreciation. I do suggest that if you let houses or flats on a sub-economic rent in the centre of the town you are going to do one thing which is what we do not want to have done. You are going to increase the congestion. You are going to attract the people to live in the centre of the town. The other difficulty of letting houses at a non-economic rent, is that the system will last only as long as the enthusiasm continues, and then things will drift back into the old rut again until there is another epidemic. Whereas if you let houses at an economic rent, the supply will continue as long as the demand exists. The sounder plan is to let dwellings at an economic rent. Why I suggest the Government should reduce the rate of interest on money advanced for the building of houses, of the value of £400 and under, is that the reduction would apply all over the different areas and would not have the evil effects of other forms of sub-economic rent. It is said that we need not worry about houses of the value of £1,000, but the Minister of the Interior will recognize that the construction of every new house improves the chance of every man living in a similar class of house or lower class of house in the whole of the area concerned. If we could, by a wave of a magician’s wand, erect 2,000 decent workers’ houses in Cape Town, it would simultaneously improve the whole housing position. Coming to my third point—how our poorer classes are suffering—I am sorry that the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. C. H. Geldenhuys) is not in the House just now, because he might help me in my contention that the subsidy for coloured education in the Cape is impossibly inadequate. The subsidy is £5 5s. per pupil per annum, and the result is that every year the number of coloured illiterate people increases. Some of them live like animals, and it is not only the coloured people who suffer but everybody else. We are breeding in the big cities people who are not only subject to every disease of the body, but every disease of the soul. This is largely caused by the fact that we have never tackled the education of these people. The subsidy for coloured education should be increased, so that these people should be given some form of elementary education. You will never get a decent class of population if a large proportion of them are absolutely illiterate and know nothing about the laws of hygiene or the methods of civilization. Owing to the necessity of developing and protecting our industries it is our duty to take such steps as we can to help people in other ways to return to a decent way of living: I refer not only to the coloured people in the big towns but to the poor whites as well. Are we going to sit still or will our Government come to our help and assist us to solve this very dreadful problem?

It is with a feeling of deep appreciation of my duty and of the dignity of the House that I express my thanks for the opportunity of rising here this afternoon. Because I am in a very humble position and rise in fear and trembling not only because I am surrounded by no less than 287 rules of order with a number of subdivisions as well, but also because I feel that it would add to the dignity of the House if we should add a few rules more to them. I mean with reference to what is now happening here. From respect for their colleague who is speaking hon. members opposite remain in their seats, but as soon as he is finished they adjourn for a few minutes—say ten to fifteen go out for refreshments. I would therefore suggest that the House at this time to-day adjourn for a few minutes—say, ten to fifteen minutes—to give hon. members an opportunity of taking refreshments. That would be more in accordance with the dignity of the House. I do not intend to make a long speech in connection with anything. A few points can be better dealt with in the committee stage, but I should like to break a lance for the business principles which the Government have followed since they came into office. The Government is blamed for increasing the expenditure during its period of office by not less than £36,000,000 in all, for increasing the public expenditure tremendously, that more taxation is collected than can be justified and that the burden of taxation has not been reduced. In connection with these points I want to break a lance for the policy of the Government. In connection with the criticisms made, let us enquire in what way in the past the public debt has been increased or reduced by the Government. As for the increase of £36,000,000 it was applied to stabilize businesses, and what business man will not approve of it? This Government is the first one which has had the courage and daring to tackle the stabilization and in the first instance I instance the agricultural industry. We are glad to learn that the other side is also breaking a lance for the agricultural industry. We cannot exist without it nor can we do so on it alone. The agricultural industry is the first industry and must feed the others like the mines and the other industries that develop. We therefore find during the Government’s term of office they have stabilized and capitalized the superannuation fund, which was shamefully neglected under the previous Government and was almost bankrupt, that they put in order pensions and other funds, extended the railways and harbours, strengthened the Land and Agricultural Banks, increased electrification, gave large provincial grants, made provision for our colleges, for the extension of land settlement, the pushing of irrigation—to such an extent that we now have a Minister in charge of it—increased the postal and telegraphic facilities, the planting of forests, and also tackled big public works. Money was granted for all kinds of important things, especially in connection with the solution of the poor white question. If we add up the amounts under those headings we find that a capital amount of £60,000,000 was spent during the period, but yet we see that the debt has only increased by £38,000,000. There is dead debt which is bad and what business has no bad debts? The amount of the dead debt has been reduced by £2,000,000, but in spite of all the writings-off the Government has followed a policy of reducing the burden of taxation. Customs and other tariffs have been reduced, the taxes on roll tobacco and patent medicines repealed. The Government has reverted to the penny postage and in various ways reduced the income tax. The interest from the Guardians’ Fund has been increased and the taxation on life assurance reduced, the customs duties lowered and an extra rebate of twenty per cent. of the income tax granted. In addition the grants to the Provincial Administration have been increased, and if we examine it we find that the burden in connection with those matters has been reduced by more than £5,000,000. It is urged that as a result of the protection policy the burden of taxation on various articles which ought to be reduced has been increased. That was, however, to support the sound industrial policy of the Government and the amount involved is not more than £600,000 or £700,000 for all these years. Over against this small amount tremendous reductions on income tax, etc., were given. That was for the pushing of industries. The attacks of the Opposition on this one can hardly describe otherwise than as frivolous chaff. There is more expenditure, but it is sound provided we progress. Are we then to retrogress? No, we must further extend business and strive after the realization of the great Nationalist aspiration of the people of South Africa to be a self-dependent people so that in all respects we can support ourselves. We have repeatedly heard even from great politicians that our country is a poor one. To what extent? There is no country in the world that is so rich in minerals as South Africa, no country which has such prospects notwithstanding the pests, droughts, etc., that the country undergoes from time to time. We can boast of a farming population which is hardworking and progressive, we have an energetic and progressive population. Why, then, are we so poor? I am also glad that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) had to apologize for the way in which he attacked our people. On the other hand, there are fortunately still people left who see the good qualities of our people. The hon. member for Durban (County) (Mr. Eaton) spoke the other day about the tremendous impression the Karroo had made on him. It was the voice of South Africa which was calling to its children and the children are required by the country. As for the civilized labourers on the railways, we had to send some of our boys from the Free State and other parts to Pietermaritzburg because the Natal boys would not touch the work. It is good enough for our boys, they are glad to get it. As the hon. member for New-lands (Mr. Stuttaford) said, the time has come that we must listen to the voice of trade. Trade and industry form the existence of the people, and I am certain that as soon as we feel that we have a trade the object of which is not merely to batten on the people but to co-operate in the progress and upbuilding of the people, then they will always get sympathy from the Government, which actually aims at such upbuilding. Then there are a few more points I want to bring to the notice of the Ministers of Railways and Justice and the Ministers generally. My hon. friend the member for Senekal (Mr. Visser) proved by figures yesterday, what a big role agriculture had played in the Free State, which is par excellence an agricultural province. We are now only engaged in building up an industry there, and we have heard what large revenue the Treasury gets from the farmers. The revenue from the Free State exceeds that from Natal and the Transvaal, and sometimes that from the Cape Province. We are an industrious province, and therefore I want to bring to the Minister’s notice that we are known in the Free State as one of the first producers of farm produce. I believe I can maintain that, and I do not think that other hon. members from the Free State will contradict that my constituency is one of the prinicpal divisions in the province, and consequently that I represent one of the chief constituencies in one of the chief provinces. I want to appeal to the Minister of Railways not in future to make the mistake he made in a pamphlet prepared with the assistance of his department. The document shows where there is a possibility to develop industries and every place is mentioned except Bethlehem. Bethlehem is situated along the Jordan in the province of the Free State, but we not only have a Jordan but a Canaan, and a Loch Athlone and a Loch Lomond, and therefore there is room for all the cosmopolitan population of South Africa. The Minister would not have been able to have run trains through our districts during the last nine months of drought if it were not for the water of Bethlehem, but he says nothing about it. I want to make it known as soon as possible because the time will come when we will have to build a capital, South Africa’s Canberra, and then Bethlehem will be the place for it. I shall on another occasion speak more fully on various subjects, and I therefore want to thank hon. members for the opportunity afforded me of expressing a few ideas, and I trust that those who have capital for investment on good security and at low interest will not forget Bethlehem.

I listened attentively to the criticism of the Opposition, but their turn reminded me of the saying “the mountain was delivered of a mouse.” It also made me think of the story where Jacob deceived Esau and how Isaac felt Jacob’s hands and said “It is the voice of Jacob but the hands are Esau’s.” Can it be possible that these are the same people? Can it be true that the very people who increased the burden of taxation and taxed all possible sources, who did not have an ear for the poor man and the working man, who shot the workmen when they were demanding higher wages, who had no sympathy with the farmers, the cattle-, the wine-, wheat and maize farmers, who opposed the policy of white labour, who strenuously opposed all possible measures to develop the irrigation of the land, who would not listen to the prayers of our young industries so that they had of necessity to close down, who rushed the country into a debt of £40,000,000 by their criminal policy of seeing the war through, can it be true that these people are now preaching to the Government about levying less taxation, the protection of industries, the assistance of farmers and paying the poor people more? Those people who are now speaking of starvation wages paid white men 2s. 6d. a day in 1922 for work on the streets of Pretoria. Is that not a starvation wage? Now they come, however, to throw dust in the eyes of the public by saying that we pay starvation wages. Is not that the voice of Jacob? Our people, however, do not forget so soon. The people do not forget what the present Government did for the cattle farmers, and they will show their gratitude to the Ministers of Lands, Agriculture and Railways for what they have done. There is one amount which hon. members opposite have criticized, namely, that ambassadors have been sent overseas—just to show off there. I am sorry that the hon. member for Stanedrton (Gen. Smuts) is away. It is said that he has an international bent, he is not national but international. There can however be no question of international if there is no nationalism. He spoke of nationalism as a disease like measles which must take its course to the end, but I want to assure hon. members opposite that nationalism has pushed its roots deep into and has conquered the hearts of the people. The more it is tampered with—the more you shake the tree—the deeper the roots will grow into the hearts of the people. First national and then international. We want to celebrate our position as an international state. We want to have people to represent us, we want to live on a good footing and establish international relations with other countries. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says that we must extend our trade, but just remember how hon. members opposite shouted when the Government wanted to conclude the trade treaty with Germany. The Leader of the Opposition is international but his internationalism does not go beyond Great Britain. It is the same with hon. members opposite. We want to enter into trade relations not only with Great Britain but with other countries. I and the district I represent are greatly indebted to the Government for what it has achieved during its five years of office. The farmers and particularly the cattle farmers are thankful for the land settlement and for the writings-off on the settlement. They are thankful to the Minister of Agriculture for his assistance and they are also thankful to the Minister of Railways and Harbours for the road motor services, because in my constituency there are more services than in any part of the Union. They are thankful to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs who has made a telephone system throughout the countryside. I want, however, to respectively make requests to the Ministers of Education and Agriculture. We all feel that there is something radically wrong with our educational system. The child is not educated up for life and our educational system is not sufficiently effective. We have many schools—there is a beautiful school at Potgietersrust—but we feel that the school system is a factory of poor whites. Give us primarily an agricultural school to which the children can go when they leave the primary school to prepare themselves for life. We have some of the best land in the world and some of the most beautiful rivers in South Africa. The water has to be taken to the lands, but in addition the child must be taught to go to work scientifically, I hope I shall not be like a voice crying in the wilderness but that the Ministers will give attention to the matter. I do not want to talk any more, but in conclusion I want to say that I have the fullest confidence in the Government. The Government is sympathetic and the people can safely rest in confidence. Hon. members opposite need not worry about the poor man because we are a poor man’s Government. It the hon. member for Newlands talks about the poor man we don’t listen because he is a wholesale merchant, and when his Government was in power there was no sympathy for the poor man who had to manage as best he could. To-day the Government contains people who have experienced the cold of the night, and the heat of the day and who have a heart for their people. If the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) talks of 10s. a day for the poor man and really is sympathetic to him, I want to heartily invite him to come and sit on this side of the House.

I propose to touch on a few matters connected with the railway. Before doing so I would like as a member for a constituency which includes a large number of railway men, to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Sea Point (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) as to the courtesy and efficiency of members of the railway service. I would also like to acknowledge the work which the Minister proposes to do in relieving railway congestion at Pretoria. He has taken a step which has the full support of the people of Pretoria, and he has undertaken a work, which many of us think ought to have been commenced very much earlier, in placing money on the estimates to meet requirements in that respect. I would like to take the first opportunity I have as an ex public servant of paying a tribute to the very fine work done by the public service in this country. As one who has been a member of that service I am perhaps better able to realize the very valuable and loyal work which the members of that service perform, and I hope at some future time to be able to assist them in obtaining relief with respect of some of those grievances which they feel do exist. There are one or two points which I want particularly to put to the Minister, because I do not think it is clear to the railway men—I am referring particularly to the poor white labour class—that the position is as he stated the other day in reply to a question which I put with regard to the matter of promotion. Just before I left Pretoria a deputation met the member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) and myself, and also had interviewed, I believe, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit). One of the grievances they felt was that they had no opportunity for promotion in the railway service. We went very closely into the matter. They complained that although they were very desirous of improving their position, there was practically no opportunity open to them to do so. I will do my best to see that the Minister’s statement that every individual has a full opportunity of rising is conveyed to the men at Pretoria. Another grievance is the double rate of pay. I appreciate the reply which the hon. Minister gave the other afternoon, that the Government does not intend to go back on the double rate of pay. But there is one point I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention. When the double rate of pay was introduced there were a large number of apprentices who had not completed their service at the date when the reduced rate came into force. The railwayman who had completed his service a day before was paid the old rate, while those who completed afterwards were paid at the new rate. This occasioned a feeling of distinct hardship in the minds of the men concerned, and early opportunity should be taken of having this removed. Then with regard to leave, no leave other than certain statutory holidays is granted to white labourers. We have a wage board and they have laid down a policy that all industries and commercial concerns are to give their employees up to 12 days each per annum as a holiday, some on full and some on half-pay, and I think it is not too much to ask the Government to give these men in the Government service the same leave. If it is going to cost too much, then the Government should only employ such numbers of men which they can give this full leave to. There is another item which I feel one should refer to again. That is the question of railway expenditure and revenue during the past few years. During the period of great prosperity in this country, when the revenue has been going up by leaps and bounds, owing to the prosperous condition of the country, we naturally expect healthy returns in the railway revenue. What I am afraid of is that if there is any falling-off in the trade of the country, it will be felt first of all in the railway returns, and it will very seriously affect the whole of the railway system of the Union. I propose now to deal with the Minister of Finance’s statement. I want to refer to the warning issued the other day by him as to the people of this country living beyond their means, and his statement that care must be exercized in future. This warning is likely to fall on deaf ears in view of the fact that the members of his party do not think that with the Minister’s financial ability there can be any possible financial difficulties in the future. His party considers that whatever financial difficulties may arise he will be able to pull them out of them. It is said by members on the opposite side that we cannot point out any item of expenditure in the estimates of the Government which should be reduced. During the last five years the Minister has consistently made a mistake in the estimates for revenue to be received and increasingly large surpluses have accumulated each year. He has also consistently made mistakes as to the expenditure to be incurred during the year, and has had to ask the House to pass additional expenditure. In 1924-’25 he asked for £324,000; in 1925-’26 nothing; 1926-’27 he asked for £420,000; in 1927-’28, £402,000, and in 1928-’29, £240,000, making a total of £1,386,000. The position I want to put to the Minister is this. Suppose he had not made mistakes in the revenue he was going to receive from taxation and he only received the amount he expected to receive, how would he have raised the additional amount he required each year. Would he have come to this House and asked for the sum required to be raised by additional taxation? Of course not. If he had done so his party would not have been returned to power at the last general election. What would he have done? He would have passed a pruning-knife through the estimates, he would have curtailed the expenditure within the limits of the money he had received, and would not have come to the House for this money. One of the most serious features of the budget is that after five years of unexampled prosperity and industrial development and very healthy condition of things (with one or two exceptions), no reductions have been effected in taxation, and with respect to the bulk of taxation, it is greater than it was in 1924, and what is more serious, it is greater than it was ten years ago at the conclusion of the great war, in 1918. I will deal with one or two heads. There is the question of mining revenue, no reductions have been made there. The Licences Consolidated Licences Act was introduced a few years ago, and I think the Minister was right in the introduction of that Act. But instead of curtailing the number of licences, they have been increased, for example, there are 17 new licences in the Transvaal, and other provinces have also been affected. Actually no decreases have been made at all, with the exception that the turnover tax has been turned into a tax on stock values. Companies now pay a yearly licence instead of the one tax that they used to pay on their formation, and in the Transvaal actually they pay one tax to the Government and another to the province.

The Cape pays less.

With regard to income tax, the Government is granting a remission of 20 per cent., and certain abatements which are very sound, but the percentage of people paying income tax is less than 15 per cent. of the white adult males, so that whatever benefits are given in this direction affect only a very small portion of the population. Before dealing with customs I should like to say that businessmen are indebted to the Minister for having met us in the appointment of a customs advisory board, which I feel sure will prove of the utmost value to the Government and also to the mercantile community generally. I now wish particularly to criticize the customs taxation which forms 42 per cent. of our total revenue from taxes, or, if you include excise, 52 per cent. or more than half the total revenue from taxes. I do not think it is fully realized what an immense burden has been placed on the consuming section of the public. The Government claims that it has reduced certain items in the customs tariff during the last five years. That is perfectly correct, but, after all, it is only taking off taxation which was imposed when the tariff was revised in 1925. I will give one or two illuminating figures. In 1918 the gross rate of duty per £100 was £12 9s. 2d.; in 1923, £12 8s. 10d.; in 1924, £12 15s. 11d.; in 1925, £13 1s. 11d.; in 1926, £13 9s. 9d.; in 1927, £13 6s. 8d.; and in 1928, £13 3s. 10d., so we find to-day that ten years after the conclusion of the war the rate of customs duty is higher than it was at the end of the war period, and higher than it was five years ago. I associate myself with previous speakers on this side of the House when I say I am not opposed to a measure of protection. Long before the present Government or the Nationalist party was born, commercial opinion in South Africa had declared itself definitely in favour of a policy of protection. If hon. members will turn up records of commercial congresses as far back as 1909, they will find the question of protection or free trade was debated, and with one or two exceptions protection was adopted by the commercial community, a policy which has helped so much to build up South Africa. I now wish to show how the revised tariff imposes an undue burden on the poorer section of the population. On articles in class (1), foodstuffs, the duty per £100 was £14 6s. 6d. in 1924, and £17 1s. 4d. in 1927. The main items in this class comprise corn and grain, coffee, rice, tea and condensed milk. With regard to class (4) which includes textiles, clothing, hosiery and similar articles, the rate in 1924 was £11 6s. per £100 of value; in 1927, £14 10s.; and in 1928, £12 8s. 8d. The main items include blankets, rugs and clothing, the duties on which all show huge increases. It will be retorted that as a result of the duty on blankets a blanket making industry has been established in the Union. I would be the last to injure a South African industry, but when you find that a consignment of blankets intended for the poorer section of the population cost £21 18s. and the customs duty on that consignment amounted to no less than £25, it is apparent that the duty is not a fair one, but is extortionate. I take the case of bicycle tyres. The bicycle is used almost universally by the poorer section of the population. The factory cost of certain tyres is 1s. 7d., but a change-over has been made and the duty is now calculated on the weight, under the revised scale the duty on a tyre costing 1s. 7d. amounts to 1s. 8d. If an industry had been established in this country there might be some argument in favour of such a duty. Then with regard to the tax on condensed milk. The Minister is proposing to increase that tax. Who uses it most, and who is the tax going to hit when it is imposed? The poorest sections of the population. Does the Minister realize that condensed milk is sold in Cape Town at 8d. or 9d. a tin, and that on every tin there is 2d. duty? If that is not unfair taxation of the poor, I would like to know what is. If the proposed industry is or can be established then the Minister should consider whether there are not other means or methods by which it can be established. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) supported the Government’s economic policy. I do not know that I find very much fault with some of the items, but I do complain of the way in which taxation falls on the poorest section. I cannot understand how an hon. member who claims to represent that section of the population can reconcile his duty to them, with the fact that he supports the taxation on articles of food in the customs tariff, and presumably will equally support the same proposal to remove the duty on antiques, that is on the grandfather’s clocks of the ancestors of hon. members opposite. There are a few other comparisons which I wish to draw attention to. As I have said in class 1, the average rate is £17 1s. 4d., and class 4, clothing £12 8s. 8d.; in class 5, metals, machinery, vehicles and motor cars, it is £7 5s. 3d.; class 6, earthenware and glassware, £11 18s. 8d.; class 7, oils, waxes, etc., £20 11s. 1d.; class 8, drugs, etc., £8 7s. 2d.; class 9, leather, rubber, etc., £25 10s. 4d.; class 11, books, paper, etc., £8 19s. 4d.; class 12, jewellery, etc.. £22 8s. 1d. The general effect of the customs tariff is therefore to increase the cost of living, particularly to the poor man, and the remissions of duty which have been granted in respect of income tax only affect the better-off class and not the poorest sections. As an income tax payer I welcome the concession, but it would have been far better if the Minister had given relief on some of the articles of food used by the poorer section of the population. With regard to the establishment of industries it is very much open to question whether under the present tariff system the Minister is achieving his object, because we find no appreciable increase in the goods imported in the last three years for manufacturing purposes. In 1923 8.39 per cent. of the total imports were goods used for manufacturing purposes. In 1924 it was 8.06 per cent., and in 1927 the figure was 8.46 per cent. One must take seriously to heart the Minister’s warning as to the likelihood of a depression within the next year. In the period 1924 to 1927 the growth of imports was 24 per cent., and the growth of industry was 22 per cent. The average growth in population over the same period was only 6 per cent. During a period of three years imports and industrial projects have increased by three times the amount of the population increase, and it looks as if we are rapidly reaching the position such as existed after the boom period year of 1920. The Minister should seriously consider the request put forward by members that he should institute an enquiry into the whole effect of the customs and industrial policy upon which the Government has embarked. One feels there is really great need for anxiety. It has been said the commerce, and I speak of commerce in its widest form, is to a country what the trunk is to a tree, and that the arts, professions and sciences are as the branches on that tree. Just as surely as you damage the trunk of the tree, so will its branches wilt and decay, just as surely as you do anything to damage and unstabilize the trade and industry of the country so, in like measure, will you do harm to the whole social structure which nourishes on sound, healthy trade conditions. It is for the Minister to go into this matter fully, and to do his best to see that no harm is being done to the trade of the country, and in doing so he will ensure far greater prosperity and a better state of affairs for the poorer section of the country than has hitherto existed.

I am happy to congratulate the Minister on the sound financial policy he has followed since he came into office. I noticed in listening to the criticism of the budget by the front benches of the Opposition that it was very friendly and it was something like a man using a weapon which he feared might hit back at him again. Then I noticed that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) gave what he thought were the qualifications of a Minister of Finance. I quite agree with him but I think he has discovered them a little too late. He ought to have discovered it before 1924 when he was a member of the Government. I represent a farming constituency containing many poor people and there are a few points I want to call the attention of the Government to and I hope that if possible they will give assistance at once. I must admit and I think the whole country admits that the Government has already done very much. There is not a single section of the population which has not yet been assisted, against whom the door is shut. Since the Government came into office it has done a giant’s work to help the people and to bring them where they are today, but things are so bad that I have to ask for more help to-day although I think the Government understands I am not ungrateful for what they have already done. Hon. members opposite say that it is the sun which is shining over South Africa but the sun was not shining on the first day, and it did not shine on full hands, but the Government has done five years’ hard work. Therefore we see the success of it to-day and that is the reason why the country has acknowledged that it is the Government which has so arranged for the present position we are in. I am also pleased to acknowledge that the farmers in my district have been much assisted but conditions have been so bad that I must report them to the Government. There is great poverty among our people who have to exist from the relief works. I think every member of the House will agree hat the relief works are injurious to our country and people and that we feel therefore that more provision ought to be made by Parliament to-day. Parliament made provision in 1926 for the assistance of the farmers. To-day the position is still the same. We find bywoners who lack the necessary courage to acquire the draught animals necessary to go ahead and that man must be assisted. I think that the Minister must leave a certain amount in the agricultural banks to remain there for people who have retrogressed, the people who are becoming poor whites. I do not want to say too much but I think that we must leave a sum in the agricultural bank to help such a man, e.g., to buy draught animals once more because that is what they require most. In going through the country one finds people who have the will to work but the position on the land has influenced them to such an extent that they have to ask for help to enable them to remain on the land. They must have the opportunity to breed stock once more and therefore need a little help. There is another point I want to bring to the notice of the Government. It is in connection with our poor farmers and bywoners. The Government has already passed an Act which in the opinion of the experts is one of the best in the world. But in this Act there are certain sections which must be deleted and replaced by others. Section 11, e.g., makes money available for the purchase of ground by farmers but there is a certain class of poor farmers and bywoners who long just as much for a bit of ground as the others but who do not come under Section 11. There is no more ground which they can get; they come by hundreds to the Minister but they cannot be assisted because the law does not permit. I understand that the Government was no longer entitled to buy land under Section 10 but the Government will have to buy ground because there are places where there are 300 poor bywoners living who are too poor to obtain land under Section 11 and if it is our intention to keep the people on the land it should be our duty during the next five years to acquire land for those farmers. The Government will have to obtain land under Section 10. There are beautiful farms in many districts which can be bought for the purpose. I do not want to say that the land settlement policy must keep on in this way for ever but for the first few years it will have to be applied in order to keep the poor people on the land and I hope the Minister will think about it. In the past farms were bought which were not worth half the price paid, but there are enough good farms. It is no use having so much money, we must have a sound and prosperous nation. Then there is another point in connection with the farmers in my constituency. I am thinking of wheat farming. On to-day’s market the people cannot possibly make a living out of wheat farming and the Minister must take steps. The Government will have to increase the customs duties on imported wheat to secure a future for the wheat farmer. I know this is a difficult matter and there are many poor people requiring bread but the country does not produce sufficient bread to provide for the requirements of the people and wheat to the value of £2,000,000 has to be imported annually. If we remember this fact we shall appreciate the need to give the wheat farmer more encouragement. I do not know the position in the Cape and the Free State but I can say that wheat cannot be produced in the Transvaal under 27s. a bag. To-day the farmers get 22s. a bag. If it were not that the farmers—they are chiefly small farmers—did not keep books they would stop the production of wheat. What else however can they sow? They are living on irrigated land and the area is small. There is no market for barley or forage, and they cannot put all the ground under lucerne. By encouraging the farmers and making the importing of wheat unnecessary the country as a whole will be benefited and the wheat farmers will also have a future. I hope the Government will think about it because otherwise we will only create poor whites. All cannot be given work on the relief works and therefore we must keep the people as much as possible on the land. We must create a market for them because otherwise they cannot remain on the land. I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Verster), and for Oudtshoorn (Mr. le Roux) in connection with tobacco farming. There are many tobacco farmers in my constituency but at present they find it impossible to make a living. I want to bring this matter to the notice of the Government and I hope the Government will appreciate the importance of it. The situation is so bad that the large settlements there which produce tobacco will be failures. If the prices remain as low as they are to-day tobacco farming will be a failure. Much has been said about over production but in reality it is not so big. The difficulty is caused by the fact that so much tobacco is imported from Rhodesia. If it were not for this importation our farmers would be able to sell their tobacco. The settlers have to pay hundreds of pounds to the State but in the present circumstances they cannot fulfil their obligations. No further postponement can be given in this matter because the tobacco industry is yearly producing a large amount. The Government must take steps with regard to the imports which are ruining our markets and preventing us from making a living. Then I want to ask the Government to institute an enquiry into the possibility of establishing an extract factory in South Africa. We have thousands and millions of sheep and millions of fruit trees so that there is a demand for tobacco extract. The Government must institute an enquiry about the establishment of a factory or give support to people who are prepared to establish such a factory. I want to heartily congratulate the Minister of Railways on his policy and I am glad to be able to say that in my travels through the country I found the road motor services of very great use. If it is possible I want him to reduce the rates for motor transport because they press heavily on the poor people who are the chief users of these services. Also I want to ask the Minister to reduce the rates on fertilizers or if possible carry them free. We cannot possibly increase agricultural production if we have no manure but it is very difficult to get fertilizers in my constituency on account of the heavy expense. If it is carried free the production of agricultural produce will tremendously increase and the railway administration will get double the rates from the farmers. The free carriage of fertilizers will not only benefit the farmers but the whole country. I am very sorry the Minister of Agriculture is not in his place as he is primarily responsible for wheat and tobacco farming. The Minister however is responsible for the financial side of the matter and I hope his ears will always be open to assist where he can.

The Minister of Finance must have been struck by one fact, and that is, the large number of references which have been made on this side of the House to the varied aspects of the social problems of the Union, particularly in respect of the civilized labourers who have been brought from the country to the larger towns of the Union in speech after speech in which also reference has been made to the housing conditions of the Union; they obviously are a reflex of the contact that in the recent general election has established between members of this House and their constituents, and especially those who are in necessitous circumstances. What has been said with reference to housing I hope will impress itself upon the members of the Government for a very strong case can be made against the system which has been in vogue since 1920. I could not help feeling somewhat disappointed with the statement made with reference to housing by the Minister of Finance. He said a sum was to be voted of £1,000,000 for housing, together with another sum of £350,000 which was voted by authority of this House in previous years, but beyond making this statement there was nothing in the speech of the hon. gentlemen that led us to believe that the Government had been brought to realize the seriousness of the housing problem in the country. I speak more particularly in relation to Cape Town, where the problem has got beyond control by the local authorities. I want to suggest to the Minister some alteration in the method of contribution by the Government. First, I would like to tell him something of the nature of the problem which I did not see referred to in any detailed form in his budget speech. I would like to ask for a form of Government contribution, and to show that there is room for a practical scheme that will afford some help in overcoming these difficulties. When I refer to Cape Town, it is because I have come more into contact with the problem here, but it is not by any means confined to the city of Cape Town only. I will quote some figures that show that here is a problem that calls for immediate attention. The census returns for 1923 show that in the Union the proportion of the population that lived more than two persons to a room is as follows: Cape Town, 29 per cent. (with a probable population of 200,000); Durban, 18.9 per cent.; Pretoria, 27 per cent, (and Pretoria is supposed to be a model city); Johannesburg, 26 per cent.; the Rand, outside the area of the Johannesburg municipality, 28 per cent. So far as Cape Town is concerned, more than 85 per cent, of the coloured population live more than two in one room. These figures do indicate there is a very serious degree of overcrowding, and while it will not help us very much to make comparisons between these cities and cities elsewhere in the world I am sure it would be difficult to beat these figures in any other state in the world.

Are these figures for white and natives alone?

I will come to the figures to show how the non-European contrast with the European. Having referred to the existence of overcrowding, I would like to give some particulars of the lack of housing in the city. Quite recently careful calculation was made as to the number of houses that are required to provide for the increase in population. These figures were worked out by the medical officer of health of Cape Town, who is a very competent observer, and are very striking. The annual increase of population year after year was taken in Cape Town and was for 1915, 3,918 per annum, and for 1928, 6,330. The number of houses that increase in the population necessitated on the basis of 6.3 persons per house would mean that 9,200 additional houses should have been built in the municipality during the period from 1915 to 1928. Two thousand nine hundred houses were built, and the shortage, therefore, at the end of December, 1928, was approximately 6,000. At the present rate of increase in the population the number of new houses required every year is about 900. I will now quote figures which should give us pause. According to the census of the non-European population taken on May 4th, 1926, the number of persons who lived more than two in a room in private dwellings was 54,732, while 22,154 persons lived at the rate of four and more per room. These figures do not include natives. I do not propose to take up the time of the House in referring to the consequences that obviously must result from a state of affairs like that, and its reactions on the life of the poorest section of the community, and more particularly on the non-European section. These things must be obvious to everyone, and they have a direct reaction on the lives of Europeans who live among them. Do we realize that in our homes, where we endeavour to observe a certain standard of life, we run very serious risk to the health of our families because we neglect to provide proper housing facilities for the poorer portion of the people? The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) has taken a great interest in the slum question, and I hope he will have an opportunity of telling the House in more detail the actual conditions. I have noticed, with pleasure, that two hon. members opposite have made a pilgrimage through the slums of Cape Town, and they will he able to check what we say on the question. If the House will accept the view that the problem is a serious and pressing one, and extends throughout the largest towns in the Union, I will try to make out a case for Government assistance in addition to the present Government contribution made through the Housing Board. The Act of Parliament under which those contributions are made was passed when we were experimenting with the housing problem. Since then there should have been sufficient opportunity to accumulate evidence to show whether those contributions should be the only measure of relief. The problem is due to the cessation of building during the war, to the cessation of private enterprise in erecting houses for artizans, and to the very big influx from the country districts into all the large coastal towns. I am not able to speak of Johannesburg, but certainly as far as Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, and in a lesser degree East London, are concerned, there has been an influx of a poor type of people we are apt to classify, for lack of a better term, as “poor whites.’ It has been made very clear from this side of the House that a very large measure of responsibility rests on the shoulders of the present Government for the influx of that particular type of person into the towns. I am more concerned to show its consequences. It might be said to me that if these things are so I should first show whether a reasonable attempt has been made by the municipality to look at these conditions, and I think it is true to say that the have made a reasonable attempt. In the city of Cape Town up to the end of 1927 a sum of £750,000 was made available for housing, £100,000 of which was spent in the erection of municipal cottages although I admit not entirely on a sub-economic basis, and the sum of £650,000 has otherwise been advanced to persons whose financial position enables them to borrow. But there is a type of person who falls entirely outside these categories who has come into the city and who inevitably, because of the lack of training which they necessarily have, find themselves included in the class of labour which we speak of as unskilled. They are driven by circumstances to live in many cases among the non-European section of the population, a different state of affairs from that which ordinarily prevails in the districts from which they come. I beg members opposite to remember I am not putting this matter from any party point of view. I should feel I was doing wrong if I did that. I ask them to believe this is a very serious matter particularly for these people, and it is one that must receive attention from the Government. I have been looking at the last annual report of the central housing board, and one must admit they have already distributed a considerable sum for housing. The total amount of their commitments to date is £3,500,000, of which £709,000 has been made available for houses for non-Europeans, and the balance for houses for Europeans, throughout the Union. That is a considerable sum I am free to admit, but the housing board itself has come to a very definite conclusion with reference to the future policy that should be pursued in this matter. It has placed on record its opinion that private enterprise has entirely ceased to provide homes for the working class. I have here a letter which rather confirms that. It is the most recent communication I can find from the central housing board that will support the point of view that I am trying to urge upon the House. It is dated the 22nd of July, 1929, and is addressed to a particular municipality, and it deals with certain economic schemes they have had under discussion. I want to make it clear that it is the deliberate opinion of the central housing board that for this class of housing the facilities hitherto made available are insufficient. This letter states—

The board expressed in this letter its approval of a scheme of that character and showed that the resolution of the municipality in relation thereto marked a notable change of attitude. In addition to that testimony from the Central Housing Board, I have a resolution passed at the twenty-second session of the Cape Province Municipal Association in April last, the carefully considered opinion of which body is something which cannot be ignored on the importance it has on the subject we are discussing. The resolution reads—

That establishes the point that we are face to face with making provision for homes on a sub-economic basis [interruption]. I shall deal with the point later that for the State to give housing subsidies which enable employers to get cheaper labour is something that will have to be guarded against. If it is clear that we have to face a subsidized housing scheme, what is the form of assistance the Government can give? My suggestion to the Minister will be, and I hope the Minister of Public Health will be good enough to follow me when I put this before him, that the time has arrived not so much to issue the money at a low rate of interest as suggested by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), but to give a definite contribution per house for a number of years as was adopted in England; except that I would not, in the first instance, while this is in the experimental stage, leave the Government’s liability to be unlimited; I would limit their liability and leave the balance of their liability to fall on the local authority. It might be interesting to the House if I refer to the operation of such a scheme in Birmingham because I am fortunate in having the figures before me. In 1927, after building 12,000 houses, the figures show a total annual revenue of £563,000, of which with the contribution of the municipality limited to one penny in the £ on the rates, was £79,000 and that of the Government £201,000; in other words, in a case of a scheme where the liability of the municipality was limited and that of the Government was unlimited, based on a contribution of £6 per annum per house for 30 to 40 years, that method of dealing with the matter had resulted in a fairly substantial contribution from the municipality and almost three times that contribution from the central Government. I do not propose to suggest, if subsidized schemes are to be considered, that we should do so on that basis, but these figures show that it can be done. It is a singular fact that the experience there shows that as far as payment on rent is concerned, very few bad debts were incurred, and it is a fact that can be ascertained that the non-European in this country, given regular employment, is quite as good a payer of rent as the European, so that the mixed population here does not alter the position. I ask the Government to consider very closely indeed whether the present basis could not be altered by a contribution something on the lines of the legislation existing in England, and, in addition, in order to deal with the points referred to by the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford), I feel that the charges for transport from points in the vicinity of the larger cities should be reduced below the fairly low rate at present existing. I quite agree with my colleague that it would be a pity to find, as a result of any scheme of this kind, a concentration of more people in the centre of our larger cities. Certainly as far as this city is concerned, it is obvious that the proper course would be to endeavour to disperse the number of people somewhat on the lines adopted for the Langa location which was erected away in the suburbs. I think that the people who come in from Langa by train pay something like 8s. or 10s. per month as railway fare. Along those lines I would ask the Government to give this matter consideration. What seems to me to be called for at the moment is some sort of conference between the Central Housing Board and the municipalities of the larger cities. I would suggest that such a conference be held with the object of ascertaining how far sub-economic schemes should be financed by the Government, and of determining what the limit of liability of the Government should be. In that way I think an important step will be taken towards the solution of one of the greatest of our problems. It must be made clear, however, that any sub-economic scheme adopted for the housing of the poorer classes is not a method of subsidizing cheap employment. I see a check to this in the slowly spreading net of wage determinations which are being laid all over the country. I cannot think of any better means of preventing the exploitation to which an hon. member drew attention a few moments ago. These two things must go hand in hand, the slowly widening net which provides reasonable wages for the unskilled man and side by side with this will go the demand for houses of this kind, and later for houses had on economic rent. I come to an analogous matter. I would like to ask the Minister of Native Affairs a question. I hope he will tell us that it is the intention of the Government to introduce an Act amending the Native Urban Areas Act following on the report of the select committee issued early this year. I know that the Minister will have many demands made on his time at the present moment. The influx of natives, which was referred to very fully in the evidence given before that committee, has continued and is proving a very serious matter to deal with, and there is still the same difficulty experienced in the passage of regulations, because of the interpretation of the provincial administration and the obtaining some sort of authority from them before the Minister can act. It is a brake hindering proper administration. In Cape Town the transfer of the native population has not, so far, been effected to the Langa location. Among the natives themselves there seems to be a feeling of resentment, which is being shown by some of them refusing to pay rents. More effective regulations are required. Although it may not be possible to deal with the matter this session, I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us if there is a likelihood of the matter being taken up next year.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.6 p.m.

Evening Sitting.

I want to say a few words in regard to the administration of the Department of Labour. The position that has been created is that to-day we have wage determinations published, and those concerned are in doubt whether the determinations will hold good in a court of law. It is very embarrassing, both to employer and employee, that there should be any doubt over an important matter of this kind. A good employer observes the award of the wage board, and then he may find after six or nine months that he has been paying wages at a rate which has not been observed by his competitors, who consequently make profits which legally may be legitimate, but which, judged by commercial standards, operate harshly towards him. Eight or possibly nine out of 28 awards (the figure the Minister just mentioned to me) have been set aside through some technicality, except possibly in the case of a laundryman where a more fundamental point was raised.

It was upheld in one province.

That shows the glorious uncertainties of the law, and the Labour Department should be able to overcome that. The way to avoid this uncertainty is for the department to employ a thoroughly qualified legal draughtsman who should see that the wage awards conform with the law. Wage determinations are nothing more than miniature Acts of Parliaments, in fact their far-reaching effect on industry and commerce is much more far-reaching than the average Act of Parliament. One of the essentials for the proper administration of the Wage Act is the obtaining of skilled advice in the framing of the determinations. To find that eight or nine determinations have been set aside proves quite clearly that the department has failed in giving effect to one of the elementary conditions of the Wage Act. I hope the Minister may be able to give us the assurance that more attention will be paid to these matters in future than has been paid in the past. It seems to me that the duty of seeing these awards are in accordance with the law does not depend entirely upon the Wage Board or the chairman of the board. There is now so much more uncertainty about the awards that employers are not prepared to comply with the awards until they are decided by a higher court of law. With reference to the constant litigation that has arisen it is interesting to contrast this with the success of the industrial council agreements which are based on goodwill between the parties concerned. Employers are challenging the wage awards because the determinations do not pay sufficient regard to the interests of the industry. The first thing the Minister should do is to promote a feeling of goodwill so that there will be an attempt to make these determinations work instead of there being constant recourse to law. Another point with reference to the administration of these determinations, is something which I raised last January in regard to unemployment. I said a great deal of unemployment had been caused by these determinations, and it was contested by the Minister’s predecessor. I think I am right in saying that the House was left under the impression that no unemployment had been caused. Since that date we have had the benefit of a report from the chairman of the Wage Board published just on the eve of the general election. It is rather interesting to find that in Section 66 of this report, he makes a very positive statement as to the effect of the determinations. He says—

The “productive use elsewhere” about which the chairman also speaks is, so far as employees are concerned, the privilege of walking up and down the streets of our cities looking for work. The fault, I think, lies in the disposition of the Wage Board to go too rapidly. When the printing industry endeavoured to regulate its affairs by an industrial council agreement they were faced similarly with the problem of the semi-skilled man. They had to consider whether they would lay down a hard and fast scale which would divide the employees between skilled and unskilled, which would mean that the semi-skilled would have to go. In that case the national council agreement provided that these semi-skilled employees should be retained at the same rate of wages. The existing position was recognized, but this Wage Board fails to recognize that when the country is passing through a state of transition, that in applying wage determinations you must make allowance for the semi-skilled man. If there was one thing made clear in the course of the elections it is the large number of people driven out of industry because of the failure of the Wage Board to make this provision. It is time the matter was put right. Undoubtedly there has been a large amount of unemployment caused. I think the Minister’s predecessor was not quite candid with the House and the country, and it would have been better to acknowledge the existence of this defect in the administration. That there is the position that developed in Cape Town in connection with shop assistants. Two or three months ago when the Wage Board determination proved to have one inevitable result—the dismissal of a large number of employees—both the employers and the employees got together and asked that an agreement which they negotiated, and I believe concluded, should be recognized under the Act of 1924, and in that way the Wage Board determination could he practically superseded. At first they could not get the consent of the department to this reasonable course, which has since, I gather, seen the error of its ways. When one remembers what was said by the present Minister with reference to his anxiety for the principle of bargaining in industry, one cannot understand the refusal of the department to allow the parties to regulate their own industry. I have here an extract from the speech made by the present Minister at the first meeting of the Wage Board. He said he intended there should be direct representation of industry and he would be glad to see Wage Board determinations rendered unnecessary by the conclusion of agreements of that kind. One must recognize that wage board determinations have meant much hard work, because it is a difficult task. The task of the Wage Board, sitting for a week or two, to grasp the ramifications of an industry is a very great one. The Industrial Conciliation Act, which leaves to the parties with their experience the determination of their own wages and conditions of labour is much better. I want to ask the Minister, if he is introducing any amendment to the Act, whether he will take power to enable the Wage Board to appoint boards of reference. Such boards can be composed of an equal number of representatives of employers and employees. This is an idea which I noticed has worked very successfully in Australia where they have awards by the Aribtration Court, and where the court in many instances, if perhaps not in most cases, appoints a board, of reference with a chairman selected by this board, and with specified powers with regard to the award. At once they feel themselves compelled by the necessities of the case to take into account questions of common interest.

[Inaudible].

It is in the application of these rates to different classes of work that these difficulties arise.

[Inaudible].

You may not have an organization on the part of the employees and the problem is to bring about organization. It struck me it might go a long way to overcome what is an unhealthy thing—to superimpose on industry conditions which really it cannot meet. That has been pointed out by employers and employees, certainly by employers as a defect of the Act. I come now to the composition of the board. The Minister in the extract from his speech which I read said he hoped there might be direct representation on the board of the industry concerned. That has never occurred. Employers were frightened off because they were told by the board that they would have to see balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of their competitors. To-day the Wage Board has issued a very full report, giving many of these very particulars in a summarized form, and there is no reason why the board should not have some sort of this representation on it. I think it would go a long way to meet certain of the difficulties of administration if the Minister would make some endeavour to provide for it. The suggestion of the board that competent employers and employees cannot be found to sit on the board will not bear examination. The other day I saw in the “Star” over the signature of the president of the Johannesburg chamber of commerce a suggestion supported on another occasion by Mr. Gundelfinger that there should be a conference between members of the Wage Board and representatives of commerce and industry to deal with the working of the Act, which seems a sound suggestion, because what should be aimed at is the creation of goodwill, which would be eminently more satisfactory and bring about a better state of affairs. Might I make another suggestion to the Minister, which is that so many of these disputes turn on questions of fact on which there should be no question of dispute—about competition, imports and exports and markets. It was found that a great deal of time was spent in discussing questions which Ought to be settled in advance. In Australia they got over the difficulty by having a Government Statistician who supplies the industry with sufficient proved data without their having to find out the facts by way of evidence. I think the time has arrived for the Government to consider whether we should not have an officer of that kind, appointed by Parliament, and responsible to Parliament only, who would stand above party; who could speak the truth and nothing but the truth about economic conditions of the country, something in the way the Wage and Economic Commission of 1925 did, and who would report to Parliament annually on the economic trend of tariff and wage policies and their effect on production throughout the country.

[Inaudible].

I do not think the functions of the Director of Census extend as far as this. Now I want to say a few things with reference to the administration of justice in Namaqualand. I am going to ask the Minister for some information, as I understand that he is also temporarily dealing with the department of the Minister of Mines and Industries. I am going to state some facts to him, and ask for an explanation of those facts. My information is, I think, correct, but I must admit that it is founded on hearsay. I think, however, it is unquestionable that it is believed in South Africa to-day that the administration of justice is a perfect farce and that crime is committed there openly day after day without the perpetrators being brought to justice. The first question I wish to ask the Government is: Did the Government appoint buyers of diamonds in Namaqualand, and did it supply them with funds for that purpose? If it did so, why did it do so? Let me say what are the sources of my information. I have before me some evidence given in a court of law in a case tried on the 30th April, 1929, at Malmesbury, before a judge of the Supreme Court. The accused was charged with theft, and a witness gave evidence—his name is immaterial, but I believe he was the complainant. His complaint was that he had been robbed of £1,350. He was asked where he got the money from, and he said that he got it at Cape Town. He was asked “What did you get it for?” He said “It was for diamonds I bought for the Government, and they had paid us out.” This was evidence on oath. He was asked “Had you a licence?” He said “No, a permit.” “What kind of a permit” asked the court. He said “A permit to buy.” “This permit for diamonds, where did you get it?” he was asked—a very pertinent question, a very interesting question.

He got it in the Gardens.

No, we don’t get permits in the Gardens. The witness said to the court “Is that an answer I should give, because it is rather a confidential business with the Government?” The court said “You must answer, and the answer of the witness was “I got it from the detective department, Johannesburg, signed by Minister Beyers.” An official denial was issued by the Mines Department.

The Minister denied it.

I am reading to you what was said on oath, but the department issued a denial saying that the Department of Mines never issued any permit. The Crown Prosecutor said “I am not trying to incriminate you or anybody else; don’t you think you were a little bit careless with your bag? What made you suspicious of this man?” The witness answered “I have been carrying money in December, January and February in my bag, buying diamonds for the Government, and nothing happened to me.” This lucky gentleman received £20,000 from the Government, £20,000 in cash, and he bought diamonds for £20,000, and he sold them for £35,000. I do not know how long it took him to buy the diamonds, but it could not be more than two or three months at the most, and he was allowed by the Government to keep the £15,000 as a modest profit for himself. There may be an explanation to that. It may be that the intention of the department was to obtain information as to who was selling diamonds illicitly, but may I point out the terrible consequences to poor men who learn that tile Government itself was buying diamonds. How many men have been induced to steal diamonds because these diamonds buyers were walking about with permits to buy? These facts require explanation.

Most of them are incorrect.

If the statements are incorrect, I shall be very glad to hear it. I am glad to see that the Minister of Justice does not think like the Minister of Mines that the public interest demands that facts of this kind should be kept from the public. I think I must tell the House an explanation given to me for the issuing of the permits. I am told that when the buyers first appeared on the scene the prices they gave were fairly moderate; but the price of diamonds went up, and the 600 illicit diamond dealers—that is the number given to me—who are at work in Namaqualand put up the prices too. There was a scramble for the business that took place, and then the Government broke the market by selling the diamonds they had at a 10 per cent. reduction, and thus put the diamond dealers out of business. I now want to refer to an announcement that has been made that the Government propose to impose a dumping duty on German sugar. I would draw the attention of the Prime Minister to Article 8—

I feel sad to think that the Prime Minister has forgotten about Section 8. because I have a recollection that for from seven to ten days this matter was discussed as recently as February last. Under Article 8 of the German treaty the imposition of a dumping duty on goods from Germany is prohibited Before the Minister puts on the proposed dumping duty I want to know if the consent of Germany has been obtained.

Are you an advocate for Germany?

I am not concerned for the position of Germany. What I am concerned for is the good faith of this country. When you make an agreement it should be carried out and to impose a dumping duty would be an infringement of the treaty. I would like to know from him whether the House can have the opinion of the international law expert recently appointed for the department of External Affairs, and if he will tell us if Article 8 does actually prohibit this duty. Perhaps the Minister of Finance has forgotten Article 8. Let me read this Article 8—

If you impose such a duty on German sugar and not on Cuban sugar that is an infringement of this Clause. Let me remind the hon. Minister for External Affairs that this would be a breach of the treaty. If this is a breach, and if Germany claims it is a breach, what does he propose to do. The British Empire stands behind his treaty. I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that the words I have read are unequivocal in their meaning. In the British House of Commons a statement was made in 1929 that to impose a duty on bounty-fed German wheat would be a breach of the Anglo-German Treaty of the 2nd December, 1924. And I would conclude with some remarks to empire trade. I do feel that at this present stage there should be an attempt made by the Government to cultivate better trade relations with Great Britain. The hon. Minister of Finance knows that the change in the list of preferences brought about in 1925 was not regarded as a friendly gesture. The Minister knows there are questions I put to him with reference to a statement made by a former trade commissioner that the British Government was not consulted in the framing of the 22 articles to which preference was applied in 1925, I now gather from the Minister that his department took some articles from a list which had been on its files since 1924 and the Minister, I take it, framed his Bill on that. He received a letter from that trade commissioner that no list had been supplied by the British Government as the Minister informed the House at the time, a letter which the Minister tells me was not necessary to refer to in the House. My point is this, when we find that system of preference was largely swept away, we cannot be surprised that our exports are not now so popular in Great Britain as they were in the past. I would like to make this complaint. I could demonstrate, and others also in this House could demonstrate, how much has been done by the Government in diminishing the goodwill we have built up in the English market. Why cannot the Government invite the heads of commerce and industry in South Africa to consult in framing a law for the promoting of better trade relations with Great Britain. Why not invite a delegation of British manufacturers to visit the Union and see for themselves what is required? This would be appreciated as a friendly gesture. The Government might realize that here is an opportune moment and that we in South Africa are really very anxious to develop this trade. Let us lay aside questions of sentiment, particularly at the present juncture when the Government have a golden opportunity to show that it has the interests of South African exporters and producers at heart, and endeavour to convince our friends overseas that just as they are willing to do business with us, so there is a genuine desire on the part of the Government and the people of South Africa to do business with them.

I am not going to traverse the ground that has been covered by the hon. member (Mr. Coulter) who has just spoken, except to say that I hope to introduce the Native Urban Areas Act (Amendment) Bill during this session, not in the expectation of being able to carry it through this session but to advance it a stage; but in any case the matter will be dealt with early next session. I now wish to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards) with regard to the conditions of the labourers on the railways at Durban. The hon. member expressed surprise at the fact that the National party came into power again, and he ventured the opinion that probably this side of the House was no less surprised. I can quite understand the hon. member was surprised for he had been led to believe that there were prospects of a great South African party victory. We on this side of the House were not surprised at the results of the general election—the only surprise was that we did not gain more seats in the towns. If a section of the South African party press in Natal and some hon. members from Natal belonging to the South African party do not change their attitude with regard to South Africa, their surprise at some future date will be greater still—

—because of the non-South African attitude shown by a certain section of the press in Natal and certain members for Natal. It is quite to be understood that they have succeeded extraordinarily well in alienating a large part of their own party and Dutch-speaking followers of the South African party. I suggest to the hon. member for Greyville that he should set himself towards regenerating the spirit of Durban. It will perhaps he interesting for him to know something of the psychology of Durban, and to know also that that psychology has changed very little during the last 70 years. I recommend him to read some of the dispatches which were sent to England from Natal by Governor Scott. In one of these dispatches, dated December, 1853, I find the following—

It sounds like an extract from “Die Burger.”

I would like to quote the following extract from another dispatch of Governor Scott dated April 30th, 1851—

I commend that to the hon. member for Greyville. I think he will agree that what Governor Scott wrote could almost be said in regard to Durban to-day. Coming to the question of labour on the railways, the hon. member for Greyville, has. I believe, unconsciously, created certain wrong impressions which I wish to correct. The first wrong impression is that the Railways Administration brought these families to Durban, hut that is not the case. When the present Government came into power in 1924 it found conditions in Durban and certain other urban centres very serious as far as the living conditions of the people were concerned. There were a large number of men who had come in from various parts of the country and were looking for work without finding it. The Government either had to leave these people to continue without having any income whatever or to take them on the railways at what may he described as a very low wage. Does the hon. member consider that the Government should not have taken these men on to the railways and that they should have been left in the condition in which they were? They were already in Durban with their families living under circumstances which were deplorable, but the hon. member will admit that it is far better for them to have these low wages rather than not to have any wages at all. I do not think the hon. member will consider it right for the Government to embark upon a high wage for these workers with the prospect in a very short time—it may be months or years—of having to reduce these wages or to retrench the men. The policy of the Government is to go slowly but to go surely. As matters improve on the railways we shall also improve the conditions of these men taken on in this way. That is the first point, that the Government is in no way responsible for bringing families into Durban or any other centre. What has been done was to bring in certain young fellows up to 21 and unmarried as apprentices on the railways. They are to make the railway their life job, and later on they will be taken on to the fixed establishment and they have the whole railway open to them. The second wrong impression I wish to correct is that the slums are inhabited solely by railway workers. That is also an entirely wrong impression.

I never said that.

No, but that is the impression which was created. I think the hon. member, if he went into the thing closely, would find that a very small proportion of the men working on the railways are to-day living under deplorable conditions. I also wish to say that it must not be thought for a moment that it is only Afrikaans-speaking Europeans who are living under these conditions, and I think the hon. member will admit that. There are others also. Many have not been brought from the countryside. They have been there for years, long before the Government come into power, and it is a great pity the impression should be created that the conditions described or referred to by the hon. member and other hon. members are confined entirely, either to railway workers or to Afrikaans-speaking South Africans.

Were all the railway workers found there, or have you brought some in?

We have not brought in any married men from other provinces. The men engaged in Durban were men who were already on the spot. The Minister of Railways gave strict instructions to the Labour Department that no men with families should be recruited from elsewhere, but, as I say, a lot of young men, unmarried, were taken on as apprentices.

Apprentice labourers?

Do you wish the House to understand that families have not been brought from the Transvaal to Durban?

No, I understand that is not so.

Will the Minister definitely deny that has ever been done?

I am not here to be cross-questioned. I want to go further, and say that when hon. members are speaking with regard to these labourers on the railways they always bring their adherents under the impression that that is the end-all of these people. They do not tell the House or the public that the whole railway service is open to those labourers who have passed the sixth standard.

They may all become general managers?

Yes, exactly. The Minister has informed us that several thousands of these men have been promoted to the fixed establishment, and are to-day making a good living. I think it right the House should understand the other side of the picture from that put forward by the hon. member for Durban (Greyville) (Maj. Richards). I want to refer briefly to irrigation. A number of members have referred to irrigation and the prospects of their various constituencies, and they are anxious to know what is the position with regard to irrigation for the future. I hope that next session a definite scheme and policy will be brought before the House for its approval. In the meantime the whole question is being gone into, various schemes are being investigated and I hope next session to be able to state definitely what we intend doing in the near future. I want to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp), who treated us to a very eloquent address the other evening. One must admire the eloquence of the hon. member, but when it comes to analyzing the remedies which he proposes for the conditions which he so eloquently describes, I think these will be found to be very lacking. There are three ways in which he considers the position in Namaqualand could be eased. The first was with regard to the Oliphant’s River dam near Van Rhynsdorp, with regard to heightening the dam walls. This dam which was built many years ago has cost this country £600,000 and very little of that money has yet been recovered from the irrigators. The position is most unsatisfactory, and it would not be wise to go in for any scheme of that kind before the original scheme is placed on a proper basis. Besides that, it is very questionable indeed as to whether it would be of any national value if the wall of the dam were heightened. A lot of enquiry would have to be made before this matter could be gone into, and, in any case, it would take a considerable time before we were in a position to decide. He also referred to the stretch of the Orange River from the drift to the mouth of the Orange River. I am informed his statements are rather exaggerated, and I must say in putting forward his case, the hon. member had that tendency of rather exaggerating the position as far as the possibilities of the schemes and the country which he referred to are concerned, and at any rate, as far as the Department of Irrigation is concerned. Not only that, but when the hon. member speaks of buying diamonds to the tune of anything up to £800,000,000. one can see the trend of the argument which he used with regard to that matter. I think that the other matters dealt with by he hon. member will be dealt with by my colleague later on. I thought it right that I should make these few remarks in regard to these questions which have been raised in this House.

One of the strange things we noticed in the Opposition speeches is the

I should like to add my appreciation with the appreciation of the hon. members for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) for the excellent work which has been done by the staff in Port Elizabeth under very trying and difficult circumstances. Probably many of the hon. members have studied the van der Horst report, which has been referred to by previous speakers, and if any have not read it, I advise them to do so as it is full of interest. The van der Horst report gave it as an opinion that it might be estimated the traffic in Port Elizabeth would increase 10 per cent, from 1924-’25 to the time the breakwater now being erected was completed. Seeing that 3,200 feet have been erected since March, 1923, and 5,300 feet is still to be erected, I estimate it will take another ten years in which to complete the work. It is rather interesting to find that the estimate of the commission was certainly on the conservative side. From that date to the present time the increase in traffic has been 33 1-3 per cent., and one would be justified in coming to the conclusion that the increase might continue and go on with occasional possible fall-backs. As a further indication of the progress in the tonnage of the port, I quote the Railways and Harbours Magazine for July. This magazine says the traffic carried on the midland system during the last financial year was 15 per cent, higher than the preceding year on the railways generally, while Algoa Bay also showed a very substantial increase. The shipping work of the port shows no signs of abatement. The cargo handled was 10,000 tons higher this year than in 1928. There have been days at the port when as much as 15, 000 tons of cargo has been stowed away in ships anchored in Algoa Bay. The most remarkable fact of all, however, is that the tonnage handled in Port Elizabeth in 1929 has been approximately three times greater than the quantity dealt with in 1919. This is an indication of very rapid growth and of the work which has been carried on there under very difficult circumstances. During recent years we have had an abnormal development in the industrial portion of the town, this naturally involving a large import of raw material and consequently adding to the tonnage dealt with by the shipping. I should like to approach this, not purely from a Port Elizabeth point of view, for although it may concern Port Elizabeth primarily, it affects the inland portion of the country served by that port. Port Elizabeth should be more correctly termed the midland port, and it serves a very considerable area in which very large development has taken place in recent years. One can refer, for instance, to the enormous development in the fruit trade, and the difficulty experienced in handling it. The van der Horst commission’s report mentioned that the export of fresh fruit in 1920-’21 was 1,367,000 lbs., but four years later the export grew to 11,273,000 lbs. The export of dried fruit rose from 325,000 lbs. in 1920-’21 to 3,714,000 lbs. in 1924-’25. If this increase in the export of fruit is to be maintained, it naturally follows that facilities must, be provided for its handling. It is not a question of asking anything as a favour, but of our saying that that part of the country has a right to say to the Minister that these facilities must be provided for us, unless you wish the growers not to be able to dispose of their fruit. We have been told that on occasions, owing to want of facilities, it has been necessary to have citrus fruit railed to Cape Town from the Eastern Province for shipment here. From a railway point of view, that is uneconomic, and from the producer’s point of view, the long railway journey is detrimental to the fruit. Another question touched upon by the van der Horst commission was maize export. Generally speaking, the elevators at Durban and Cape Town are quite able to handle the bulk of the maize offering for export, but I imagine Occasions have arisen when it has been found difficult for the railway to handle maize on the lines leading to these two ports. As the commission pointed out, it is impossible to move the maize for export over a single line of railway and that in seven or eight years’ time the elevators at Cape Town and Durban will not be large enough to cope with the export grain traffic and by the time the new harbour is established at Port Elizabeth it would be better to erect new elevators there and at East London, instead of enlarging those at Cape Town and Durban. In my opinion, it must be more economical for the Railway Department to carry the maize several hundred miles less distance, as in that case the department would be able to make greater use of its rolling stock. Enormous developments have taken place in the Sundays River and the Long Kloof, and there has also been a very large development in the neighbourhood of Cookhouse. Many people there have sunk their all in their ventures. They have shown their faith in the country by remaining on their farms under very adverse circumstances; they have battled through the drought; some have had to go to the wall, but others have managed to hang on and the department should give them every available facility to handle their produce and to create fresh markets. Hon. members should realize that the question should not be approached from any angle of party politics, for it is a matter in which we are all interested. The granting of the facilities for which I plead will help to develop the country, and thus assist to solve the problem of providing for the needy ones. It will help industries by giving them additional markets, and consequently the whole country will benefit, either directly or indirectly. The van der Horst commission anticipated the time when other articles of produce would be shipped through Port Elizabeth. Already a fairly large trade is being done in the export of eggs, and if facilities were improved the export pineapple trade would be assisted. There is no reason why in addition to the large quantities of wool, hides and skins, now shipped meat, butter and eggs and other agricultural produce should not be shipped in ever growing quantities through Port Elizabeth, it will help to provide employment for many of our own people. After all, a man who uses a spade on the ground is doing far more good to the country than the man who shovels ballast on a railway line. I hope the Minister of Railways will take this in the spirit in which it is meant. We have clamoured a long time for these improvements. I know he is prepared to do something to help improve the facilities there.

I have already done it.

I quite appreciate it and I hope the Minister will do a great deal more, because a great deal more is required to be done. I commend it to him, hoping it will bear good fruit. I want to touch, also, on the housing question. This question has been given great prominence. One notices the local press particularly is full of articles, letters and reports of meetings all concerned with this very vexed question. Many people presume to put forward remedies for the evil. He who can solve this problem for us is going to do South Africa a very great service, but I am not prepared to say to-night that I am ready to offer a solution. But I want to appeal to the Government and to the Minister of Finance to help more than they have been doing in the past. The tendency has always appeared to be to put the whole responsibility on the shoulders of the local authority. I think it is the duty of the House to face this question, and even at the cost of spending fairly large sums of money if it is necessary—and undoubtedly it is—we have to face the question and we have to take the risk of those not knowing the conditions as we know them, blaming the Government for it. I say the Government have to take their courage in both hands and do it. We quite appreciate what the Minister of Finance has done and the assistance he has given to local authorities by way of loans, but after all the sole responsibility for these loans rests on the shoulders of the local authorities. While the conditions are more acute in the larger towns, even in a place like Worcester, the medical officer of health has reported that 30 houses are unfit for human habitation. It is no use closing our eyes to the fact that private enterprise has ceased to cater for this type of house. We all know Cape Town has done a lot. Port Elizabeth has done quite a good amount, and they have even gone so far as to say the money granted to them is not sufficient, and they are seeking powers to raise £100,000 under their own power to build houses for the poorer paid workers. I may have understood the Minister of Finance wrongly, but I think the impression he left on the House when he referred to this question was that money had been made available for local authorities, but the whole of that had not been taken up. I know Port Elizabeth applied for a loan of £240,000 spread over four years. They were allocated £175,000. If the money has not all been taken up, Port Elizabeth is quite prepared to take another £100,000 as soon as the Minister of Finance will let them have it. In my opinion we have a right to expect the Government to do more than they have done, for this reason, that any person or authority who in any way contributes to increasing the housing difficulty should rightly be expected to bear their share, not indirectly, but directly. Notwithstanding the explanation given by the Minister of Justice in reply to the hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards), I quite believe there are numbers of people in the larger towns who have been attracted there by the hope of finding work, and I would like to be sure that the statement is absolutely correct that no married men with families were brought from other parts of the country to the coastal towns. In my own town the housing difficulties, owing to the cost of building and other causes, are fairly acute, but the influx of a larger white population into a town which had no housing accommodation for them made the position impossible. They could not get houses, and when they did get work at 5s, a day they could not pay even a meagre rent for a house. This resulted in families sharing one house with one family for each room. Will anyone tell us that is for the good of or people, physically, morally or in any other way? I have always had a great admiration for the man brought up on the veld. I have always looked upon him as an example of that physical fitness of which South Africa is proud. What do we find now? A large percentage of them are weedy. I would like the Minister of Defence to tell us what percentage of youths who are medically examined before undergoing training have been rejected as medically unfit. Then we see some of the results of this overcrowding. Unfortunately some hon. members on the other side spoke of this question as if we look upon it as one purely of Afrikaans-speaking people. There is no more absurd way of looking at the question than that. We must admit that the majority, through circumstances over which they had no control, have been forced off the land. I do not know, and I may be wrong, but I view with apprehension this policy of employing too many of our white people on the railways on what I consider unproductive work. I was pleased to hear the Minister of Railways and Harbours say large numbers of them had been promoted to higher grades, but I am afraid there are those who are unable to reach those higher grades, and they are going to give us increased trouble on the poor white question. They are the best stock we can put on the land, and I hope the time will come when we will say not “back to the land” but “remain on the land,” and that we will help the people who are best fitted to develop the country to do so. These are the people who are swelling the ranks—I was going to say the slum ranks—of the big towns. It is impossible under the conditions to do anything else. I appeal to the Minister of Railways and Harbours to take some step to provide better housing accommodation for these people. I will attempt to make a suggestion, poor though it may be, which is perhaps worth considering. These people come into the towns at what we all admit is an unreasonable wage, especially for a man with a family. From the purely Port Elizabeth point of view again, the department, I should mention, owns land along the railway line in a very fine, healthy situation easily served by all the municipal services, and they could easily build houses there for these people where they can live in comfort. At the other end of the town there is valuable land for residential purposes where they can house their people. I may say that this can be done at no very high cost to the country. With the Government’s power to borrow they can possibly run these houses more cheaply than the ordinary investor can do; they would have no fear of these houses being empty and of loss of rent with which the ordinary investor is faced; eventually they could recoup themselves, and the rent would be lower than that of houses erected even by philanthropic investors. Why the department cannot undertake some such scheme I do not understand. If they do they will have a more contented and better service, and these people living in better surroundings. You would have healthier people growing up in your cities. I hope my poor attempt will have some effect and that the Minister will take this into consideration; that his department will themselves shoulder the burden and bear the responsibility. They to a certain extent are responsible and should face the situation.

As one from the drought areas I should like to express the appreciation of the Government by my electors. When, we look at the Government’s policy and see everything they have done for our people, and remember that anyone of them have a spark of gratitude in them then it is not surprising that there are so many members on this side of the House. The hon. member for Greyville (Maj. Richards) is astonished at the result of the election. He did not take account of the public, apparently. He thought that the people of the countryside thought in the same way as those at Durban. If a person however looks at the countryside you find supporters of the Government everywhere, who send supporters of the Government to the House. The places where the Opposition, come from are controlled by the native vote or by racialists who have their feelings stirred up. It is clear when you look at the position in the country. Hon. members opposite cannot get away from the fact that they are not particularly interested in the needs of South Africa. When matters are being considered they are always thinking whether they will benefit another country or not. The Nationalist party however attend to the interests of our own country and our own people. I think when the hon. members for Greyville (Maj. Richards), and Port Elizabeth (Col. Wares) talk of the payment of 6s. a day to railway men and asks how the people can live on it we ought to ask the counter-question: How much they got in 1924? Still worse, we must notice that the people at that time had no work at all and that the South African party in a systematic way tried to introduce native labour on the railways and to get rid of the Europeans so that they could not make a living. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also said that the people should be kept on the land. What did the South African party Government do to keep them there? The hon. member should remember that this Government has made the conditions for repaying land very much easier than they were under the South African party Government. As for employment on the railways it may not be the best thing for the man but it is a hundred times better for a man to earn 6s. a day than to walk about hungry. I think I am right in saying that there are people in the railway service who earn as much as 16s. 6d. a day for their work. Here I also want to point out that all cannot remain on the countryside and on the farms. Therefore the present Government has an industrial policy with the object of creating avenues of employment in industry. In this way the people are enabled to get work in the towns as well. The South African party Government did not have such a policy. Another thing I want to disapprove of is that the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) is so inclined to speak of the intelligent people who voted for hon. members opposite. Why then are the other people not intelligent enough? Is it possibly attritutable to the action of the previous Government which kept them in that position? We have a Government today which assists the people who knows only one country and has no “home” overseas. If the hon. member for Barberton went to our various colleges and saw our young South Africans—not only Afrikaans-speaking—he will find that they all support this Government. In my constituency it is very noticeable that when a parent is a Sap, he sends His son to Grahams-town but the boy is not there a year before he says that he does not quite agree with his father in politics. Even there the boys are turned into Nationalists. The Nationalists have been returned to the House in such force because they do not tell different stories in the country, they have said the same thing in the Cape and in the Transvaal. They were not like the South African party candidates who said different things at different places. We found, e.g., that the South African party leader said one thing in the Transvaal and something different in the Cape, and it was so bad that Sir James Rose-Innes said that he wanted to know what the native policy of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) really was. Even he could not really find it out.

You are still on the hustings.

You cannot hear the truth often enough. Then also the public remembers what the Government did during the past five years not only to rectify what the South African party messed up during fourteen years but to help the country forward. Take for instance the grants for education; no one will deny that if the policy of the previous Government in this respect had been continued, education in our country would have gone back tremendously. The South African party Government reduced the education grants year after year and the people who suffered were those whom the hon. member for Barberton calls the unintelligent people. They are the people who have suffered because they are poor and could not themselves afford to educate their children or to speak up for themselves. Fortunately the present Minister of Finance took the reins because he realizes they must see the children are properly educated. He gives something over £1,000,000 a year to the provinces for better education. Is it a wonder that the electors have voted to put this Government back into office? Then you find that the money has also provided for roads to improve the traffic, the farmers can then under easier conditions obtain land under the Land Settlement Act, and much has been done for the drought areas. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Stenkamp) spoke about conditions in his constituency but I could not quite follow his argument. He talks of people who are in prison because they unlawfully buy or steal diamonds, and I cannot understand whether he means that the Government should allow the people to buy or sell as they please. If that is done in Namaqualand it must be done throughout the Union and what confusion we shall then have in the diamond market! The hon. member also said that ground should be opened for prospecting but I want to ask him to whom that ground belongs. Is it not possibly the case that a few people got options from the poor man or bought ground at a low price?

All the ground along the coast was bought up.

And now the hon. member wants the ground to be opened for prospecting. Who will get the benefit of it, the Namaqualanders or the few persons who hold the ground? The hon. member also said that it was demoralising to make a man work in the State diggings at 7s. 6d. a day. He says that it will ruin their character and that it is not honourable work but then he adds that they should be paid 20s. a day, in which case they could stop there. This means that if the Government pay the people more there is no objection to their doing work which is not honourable. It seems to me his arguments do not hold water. I have already expressed my appreciation of what the Government has done but there are a few points I want to raise in the interests of the drought stricken districts. I want to ask whether more cannot be done for us. During droughts the water question is one of the most difficult. The Minister of Agriculture has already reduced the boring charges from £5 to £2 10s. and we are grateful but it often happens that the boring is not successful and that the farmer cannot afford to pay for the dry borehole. I want the Government to consider if it cannot do more. As the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) said it may possibly be done in the form of grants, reducing the rates or giving exemption if the boring has no result. Think of irrigation water. Much can be done in our parts with it. I am very glad that there is now a separate portfolio for Irrigation and I hope the Minister will pay particular attention to our area. We have one of the best rivers, namely, the Orange River, and when it rains an enormous amount of water could be collected. It often rains there and recently there has been almost too much rain; it is depressing to see the beautiful water running to the sea. I consider that I have just as much right as the hon. member for Namaqualand that when the £6,500,000 is distributed we shall also get some of it for the Beervlei irrigation scheme. Now a little about the smaller farmers. When there was a drought money was voted and distributed to the farmers for buying stock. We appreciated what the Government did in that respect but I think the system should be also followed in times when there is no drought because it is possibly more required then that before. It often happens that if the farmer were to get 150 head of stock he would be successful. Unfortunately many of them are not sufficiently strong financially to go to a private individual or bank and if the Government were to help them a little a very large number of the people would be able to make a living on the land. I also want to mention the fencing of the railway and Crown lands. When a farmer wants to erect jackal proof fencing alongside the railway or Crown lands then the departments are not prepared to pay their share in the expense if the district where the farmer lives has not been proclaimed. I think this ought to be changed. The drought-stricken areas have particularly suffered in that way because in parts jackal proof fencing was not erected. If there were fencing the stock would be better looked after, the ground would not wash away so much, and the farmer would be able to stand the drought better. Unfortunately, however, the man has to pay back his grant in twelve years. If a farmer borrows £1.000 for the purpose he only pays 5 per cent, for the first year or £50, but for the second and up to the last year he pays up to £120. If the repayment period is lengthened many more would take advantage of it and this would indirectly prevent the Government having to spend so much money on emergency loans.

I feel very much and can sympathize with the poor unfortunate individual who is called upon to address the House for the first time when all that he could feel was that his brain had ceased to act, that his tongue was glued to the roof of his mouth. I feel very much in that position to-night, so that I can appreciate to the full those little jokes which we read with considerable amusement in the past, for I am now passing through that experience myself. Let me say I do appreciate the great kindness which has been shown to us new members by the old members of the House, on this side and the other side of the House. We hope that it is going to be an omen that whatever has happened in the past, as far as the younger members are concerned, we shall look forward to the future and advance the interests of South Africa. When I accepted nomination to come forward as a candidate I made one stipulation with myself, that I hoped at no time would I ever indulge in anything in the nature of personal abuse, notwithstanding the results of this election, the country has decided, the South African party have accepted the verdict. Throughout the country men of all shades of opinion are tired to death of the personal abuse which has taken place in the past. It is not for me to violate the good sense of the House and say anything to recall things that have taken place in the past. We have had a very interesting debate which commenced yesterday with the speech by the hon. member for Namaqualand (Dr. Steenkamp). As at the municipal and divisional council congresses which have been held, we have found again and again that a certain note is struck that permeates the whole congress, the note that is struck to-day is the welfare of the poor man. After that impressive appeal, which was made by the hon. member, I hope that we are not going to let the future of the poor man end in talk, but that we are going to do something to give him fresh courage to uplift himself in the scale of civilization. I would be far happier if the Minister of Lands would tell this House next year that he had taken away from the employ of the Minister of Railways a large number of these poor men and had established them back on the land. The Minister of Railways has done a great kindness in giving these people employment, but let him avoid the greater danger of retaining the services of these people. The Cathcart divisional council has employed many of these young fellows, but we always made it a stipulation that they must look out for something better. I have come into personal contact with several of these labourers, who are good and worthy fellows. Many of them have said to me: “Give us a chance; we want to get back on to the land.” That is a call which cannot fall on deaf ears in this House, and I hope the words of sympathy we have heard from all parts of the House will be translated into action. As far as advancing the interests of the poor man are concerned I belong to no political party. The rich man can look after himself, but it is our duty in the interests of European civilization to raise the white man. I should not have referred to local government but for a casual remark made yesterday by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) ridiculing some members of the public who are devoting a tremendous amount of their time to the service of their fellow men in sitting on municipal and other councils. I have been associated with divisional and municipal councils for the last 25 years. We, in South Africa, have every reason to be proud of our whole system of local self-government, notwithstanding that in isolated cases some of these councils have failed to carry out their duties. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to those men and women who, without recompense, have played a very important part in the government of the country, at great personal sacrifice, and purely for the welfare of their fellow men. I am convinced that round the tables of your town and divisional councils and hospital boards there is created that good spirit which will ultimately cement us into a strong, virile and united South African nation—a consummation so much to be desired if we are to make this great and beloved country of ours happy, prosperous and contented. Round that table you find men of all shades of opinion. They are there united in a common purpose. There is no party political atmosphere. Anyone who introduced into our local government anything in the nature of party politics would not be a friend to South Africa. I would like to think of our local government bodies as sub-departments of State, as fulfilling duties allotted to them by the state and which, but for their assistance, would have to be undertaken by the State itself. But I fear there is a tendency on the part of the central government to regard local government as something divorced from the State. The whole tendency is to throw additional burdens on the local authorities, and then we have the anomaly of the provincial council coming along and annexing some of the sources of revenue of the local authority. I refer particularly to the question of the tax on motor-cars which legitimately belongs to the town and divisional councils. Numerous deputations have interviewed the Minister of Railways to ask for a concession with regard to the carriage on cement and pipes in connection with the building of reservoirs. All that the municipalities have asked is to be placed on exactly the same rate as that conceded to farmers for irrigation purposes. Surely when a village or a town, and particularly a village, builds a reservoir serving a large area and with large numbers of people depending on that water for their gardens to grow vegetables, etc., it may justly be considered an irrigation scheme. There is no great distinction. The Minister has refused this from time to time. I quote this to show how the impression has been created that our local authorities are divorced from the state instead of being sub-departments of the state. Take the case of the carriage on coal required for generating electricity. I have a quotation from a municipality which uses coal and which has a steam plant for generating electricity. The price at the pit head is quoted at 7s. 9d. per ton. The railage is 15s. 4d. per ton. If the Minister can transport coal for export purposes at a certain rate which pays his department, the municipalities argue that surely the same rate should be charged to the municipalities. I know that the argument is being employed that the municipality is a trading concern, but electricity is not only sold, but used for the illumination of streets. I would ask the Minister of Railways and Harbours to consult the Minister of Justice, and to find out what strength would be necessary to add to the police force to maintain law and order in those municipalities if they did not have that street lighting. The Government do not pay the ordinary municipal rates and taxes on their properties within the municipalities, but notwithstanding that the municipality is still called upon to construct streets and side-walks, kerbing and guttering, to meet the requirements of the situation on such Government property. For that the municipality gets no consideration whatever. Take the case of the railway lorries and delivery vans constantly cutting up the streets of a municipality; no tax whatever is paid by the Government on them. These lorries also use the roads constructed by our divisional councils. In the Cape Province we are in a position different from the other provinces inasmuch as we have the divisional council system and we tax our landowners to build roads; in the other provinces the roads are under the provincial administration. These lorries, heavily laden, cut up these roads. The road, surely, takes the place of the railway track as far as the lorry is concerned. The Government has built, and maintains, the railway track for their engines, but here they are using road tracks for their lorries and refuse to contribute anything to the divisional councils for the maintenance of these roads . I was pleased to hear the statement by the Minister of Finance that £1,000,000 would be placed on the Estimates for the construction of roads throughout the Union, but I would like to ask him to give us some details how he proposes to allocate that amount to the various provinces; whether it will be on a mileage basis, or on an expenditure basis, and what conditions he intends attaching to that grant in the event of a contribution being made to the various provinces. In connection with the last grant to the Cape Province, that for relief, the majority of the divisional councils were very heartily dissatisfied with the manner in which that money was spent. We felt that there was a good deal of kissing going by favour, and that those who were nearest the fire got the heat. There is prevailing throughout the country the view that we are very much over-governed for the population that this country is carrying, and that there are far too many taxing bodies, and further, that greater powers should be given to local authorities. I do not know that the time has not arrived when our biggest cities, like Cape Town, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Pretoria, Durban and East London, should not be granted charters to govern themselves under, and with as little interference as possible from the provincial administrations. I am sure that many of the delays that have taken place with reference to the housing question would not have been brought to the notice of this House had these larger municipalities greater powers given to them by Parliament. Let me give an illustration as to what takes place as regards taxes in the country. I will take the average fairly successful general dealer in a country village. He pays his general dealer’s licence. If he wishes to sell ammunition, he must take out an ammunition licence. If he wishes to sell patent medicines, and he generally does, he has got to take out a patent medicine licence. He has got to pay his water rate, health rate, provincial property tax, provincial council rate, municipal rates, and at the end he has got to pay his income tax, and then, as generally happens, he passes that tax on, and it falls on the shoulders of the primary producer. Further, if he employs five or six natives, he has got to nay the poll tax, not by law, but simply because the natives are not able to pay the tax, and he has to pay it for them. This brings me to the question of the provincial system, and I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. C. H. Geldenhuys) when he advocated a new investigation in connection with our provincial system. I wish for an investigation not on the grounds mentioned by him, but on totally different grounds. I have watched this system, and I have worked with it ever since Union. It certainly has not gone up in my estimation, and I feel that the time has come for a fresh investigation into the whole matter, if for no other reason than that we may get a national policy of education instead of having eleven Government departments each dabbling in education. Let me enumerate. There are four provincial departments. There is the Union Education Department; the Post and Telegraph Department give instructions to their messengers, which is an excellent thing; the Prisons Department, the railway apprentices, the Department of Agriculture, Mines and Industries, and most amusing of all of the whole lot, even a customs department is providing funds for training on the “General Botha.” Let me just make one more plea, and that is for more agricultural education in this country. To-day we are not getting sufficient attention paid to agricultural education in South Africa. The whole tendency seems to be getting people off the land into the towns. You do not inculcate love of the land for the people. If we were as well organized in the country as we are in the towns it would be a good thing. If we had similar organizations for the youths of our country districts, I am sure you would find many of our hoys going back to the land, because they have a natural love for the land. All they lack is the opportunity. Do not let us destroy that love for the land, but let us get them back on to it. While I am dealing with agricultural education, I do wish to advocate a request which has been made for an experimental farm in the grass area. The Cape Province is well served by the agricultural college at Elsenberg, which caters especially for people of the Western Province. You have another admirable institution at Grootfontein, which caters for the Karroo district, but we have no similar institution catering for the farmers in the grass veld. Application was made to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, and he has given us an experimental block. We have appealed for an experimental farm, and I would make an appeal that the farmers who make this application should receive consideration at the hands of the Government. I thank you for this opportunity.

On the motion of Mr. Madeley, debate adjourned; to be resumed to-morrow.