I move—

Mr. Roos has served Parliament in the responsible position of Controller and Auditor-General since 1918, and has been a member of the public service since 1908, when he was appointed Secretary for Justice and Director of Prisons. Those of us who have been members of the House since 1918, and especially those of us who from time to time have been members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, will know with what ability, efficiency and courage Mr. Roos discharged his very responsible duties to the satisfaction of both Parliament and the country. In 1920, he was struck down by a very severe illness, but I think we all admired the courage with which he stuck to his post and continued to discharge his duties in his usual efficient manner. I think under all the circumstances it is fitting that the House should pass this resolution which I have put on the Order Paper as a mark of appreciation of the manner in which Mr. Roos has performed his services to this House and to the country. I move it.

In seconding the motion, I should like to add my word to what has fallen from the Minister of Finance. I am sure the House has listened with pleasure to the tribute which the Minister has paid to Mr. Roos. We have known him here as Auditor-General for many years land, before that, he was one of the most efficient servants in the public service. I may say from long experience of his character and of the work he has done, that I have never known a more zealous, diligent, faithful and incorruptible public servant in the service of this country. His position has been a difficult one. The position of Auditor-General is always very difficult. He has to go for the Government; he has to go for everybody. He is the watch-dog for the country and for the public, and his position is, therefore, a most difficult and arduous one. Mr. Roos has carried on the high duties of his office without fear or favour or prejudice. Never have I seen a man who had so single an eye to the performance of his duties irrespective of what the consequences might be. He fell foul of my Government when it was in power, he has fallen foul of this Government, but on all occasions it has been his sole intention to do his duty faithfully by the public, arid he has done it with great ability. We hear that Mr. Roos is going to be followed by another gentleman who has had a distinguished career in the public service, and the best we can all hope for him is that he will discharge his duties with equal zeal and disinterestedness and equal single-mindedness. Mr. Roos has set up a great tradition, has followed a great tradition. Our auditors-general since Union in this country, have all been men who have been entirely divorced from politics, and who have simply done their duty to the public, and Mr. Roos has carried on that great tradition with outstanding ability, and we look forward to the following of that precedent, and we hope that in the future, as in the past, we may see the criticism of public finance by this high officer of this House carried on in the same high spirit and with the same zeal. I second the motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—That the House go into Committee of Ways and Means on taxation proposals (income tax and customs duties), as follows:—

Income Tax.

1. (1) That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and to such amendments of Act No. 40 of 1925, as amended, as may be provided therein, there shall be charged, levied and collected as from the first day of July, 1929, an income tax (to be called the normal tax) on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of all persons from any source within or deemed to be within the Union during the year of assessment ended the thirtieth day of June, 1929, at the following rates—
   1. (a) In the case of companies the sole or principal business of which is mining for gold or diamonds, for each pound of taxable amount, three shillings;
   2. (b) in the case of all other companies, for each pound of taxable amount, two shillings and sixpence;
   3. (c) in the case of persons other than companies, for each pound of taxable amount, one shilling and as many two-thousandths of a penny as there are pounds in that amount, subject to a maximum rate of two shillings in every such pound:
      Provided that in the case of every payment made under the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) above there shall be allowed a rebate of twenty per centum of the amount chargeable in accordance with the rates fixed by those paragraphs.
2. (2) That, subject to the terms of the aforesaid Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be charged, levied and collected as from the first day of July, 1929, a super tax on all incomes defined as being subject to super tax by the provisions of Section 27 of Act No. 40 of 1925, which shall have accrued to any person other than a company during the year of assessment ended the thirtieth day of June, 1929, at the following rates: For each pound of the amount subject to super tax, one shilling and as many five-hundredths of one penny as there are pounds in that amount, subject to a maximum rate of five shillings in every such pound.
3. (3) That the rates fixed by Resolutions (1) and (2) above shall be the rates fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 and sub-section (2) of Section 25 of Act No. 40 of 1925, respectively.

Customs Duties.

That, subject to the provisions of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and to such rebates and remissions of duty as may be provided for therein, customs duties be levied on articles imported into the Union as set forth in the accompanying schedule.

I ask the House in this motion to make provision to legalize the proposals which I adumbrated to the House in my budget statement in regard to income tax and certain increases in customs duties. Hon. members will see it is proposed to have in force again the same rates of income tax as were in force last year, that is, the same rates as far as normal tax and super tax are concerned, subject to the abatement which I indicated at the time of 20 per cent. on the normal tax. We also propose to increase the allowance with regard to children to £75, and I further propose to make provision for the exemption of permanent improvements effected by farmers in connection with farming operations. Further provision is proposed to be made for an allowance so far as machinery of industries and so on is concerned. If the House approves of this resolution, a Bill will be introduced which will make provision in detail for these various proposals. Then, so far as customs proposals are concerned, there are only four items in respect of which the existing duties will be increased. The Bill to be introduced later will, in addition, make provision for a very large number of alterations in our customs tariff where the duties are decreased. I have laid on the Table a list of these proposed decreases. We again propose to surrender a considerable amount of revenue from customs duties, and the proposals contained in the Bill will embody these various decreases. The first increase is in regard to condensed milk. I may say that the report of the Board of Trade and Industries, which I have laid on the Table, discusses very fully the various reasons for all these proposed increases. I trust hon. members have studied that report, and I do not propose to discuss the various reasons for these increases. In regard to condensed milk, in 1925 the duty was 10s. 5d., that is the maximum duty, and provision was made for a suspended duty of 2s. 1d. This suspended duty, in 1927, I think, was brought into force, so the present effective duty is 12s. 6d. per 100 pounds. This suspended duty was put on as a result of the establishment of further condensaries in the Union, resulting in the manufacture, in this country, of increased quantities. In 1925 about £1,400,000 worth was manufactured here, and when this increase was granted, it was hoped that 50 per cent. of our requirements would be manufactured here. After that, several very large and influential interests overseas acquired certain local condensaries, as a result of which we are hoping further factories will be established in the Union, and that a still further proportion of the milk consumed in this country will be manufactured here. There is one thing very noticeable about this condensed milk, and that is the establishment of these industries has undoubtedly resulted in a great cheapening of the price to consumers. The average figures prove that. In 1924 the price of milk per 100 pounds was 60s. In 1925, when we introduced the new tariff, they started selling at an average price of 59s. To-day the overseas price is only 50s. per 100 pounds. Hon. members know condensed milk is a large trust. Overseas manufacturers do not hesitate to dump in other countries, and the price has undoubtedly come down to our consumers. Of course, it is very important, to our farmers especially, that we should encourage this industry in order to provide a market for them, and it is hoped with this suspended duty coming into force—and it will come into force only when the additional factories are established—to be able to get a market for this very important product of our farms. The other item is castor sugar. The proposed duty is 8s., which is to bring this particular product into line with ordinary granulated sugar. There is a proposed increase with regard to linen undergarments and underwear. We have important factories in this country already manufacturing these articles, and it has been presented to the board that at the least we can hope to see a great expansion of this industry. The duty on ordinary clothing is more or less 20 per cent., and this duty will bring linen underwear into line with clothing, and we hope to see a great expansion of this industry. An hon. member asks me whether this will bring down the cost. It is a protective duty, and need not necessarily bring down the cost. Then we come to bentwood chairs. This particular type is being produced in this country, and this protection is now given to enable this industry to hold its own. Then we have wax cartons which are free of duty when imported for the purpose of being used as containers of food products. We find that they come into competition with cartons. We have a provision that they can still be imported free when they are intended as containers for honey, meat and fruit products; but for other purposes they will pay the same duty as the other cartons. I do not intend to discuss decreases, which will be dealt with in a Bill to be introduced later.

Mr. ROUX seconded.

I have not much to say, and anything we have to say with regard to the details can be dealt with when we go into committee. But take milk; we do not quarrel with duties in so far as they are required to protect industries, but we do think that the Government in bringing forward duties of this kind ought to be very sure that they are not imposing duties which fall on the very poorest class of people, and that we really get an industry established. So far history of this duty does not give us very much encouragement, and our experience does not do so, that they are going to establish an industry in South Africa. The Minister told us there was no reason to think that there was going to be an additional burden on the consumer, because the effect of the additional duty had been to bring the price down. I very much doubt that. In 1924 it was 60s., and, since then, the price has fallen, but there was no increase of duty in 1925.

The result of the establishment of these industries.

The duty of 10s. 4d. was imposed in 1923, not 1925. It was doubled in order to bring about the establishment of condensed milk factories in this country. As a matter of history, I would like to remind the House that when that proposal came forward it was bitterly and whole-heartedly opposed by the Labour party. Mr. Waterston said it was nothing else than putting burdens on the poorest of the people in order to line the pockets of the profiteers; and I wonder whether we are going to have a similar demonstration on the part of the Labour party to-day. Have they seen the light, or has there been a change of heart? But there is a point I would like the Minister to make clear. He told us that the Board of Trade and Industries had recommended this increase because of the expected establishment in this country by a very large firm, producers of condensed milk on a large scale, of an industry, and this duty was required to bring about that result. But I read in the report of the board that they did not take that view; they tell us that these people are quite prepared to come here without that extra duty. Let me read an extract from the board’s report—

If that is so, why put on the duty?

We are not prepared to give them protection unless they are able to supply our requirements. There is provision for us to suspend the duty.

Why not wait until they ask for it?

They will not come unless they get protection.

The extract goes on to say that at Potchefstroom keen disappointment was felt. What is the position? Is this duty being put upon the whole country simply for Potchefstroom? Potchefstroom asks for it. Are the people of the country and the very poorest of the people being asked to share this extra burden on the demand of Potchefstroom? If that is so, this House should know why it is being asked for this extra duty, and what its effect will be. If this duty is necessary, I have no objection, but if it is merely to satisfy the local demand of Potchefstroom, it is a different matter. Must I not believe the Board of Trade and Industries? The demand for the higher duty is not made from Nestlés, but by Potchefstroom.

I can assure the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) that the imposition is necessary. Some time ago this company was on the point of establishing additional factories, and one of the places for the establishment of a factory was Potchefstroom. It was then pointed out that milk was being dumped here, but we could not prove the domestic value. Then the proposed factories were not started. The company said that under present conditions they could not establish them. Now we say to these people: “If you will establish the additional factories, we will consider giving this extra concession.” Therefore, our proposal now is not to put on this suspended duty until the proposed factories are started. So I can assure my hon. friend that if we do not get this duty the disappointment at Potchefstroom will remain, because the company definitely informed the people of this centre, where farmers have gone in for increasing their cows, to enable them to supply the milk requirements of this proposed factory, that if the extra duty is not provided for, there is very little chance of a factory being started.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into committee now.

I move—

That, subject to an Act to he passed during the present session of Parliament and to such amendments of Act No. 40 of 1925, as amended, as may be provided therein, there shall be charged, levied and collected as from the first day of July, 1929, an income tax (to be called the normal tax) on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of all persons from any source within or deemed to be within the Union during the year of assessment ended the thirtieth day of June, 1929, at the following rates—

1. (a) In the case of companies the sole or principal business of which is mining for gold or diamonds, for each pound of taxable amount, three shillings;
2. (b) in the case of all other companies, for each pound of taxable amount, two shillings and sixpence;
3. (c) in the case of persons other than companies, for each pound of taxable amount, one shilling and as many two-thousandths of a penny as there are pounds in that amount, subject to a maximum rate of two shillings in every such pound: Provided that in the case of every payment made under the provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) above there shall be allowed a rebate of 20 per centum of the amount chargeable in accordance with the rates fixed by those paragraphs.

Agreed to.

I move—

That, subject to the terms of the aforesaid Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be charged, levied and collected as from the first day of July, 1929, a super tax on all incomes defined as being subject to super tax by the provisions of Section 27 of Act No. 40 of 1925, which shall have accrued to any person other than a company during the year of assessment ended the thirtieth day of June, 1929, at the following rates: For each pound of the amount subject to super tax, one shilling and as many five-hundredths of one penny as there are pounds in that amount, subject to a maximum rate of five shillings in every such pound.

Agreed to.

I move—

That the rates fixed by resolutions (1) and (2) above shall be the rates fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 and sub-section (2) of Section 25 of Act No. 40 of 1925, respectively.

Agreed to.

I move—

That, subject to the provisions of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and to such rebates and remissions of duty as may be provided for therein, customs duties be levied on articles imported into the Union as set forth in the accompanying schedule.

I should like to ask the Minister of Native Affairs if he is going to take any steps to give effect to the report of the commission appointed to enquire into the question of the provision of medical assistance in native areas? You have this position in the native areas. You have Government stock inspectors, in whose care is the health of the cattle, but there is absolute neglect of any medical attention whatever as far as the human beings are concerned, except what is afforded by the district surgeon to a very small extent, and to a very large extent by the witch doctor. The child mortality alone there is enough to make any man in this House come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when something should be done. There must be some form of trained assistance in these big native areas. The Minister has everything at his finger-tips, but I would like some assurance that the matter is not going to drift any further. I do think that a small beginning might be made. You have your general council of the Transkei territories, and it would be possible to work through them. The position in Zululand is even worse, because of the prevalence of malaria there, and I ask the Minister now that he has time at his disposal if he will tackle the question.

Provision is made under vote D.1 for the appointment of a Director on Native Agriculture. I want to say at once that I heartily welcome this, and think it is an excellent step which will supply a long-felt want. But my difficulty is that I think the new vote will only benefit the reserves where the natives are collected, and where, therefore, thy can advantageously be given a lead. Outside the reserve the conditions are practically such that the natives pay the same tax, poll tax of £1, and it is felt, not only by me, but by the farmers, that, although the farmer will indirectly pay the tax, the native for whom the tax is being paid will get no benefit from it. As we have a Minister now who can give his attention exclusively to native affairs, and who can look into the relation between the tax levied on the native and the benefit they get out of it, I want to ask him whether he will not refer the matter to the Native Affairs Commission for consideration? The farmers feel that the tax has to be paid indirectly by the farmers on the countryside and the native practically gets no recompense for it. I cannot, of course, insist upon the way in which the money is to be spent, because that is a matter for the Administration, but I would like the Minister to refer the matter to the Native Affairs Commission.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the matter of agricultural advisers and the great value of the work these officials are doing both in the interests of the natives and the European farmers in the Cis-Kei areas. However much our views may vary, and however strong they may be upon the question of additional land for natives, the House will agree that no effort should be spared in teaching and encouraging the native people to produce the maximum from the land they already hold. I pass almost daily through some of the largest locations in the Cis-Kei area, and the amount of wasted effort and industry by the natives in trying to grow crops is simply pitiful; it is because of the lack of knowledge of the elementary principles of agriculture. It is not a question of competition between European and native because what the native grows he invariably consumes. The more we can induce the native to grow, the less likely is he to fall back on the state and the Europeans for assistance in times of scarcity. I have a telegram here informing me that the natives purchased over 300 mealie planters from one single firm in Kingwilliamstown during the last two seasons. It is not only education that is needed by these people, but the crying need is fertilizers. There is a system adopted whereby the natives are allowed through the Government to purchase rams for the improvement of their sheep, and they are allowed to pay the cost over a period of two or three years, and I suggest to the Minister that a similar scheme might be devised by which they could buy fertilizers, and pay for it over a period from the sale of their crops. I find I can teach the native farmers adjoining my own farm to improve their methods of agriculture, and I suggest to the Minister that he consider this part of his work as a most important function of his department, and well worth expanding. There is a certain lack of proportion in the estimates. There is one Director of Agriculture, a very competent official, whose appointment to the Department of Native Affairs was a very serious loss to farmers. The Director of Agriculture has only three agricultural supervisors; that seems to show a lack of proportion, and I suggest that the Director should have more assistance to carry out the work of instruction to natives.

I should like the Minister to tell me whether any attempt is being made, or any schemes exist, to do something with reference to native labour, especially on the farms, but also on the mines. The condition is that the farmers find that there is a very big shortage of native labour on the farms. If more natives could be made available there, the farmers would be able to produce much more than to-day, but because they have not sufficient labour, they have to restrict production. We find that the young natives to-day go to the villages and towns and the farmers retain the old natives who are not worth much, and he has to give them housing and food as well. I want to ask the Minister if it is not possible to introduce legislation or at least outline a scheme to prevent all the young natives trekking to the villages. The mines, as well as the farmers, find that they have a large shortage of natives. On the mines to-day there is, I believe, a shortage of 10,000 natives. I think this is due to the repatriation of the natives to Mozambique. We have realized that the mines are one of the greatest industries, just like agriculture, and I think we ought to try to supply the native labour. It will be asked where we are to get them, but I understand that there is a large number of natives in the north quite fitted for coming to the Union, and I think if the Government appoints a committee to investigate the matter, or if the Government gets permission from the authories in the north, then we shall be able to get natives from there. I just want to draw attention to this matter, to point out that provision must be made for natives for agriculture and the mines.

I would like to emphasize the necessity for better medical attention being given to natives. I refer specially to the division in which I live, Herschel. It is about 60 square miles in extent, and has a population of over 40,000. We have one divisional surgeon, but in case of an epidemic, it would be wholly impossible for him to cope with it. An effort is being made to raise funds for the building of a hospital, but, unless Government supplement the funds, it is not likely that the endeavour will be crowned with success.

I move—

The Minister of Native Affairs is also Minister of Irrigation, and if I let this vote pass, I shall not have an opportunity of discussing a matter I am anxious to advocate, namely, an amendment of the Act. I can only do so, according to the rules of the House, when the vote containing the salary of a Minister comes up. I propose this, not with the object of expressing any want of confidence in the Minister, but only to have the opportunity of making a plea for the farmers in the Union.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he cannot now discuss irrigation.

My impression is that in past years hon. members who wished to discuss particular policies on a vote in which the Minister’s salary does not appear, have been stopped from doing so on the ground that the matter should have been raised when the Minister’s salary was under consideration. At the same time, we may wish to discuss a question of policy without desiring to reduce the Minister’s salary.

The Minister’s salary comes under this vote.

Then the hon. member must move a reduction of salary.

I have done so.

If anybody wishes to raise a question regarding irrigation policy, can he do so on the vote before us?

I think so.

May I now proceed?

Yes.

Hon. members will ask why I will raise this matter as we are all in a hurry to go home, and as the matter can be debated next session, but I may point out that the Minister has announced that the Government will submit its irrigation policy to the House next session, and that it is, therefore, the duty of us farming representatives who have received instructions from our electors, to now lay their views before the House so that the Minister can consider their suggestion before next session. I want to suggest that the Minister should convene a small conference of farmers who have a practical knowledge of irrigation. I can assure the Minister that it will contribute a great deal to the pushing of irrigation in the country, and that the farmers will be very thankful if he does it. Our experience in the past was that a hopeless failure had been made of irrigation. Notwithstanding that failure, however, we are obliged to continue with irrigation because it is the only way to save the country and help the people on. Owing to failures in the past in the Cape and the other provinces £4,000,000 has already had to be written off, and we must see to it that the same mistakes are not made in the future. The taxpayers cannot continuously take the burden on their shoulders of the failures. To prevent the mistakes of the past, I want the Minister to consult practical farmers with a practical experience of irrigation. With all respect to the irrigation engineers, I may say that the schemes carried out by them are much too expensive, I went recently to look at a scheme in the Somerset East district. It cost £42,000, but I can assure the Minister that any farmer could have built that scheme for £5,000. I would myself undertake to build a dam of the same size for £5,000. We now find that the Government has written off £39,000, so that the scheme is valued at £3,000 to-day.

When was it constructed?

Under the last Government. But I am not talking in a party spirit now, and I want to throw no blame on the South African party Government. We have made mistakes, and it is no use continually saying: “You are responsible.” We, as representatives of the people, must see to it that the mistakes are not repeated in the future, hence I am bringing the matter to the Minister’s notice. I want him to consider in the future introducing a system of grants to farmers, instead of borrowing all the money from the Land Bank and having, subsequently, to make heavy writings off, as in the case I have mentioned. Hon. members will at once ask where the money will come from to give grants to the farmers for irrigation schemes, but then it may be pointed out that £4,000,000 has already been written off irrigation works. If this amount had been given in the form of grants to farmers on the basis of 25 per cent. of the expenditure, then we would to-day have had small and big irrigation works worth £12,000,000. An hon. member hit the nail on the head the other day by saying that we must consider whether we should not tell individual farmers, or groups of farmers, that we are prepared to pay a share of the expense of a scheme they want to undertake, if they will find the balance themselves. The farmers work cheaply, and the work can be done under supervision of farmers according to the same system as is done in emergency relief and in the case of loans under the Land Bank Act. Let such a system be created with a body of practical farmers to supervize. If the Minister does this, and we are going to spend £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 as an experiment, the country will soon reap the benefit of the work, and, instead of a few large irrigation schemes on which we have to write off millions, a dam will be got on every farm where it is possible. Then the country will be assisted in producing more and feeding our population. If we take this course, I am certain that irrigation schemes will not cost so much money. I am afraid that our people will be spoilt. There is already a tendency, when a dam is being built, of spending just as much as the people think fit because, if it turns out later that they cannot pay, the Government will, anyhow, have to write it off, and we must now put our foot down and see that it does not happen in the future. Therefore, I want to see that it does not happen again. I, therefore, suggest that the Minister should establish a system of grants. He ought to encourage the individual farmers a little. To make dams is a big job for the farmers, and a little encouragement will help them very much. I think Parliament acknowledges that it is of the greatest importance to us to collect water as much as possible, and to build dams, and the Minister should therefore encourage individual farmers.

I want to point out that if the hon. member is dissatisfied with the Government’s irrigation policy, he must now move an amendment to reduce the salary; then he can talk for forty minutes. If he only wants to make speeches of ten minutes, he can raise the points when the irrigation vote comes up.

I did move to reduce the salary of the Minister by £1.

What is the reason?

I want to propose an irrigation policy which will possibly require an amendment of the law. I am not going to propose the amendment, but want to submit it to the consideration of the Minister.

The hon. member can debate the point on the irrigation vote, but if he wants to talk for forty minutes, he must give the precise point why he wants to reduce the Minister’s salary.

The point is that, instead of giving all the money to irrigation works, the Minister should rather give grants to farmers and other bodies, than have all the money provided through the Land Bank.

That is an amendment requiring legislation, and the hon. member cannot move it.

I was under the impression that I could discuss an amendment of legislation if I moved the reduction of salary.

The hon. member cannot propose fresh legislation. He will have an opportunity of raising his points on the irrigation vote.

On a point of order, I think that the hon. member wishes to debate the general irrigation policy of the department. I think he can do so without moving for fresh legislation. I would suggest that the hon. member be allowed to continue his plea in this matter, if it is not against the rules.

The hon. member cannot propose new legislation.

No, I am not a lawyer and do not know precisely how the law would have to be amended. I just want to discuss the irrigation policy. I think most of the farmers on this side of the House can assure the Minister that the electors on the countryside strongly urged, during the elections, the policy that I am advocating now. Then there is another point in connection with irrigation, namely, bores. I do not say that the Government bores have done no good. They have done very good work, but if the Minister looks into the matter, he would find the costs were very high. I worked them out recently to 15s. or 16s. a foot, and the Minister of Agriculture said recently at a public meeting that £40,000 would have to be written off this year of the money that was voted for boring. I want to suggest that, instead of that, every farmer who wants to bore should be given a grant of 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. a foot. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) has advocated 5s. a foot. In our district we can bore as much as we like at 5s. a foot, but in some parts of the Free State I saw boring done at 3s. a foot. Then, of course, the owner has to supply the borer board and lodging. If the Minister can give 3s. 6d. or even 2s. 6d. a foot, much use will be made of it, and the Minister will see that in the long run he will come out cheaper than under the expensive, existing system. I understand the Government have a kind of bore which goes through ironstone. Let the Government keep them, because they are necessary in some places, but I want to point out generally that private bores work much cheaper than the Government ones, and to suggest that, it would be better to introduce a system of grants. If the Minister will bear in mind the two things I have mentioned, and will convene a small conference of farmers to discuss the matter, much will be done, not only to assist individual farmers, but also the state. The whole people will benefit.

May I just suggest that the hon. member should take the opportunity of putting his points when the irrigation vote comes up. I will then go into them fully.

May I therefore withdraw my amendment?

You can do so with leave of the House.

We are all prepared to follow that advice, but I want to be quite clear that when we come to that vote we will not be told that we cannot discuss policy, but can discuss questions of administrative policy.

Hon. members will be allowed to discuss policy on that vote.

I would like to ask the Minister a question regarding the carrying out of the Native Administration Act of 1927, in which provision is made for the first time in the Cape Province for the appointment of native commissioners. A great deal was hoped from the policy laid down there. Have any been appointed, and how is the system working? Have you had time to test it or not? Moreover, under Section 8 of the Act, provision was made for dealing with a very difficult problem which had arisen in regard to the question of land tenure, especially in the Cis-Kei. Titles have got into the most involved position, and a large number of persons were resident on a large number of farms there without there being proper titles. There was not a chance in many cases of finding out who the proper holders of the titles were. We cut the Gordian knot in the committee by providing in Section 8 for the appointment of a commissioner to go into the question of who was the person entitled to have title to the land he was occupying. If the person who was in possession was held to be the proper owner, the commissioner would give him a certificate; if he was not, the commissioner was entitled to take other steps. If the holder of the land was found by the commissioner not to be the owner of the property, an appeal could be made to a board of three commissioners to be appointed. I would like to ask the Minister to what extent this system has been put into operation; has this confusion been to a large extent cleared up, and how many appeals have there been from the native commissioner in regard to this question.

With leave of committee, amendment withdrawn.

The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. S. D. de Wet) has complained about the shortage of native labour on the countryside. That is not, in my opinion, attributable to the fact that there are too few natives in the Union, but to the development of industries. Now we notice that in recent years the natives are no longer inclined to work on the farms, but prefer to go to the towns and villages. If there were better organization to divide up the native labour, then the greatest part of the need, not only of the industries, but also of the farms, would be provided for. It is a peculiar position that on the one hand, there is a complaint about the shortage of natives, and on the other the country is full of white labour. It is a very difficult problem; on the one hand the Government must spend money to keep the Europeans alive, and on the other there is apparently a shortage of native labour. I think bad organization is the cause. My view is that the Government and Minister must try and arrange things better, and to provide for the needs in that way. I want to point out to hon. members that hundreds of natives are wandering about the towns and villages trying to make a living, and a large number live by theft or dishonour. If an enquiry were made in the big towns, we should find that there are hundreds of unemployed natives. I am of opinion that the greatest cause of the shortage of natives on the farms is to be found in the large number of natives who live without work in the towns. A few years ago it happened that I was on the road outside Johannesburg and saw a native trekking there. I asked him where he was going to. He said to Johannesburg, because the municipality was building houses for natives. He came from a farm at Juskei River, but he left the farm because he thought he could live better in the town. What encourages them is that the towns provide for them. The municipality of Johannesburg has already spent about £700,000 for housing natives and, as long as that continues, the natives will go from the farms to the towns. I think arrangements ought to be made to so divide up the native labour that the farmers get their share and the industries theirs. But, as I have said, a matter which we must consider is that the white labour is heaped up, and the Government has to spend the country’s money keeping Europeans alive, and, on the other hand, native labour is in demand. My opinion is, that if the distribution of the labour is properly regulated, there will not be any such shortage of labourers.

I think that the natives in my constituency and the native reserves in this country, and the Cape Province especially, appreciate the appointment of a separate Minister of Native Affairs, and many have asked me to convey their appreciation to the Government. It is generally felt that the Prime Minister is so occupied with political problems that he is not able to devote more attention to this portfolio. The Minister is, however, also burdened with another portfolio which will occupy a considerable amount of his time, that is, irrigation. Native affairs are quite sufficient to keep the Minister occupied, and I personally regret he has been saddled with another portfolio. I would suggest the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, whose ministry does not occupy much time, and the other portfolio might well be attached to that office. There are many complaints amongst the natives, as the Minister will find if he goes through the territories. I have an address here of a gentleman named S. P. Bunting, a very lengthy document, circulated amongst the natives of my constituency during the last election. Unfortunately, 95 per cent, of these complaints are more or less legitimate, and there is some foundation for them, and it is for that reason that he was able to claim the attention and support from the natives that he did. The other 5 per cent. is the dangerous and unfounded matter his addresses contained, and it is that 5 per cent. that is disturbing the minds of the natives. Unless we remove ground for genuine complaint, we shall have this kind of insidious poison working in the mind of the native. Natives in the Transkei—I wish to mention one of their real grievances—complain that they are not allowed to export their cattle. There are districts in the Transkei which have never had east coast fever, and yet the natives are not allowed to export their cattle. The result is that those areas are becoming congested, and the position is becoming serious. It is not reasonable that if there is an outbreak of east coast fever on the boundary of Natal, a district 300 miles away should be restricted from exporting cattle. Here the natives have a legitimate grievance. With regard to miners’ phthisis, the natives complain that their relatives come down from the Rand and die from the disease, and yet receive no compensation. I have known instances where natives have died, and medical men have given certificates that death was due to phthisis, and the demand has been made that the lungs of these men must be cut out and sent to Johannesburg. That is unreasonable, and that is a matter the Minister might take into consideration. Let me give another case. In March last a native had his leg amputated above the knee, and, according to the interpretation of the law, he is only entitled to £20 compensation. It is a matter of interpretation. I hope the Minister will take that matter up. There is one other point I want to impress specially upon the Minister. It came to my notice during the election. Mr. Bunting went through the territories addressing natives, and was prosecuted. The natives expressed surprise, saying that he had only said in the territories what he had been saying publicly in Johannesburg for ten years, and they asked whether there was a different law in Johannesburg to what existed in the territories. At any rate, there should not be a different law or different administration. I have heard statements made on the Parade calculated to upset everybody, including the natives. Natives hear communist speeches in the towns, and go back with versions of communist doctrines into the native areas. It is no use saying that these doctrines must not be preached in the native areas when you allow them to be preached in urban centres. You must go to the fountain head with your prohibition, to the university of crime—Johannesburg.

Oh, oh!

I am only repeating the description of Johannesburg given in this House by Mr. Merriman many years ago. The native learns the worst things in our white civilization in the cities. I hope the Minister will realize that it is essential to go to the fountain head, and forbid the dissemination of seditious literature and the making of seditious speeches in the urban centres. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the first speech the Prime Minister made in this House five years ago, when he maintained that territorial segregation of the native is the only sane policy to be followed both in the interests of the native and the European in South Africa. But the Prime Minister then said that two things must be done. The native must be taught to make better use of his ground, and instructors must be appointed to show him how to do so. The native territories must be developed. The Prime Minister held the portfolio of native affairs for five years, but nothing has been done to help the native to develop the territories. I do think that in view of the large revenue received from native sources something should be done, and some contribution should be made. The customs taxes paid on cotton blankets, cotton sheeting and second-hand clothing is almost entirely paid by natives, and I think hon. members will admit that. In five years the natives have contributed £2,000,000 towards the taxation of this country —

Order.

And I hope to get back a little of that £2,000,000 for the benefit of the native.

The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) has dealt with the question of agriculture in native territories. Within the last few months Mr. Thornton has been appointed Director of Native Agriculture. He has studied the question, and we are considering what is to be done in that direction. With respect to the necessity for supervision, the intention is not only to have supervisors, but to have central places in various parts of the native territories in all the provinces where men can be trained as demonstrators. These matters are under consideration, and I hope very soon to be able to deal with the whole matter. The hon. member for Tembuland has also dealt with circulars issued and speeches made by Bunting and others. That matter is also under consideration, and my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has already indicated that steps will be taken to deal with the whole position. I am not able at present to say what is to be done, but we hope to have something to lay before the House during the next session. The question of compensation for accidents on the mines is receiving attention. I will discuss with the Minister of Mines and Industries the question of miners’ phthisis, and the question of the movement of cattle from native areas I will discuss with the Minister of Agriculture. I am not in a position to say more at present. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has dealt with the question of health in the native territories, and has referred to the report of the commission which was issued not long ago. Generally the whole position with regard to the natives and their territories will receive my very earnest and early consideration. I may say that a slight step has been taken in regard to providing further assistance in the native territories by the department in offering further grants. These will come into operation from the 1st of April next. This is a small step, but I hope to be able to go further into the matter later on. With reference to the remark of the hon. member for Hope town (Dr. Stals), who spoke on native agriculture, I have already dealt with that matter.

*The hon. member for Hope town (Dr. Stals) also referred to the interests of the natives not living in the native territories, and the benefits, which, according to him, they do not now get. We will go into it. As far as I know, it is an entirely new point. The hon. members for Heidelberg (Mr. S. D. de Wet) and Fordsburg (Mr. Pretorius), and other members spoke about natives for farmers and the mines. As hon. members know, this important subject has been receiving the attention of the Government for years. It is a matter which must be considered. As the Minister of Justice said the other day, he will consult with me about the pass laws and the Masters’ and Servants’ Act. We hope to go into it because it is closely connected with the whole subject. What line we shall take in this connection I cannot say at present.

† The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) asked if commissioners have been appointed for the Cape. In all divisions where there are large numbers of natives commissioners have been arranged for.

The House will recollect that four or five years ago it passed a Bill imposing a poll tax of £1. One-fifth of this was to be spent in native development in the Union, but many natives contend that the money is being utilized for general purposes. I think if the department would publish in the local newspapers circulating in native areas a detailed statement showing how the money was expended, it would be a good thing. We would like to know how the moneys, granted from this fund, are being expended by the provincial authorities. The natives in towns complain that they are getting nothing of their share. I think the Administration should give a more detailed statement as to how the money is used in future.

Those regulations will affect the right of a very large number of people, and they should be printed in some convenient form, so that they could be distributed among the people. They would then have an opportunity of seeing what the regulations are, I should like to know from the Minister when they are to be published, and when they are to be laid on the Table.

I congratulate the Ministed on becoming the Minister of Native Affairs, and for the first time in the history of the Union a Minister has been appointed who has been in contact with the natives since his birth, and who has some idea of native psychology. I am a little sorry that the Minister has had pushed on him the matter of irrigation, but perhaps Natal will now get something it has never had in the past years. We have not one single irrigation scheme in Natal, and in future we may have a little look in there, but I think the Minister has enough to do without taking on irrigation. Lands and irrigation are so inseparably bound up together that I could not see how it could be pushed on to another department. In the past it has been under the wing of the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture, and now it is under the Native Affairs Department.

I think lands had it once upon a time.

I would like to remind the Minister of the extraordinarily serious epidemic of malaria which is prevalent in the native reserves. There is no doubt about it that in these areas some real active steps will have to be taken in future. I have a telegram just handed to me stating a European had died there a few days ago from malaria, and I have also just received a letter from a doctor, who warns me that there is going to be a very serious outbreak during the next spring and summer unless something is done. I am not at all impressed by the arguments about the witch doctors preventing natives taking quinine. Practically every native takes quinine, and it is not a strange habit to them as we might be led to believe. It would be quite an easy matter for a simple demonstration to be given to the natives in some form or another. It is not sufficient merely to have a place in Pretoria where investigations can be made.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 25, “Mines and Industries”, £628,752,

I wish to move the reduction of the Minister’s salary by £5, in order to discuss one or two questions affecting the administration of his department.

I would like the mover to put his motion in writing and also the point on which he wishes to speak.

Is that to be laid down as a rule, because, if so, it will help hon. members to know that they have to put their motions in writing, but it has not been the custom in the past.

According to the rules ordinarily amendments must be in writing. Sometimes that is not done, but I think it much better to have a general rule to apply to all matters.

I am sorry I did not have the motion in writing as I did not understand there would be any departure from our customary procedure. My motion reads—

In order to discuss his policy in regard to the German treaty and the representations of Union trade interests abroad.

There is only one point the hon. member can discuss, and not two. The last portion of his motion falls away, as it has been discussed by the committee and also the Prime Minister is the Minister of External Affairs. I would like the hon. member to explain how far the German trade treaty is relevant under this vote.

On a point of order, it will no doubt be within your recollection, Mr. Chairman, that when I put a question addressed to the Minister of External Affairs with reference to some trade difficulties with Germany, it was referred to the Minister of Mines and Industries. The matter should be cleared up, or members will not know where to address their observations or questions in future.

May I recall to your recollection, Mr. Chairman, that when we were discussing the Prime Minister’s vote we were told expressly by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Mines and Industries, that the German trade treaty could not be discussed on that occasion, but should be discussed when the vote of the Minister of Mines and Industries came up, and then we should get the fullest information required.

I want to know how far the motion is relevant to this vote.

I will try and deal with that point. I was, of course, unprepared for this, because when, on previous occasions, I have referred to this matter, the Minister of Justice more than once almost protested against reference being made to the German trade treaty, and pointed out that ample opportunity would occur to discuss it, he said, when we reached the vote of the Minister of Mines and Industries. If you ask me to specifically indicate which part of the vote deals with our trade abroad, I will point out that under B (1), we have the Board of Trade and Industries, and it is in connection with the Board of Trade and Industries that, in the first instance, lies the initiative to make trade treaties.

It is not under B, but under D that trade interests abroad and trade commissioners can be discussed.

I think the hon. member will be quite in order in discussing trade policy under this vote. The Minister of Mines and Industries is responsible for the trade policy of the Government. Of course, where it touches the question of actual tariffs, my department comes in because that affects the revenue of the country. I do not know whether the hon. member will be able to discuss the German trade treaty. I think that was approved by Parliament, but any question of policy regarding trade representation or the advancement of the trade interests of this country, for that my colleague will have to account to Parliament.

What the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) stated is perfectly correct. I certainly expected that the German trade treaty would be discussed under this heading. Of course, I cannot make in order what is out of order, but I definitely associate myself with what the hon. member stated, that we all expected that under this vote the German trade treaty would be discussed.

The Minister of Finance has said that he does not know whether we can discuss the German trade treaty under this or any vote, because it has already been ratified by Parliament. The whole matter we want to discuss is whether what was ratified by Parliament was, in fact, the real German treaty, or whether something partial and inchoate was put before this House and the remainder kept from it. That is a grave and important question of policy which we want discussed. In the past there has been a practice that when a particular Minister said: “I do not think such and such a vote is the proper place, but another vote is the proper occasion,” as a matter of good faith, the House has always observed that, and the Chairman of Committees has always been guided by that expression of opinion from the Minister. We understood from the Minister of Mines and Industries that this vote was the appropriate occasion on which to discuss this particular matter. He has now got up and said: “Yes, I did say that.” I submit that the chairman with the rest of the committee will accept that as being the true position, and there is no reason why my hon. friend should not be allowed to continue with the point he is trying to make.

The Minister has disclosed there are certain papers connected with the trade treaty which have not been disclosed to the House, and I submit the hon. member is entitled to move the reduction in the Minister’s salary for the purpose of discussing the treaty from that point of view.

Have I made it clear what aspect I propose to discuss?

The hon. member can only have one specific point in his motion.

I really thought I was dealing with one point, but if you think the words at the end of the motion import two points into the discussion, I am quite prepared to strike those out.

Does the hon. member wish to withdraw “German trade treaty” and leave the last part?

No, I withdraw the last few words. Those words “German trade treaty” do not quite accurately express what I am dealing with. I am dealing more particularly with what I prefer to call the secret collateral German trade treaty. It has only an indirect relation to the treaty referred to by the Minister of Finance. It is the secret treaty with which I propose to deal.

That is quite clear to me. The motion now reads as follows—

The hon. member may proceed on that point.

I think in order that the matter may be presented in proper perspective, I should be allowed to go back and state what I mean by the trade treaty, and what I intend to signify by referring to the secret collateral treaty. As we know, the German trade treaty became effective by ratification as from September 1st, 1928. At that date there were in existence two proclamations imposing dumping duties on products of Germany. One was a proclamation referring to asbestos sheets and the other referred to cement. Article 8 of the treaty dealt specifically with the imposition of duties upon goods that might be produced by either party to the treaty. It may be convenient if I read the article again, so that the trend of the argument I am presenting may be clear. Article 8 [read], apart from an earlier article which provided for most-favoured-nation treatment, made it perfectly clear that dumping duties which might then subsist in relation to the products of Germany could not stand, and would be inconsistent with the express undertaking of this Government as expressed in Article 8, and as appears generally from other sections of the treaty, and equally so it would be impossible for this Government to impose dumping duties on any date after that unless it were prepared to infringe the terms of the treaty, and be guilty under those circumstances of bad faith with the other contracting parties. On November 16th, 1928, the treaty was formally published in the “Gazette.” Early in February, 1929, it came before this House for consideration, a procedure which was described as presenting the treaty to the competent legislative authority.” On June 11th, 1929, the ratifications of the treaty were exchanged. Early in this session I asked a question as to what had actually occurred on that date, and I put to the Government whether the treaty as we knew it, and as it had been submitted to this House, had been ratified; and the House was told in that formal manner that on June 11th it had been ratified, without one single remark agent the collateral agreement, which, I understand, exists, and the proviso which in another breath the Acting Minister of Mines and Industries referred to on the 3rd instant. On July 23rd, we were definitely informed in this House that that treaty—it was in response to a question put by me—had been ratified. To make clear how this point comes before the committee, it may be remembered that on August 2nd I drew attention to the fact that a report had been spread outside the House the Government was about to impose a dumping duty on German sugar. I drew the attention of the responsible Minister to this Article 8, and I pointed out to him our duty to honour our obligations. I also made a statement, which was greeted with derisive laughter on the other side of the House, that the British empire stood behind this treaty. On a subsequent occasion the Acting Minister of Mines and Industries dealing with this “rash statement,” said it was a serious thing to impute bad faith on the part of the Government and by referring to the “wild and sweeping statements” which he said I had made, diverted attention from the point at issue. Article 8 prevents a dumping duty—

It does not.

I am prepared to discuss that question. Article 8 has only one meaning, and the Minister on a previous occasion said that I might be right. If he has changed his opinion, it is only another instance of the fluidity of the hon. gentleman’s views on any particular question. The Minister was unable to tell us what had really happened on that occasion, rather protested against being interrogated in that way, and advised us to raise this on this vote before the committee. He admitted being correctly reported in the “Cape Times” of August 3rd, when he said—

Well, that was not a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, and there are a great many people concerned outside the House with reference to the treaty. I put a question to the Minister which he asked should be allowed to stand over, so that he might obtain certain information, and on August 8th he gave a reply which, for the contempt it exhibits towards Parliament, and the evasion one can clearly see in it, makes it almost unique as far as my short experience in this House goes; for the Minister to withhold information which was in his power to give, the answer was entirely unsatisfactory and a violation of the right of hon. members in this House to obtain information from members of the Government on their policy and administration. The Minister then gave us his opinion, and I value his opinion very much, but he will allow me to say it is not always conclusive. [Minister’s reply read.] Either such information is not available, or it is not in the public interest to supply more particulars than I have already given on a previous occasion, said the Minister. That line of reply has quite a forensic touch about it, but it is not sufficient or adequate, I am sure, in the opinion of this committee, and I am confident that anyone who impartially looks at this will agree that that is not the manner in which Parliament should be treated, in a matter which concerns not only it, but a large number of those concerned in trade and business in this country. I will deal with the questions seriatim. The first question put to the hon. gentleman was whether, at the time the treaty was signed, the right of the Union Government to propose dumping duties was considered and provided for. No definite answer was given to that, but I have got the answer given previously; in fact, I put the question in order to enable the Minister to repeat what he had stated here; I had the answer that it was “meticulously considered by the Minister concerned at the time the treaty was drafted.” If I am to take the language of the Minister we know that a collateral agreement, still undisclosed, was made on or about September 1st, 1928. The hon. gentleman said it was not in the public interest to say more than he had already said. When, in Question 2, I asked him whether it had been made in writing before, the reply was that it was not in the interests of the country to disclose the information if it was available. A trifling answer. It should have been possible for him to say whether he had the information or not. Then I put a further question, that if the provision was made, or in other words, if a collateral agreement had been entered into, was it treated as falling within Article 26 of the treaty, which requires that such an agreement should be submitted to the “competent legislative authority” for approval. Article 26 clearly contemplates that this Union shall not be bound by any such agreement unless it is confirmed in this way. I asked whether this collateral agreement made subject to approval, and again the Minister said that it was not in the public interest to disclose the fact. Then we come to Question 4, and I would draw attention to Question 4 more pointedly, because upon it I want to ask the Minister a very clear question. If we had, by this collateral agreement, made a stipulation empowering us to impose dumping duties, one can hardly imagine that Germany would not have stipulated for some reciprocal provision. She would have asked for some stipulation in her favour. So I asked whether some reciprocal provision was made by Germany, and not expressed in the treaty. The answer to that is that it is not in the public interest to disclose the information. Fortunately for us, similar reticence is not observed by the German foreign office. They are apparently quite prepared to be frank and open with those who may be interested in Germany and the doings of its Government. I have a very interesting statement made by the chief of the South African division of the German foreign office, as reported in the “Star” of Thursday last. The “Star,” with its customary promptitude and energy, sent one of its representatives to interview the chief of the South African division of the German foreign office, and put the question to him whether or not what the Minister calls a proviso, and what I call a collateral agreement, had been made in connection with this treaty. The answer was very interesting. He positively denied, says the “Star” representative, the existence of any supplementary agreement in the German-South African trade treaty. He says there is no agreement other than that already published. How the mystery deepens! When I put side by side the speech made by the hon. gentleman and the statement made by the chief of the South African division of the German foreign office, the least I can say is that, so far from the matter being “meticulously considered and provided for by the Minister in charge,” the other party to the contract knows nothing about it. I accept the statement of the hon. the Minister, but I am glad I am not charged with the duty explaining the discrepancy between the statement of the Minister of Mines and Industries and that of the chief of the South African division of the German foreign office. I will leave it at that, and the Minister with all his versatility, will not, I hope, be daunted by the task of explaining the discrepancy. Question 5 was an enquiry as to when this treaty, dated 1st September, 1928, was approved by the Reichstag of Berlin, and the Minister replied that the information was “either not available, or it was not in the public interest to disclose it.” I think that statement is perfectly futile. We maintain an expensive department of external affairs, and a still more expensive department of mines and industries, and yet a fact which is common knowledge to the world is either not known to the Minister, or it is not in the public interest to disclose it. I have here a copy of the “London Times” of the 15th December, 1928, and if the hon. gentleman had kept in touch with the affairs of this country at that date, he would have noticed that the Berlin correspondent of the “Times” said that, in the course of a short discussion in the Reichstag, it was announced that the treaty had been approved, and that it was the first time a trade treaty had been concluded with a British dominion. It was further declared that the treaty made a breach in the British empire preference system. That is a piece of information I pass on to the Minister. When I asked for a statement on the point, whether this treaty had been approved by the Reichstag, the Minister of Mines and Industries and he did not know. I asked two further questions, Nos. 6 and 7, which were intended to bring out whether or not this collateral trade agreement had received the approval of the German National Assembly. If one examines the constitution of the German commonwealth, one will find that according to Article 45 no treaties of this kind are valid unless approved by the National Assembly. It is a matter which affects the foreign relations of the commonwealth and its trade generally, and it seems quite clear that according to that constitution any such collateral trade agreement would not be valid unless it had obtained the approval of the Reichstag. May I point out that Article 8, in its effect, directly contradicts the existence of any exemption in favour of or reservation of a right to impose dumping duties, and as that treaty stands at the moment, as approved by the German National Assembly, it will be quite impossible for any dumping duty to be imposed. And then I went on to ask if any additions had been made to the treaty at the time it was ratified. The question was whether any such reservation had been made. The Minister replies that it is not in the public interests to disclose it. It is clear that there is no room for error in this matter. He replied that it was meticulously and carefully provided for in the draft treaty. I asked a further question of the Minister whether this treaty should be registered at Geneva. Seeing that the Minister for External Affairs has recently added to his staff an expert on international law he should be able to give information on that point. If it requires registration, then until such registration takes place it has no legal effect. I enquired whether registration was essential and if it has taken place, and the reply was that it was not in the public interest to disclose the fact. The information would be available if the department had tried to register the treaty. Nevertheless that is the kind of reply that is given by the hon. member. I would like to suggest to him that after this brief recapitulation he should state to the House the truth, he whole truth and nothing but the truth. Such phrases should be familiar to the hon. member, for he has spent his life getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from the people. May I bring to his attention why the information should be forthcoming? There are many people who are interested in trade with Germany. We on this side of the House are quite prepared to foster that trade, consistently with our prior obligation to our empire partners, and there can be no doubt that on the other side of the House there is more than a desire to foster that trade. Are not the people engaged in trade entitled to have that information, and to know if a dumping duty can be imposed on their goods in Germany? May I ask the hon. gentleman why there is a discrepancy between his statement and the statement of the German foreign office? The Minister stated to me that he did not admit that Article 8 had the meaning I assigned to it. May I point out that the best legal advice available to the British Government is that a differential duty cannot be imposed under the Anglo-German treaty of 1921. Perhaps the hon. Minister would like to know the source of my information. In February, in the course of a report in the “London Times” of the proceedings of the House of Lords, it was stated—

When the Minister asks this committee to believe that Article 8 does not prohibit dumping duties he is endeavouring to unduly strain the meaning. I moved the reduction of the hon. gentleman’s salary in order to have a full discussion in this House. If a mistake is made by the Government we shall all have to answer for it. The whole country is responsible for the treaty being carried out in all good faith and honesty. We are all concerned to see that we maintain a front to the outside world which would be always recognized as worthy of a British dominion such as we are. I do suggest that the hon. gentleman should not draw any red herrings across the track in the form of fine-sounding phrases as he did on a previous occasion. I want him to come down to the plain practical side of the question. I want to know what was this collateral agreement, what was this proviso. I want to know if it was made verbally or in writing, and if in writing, to read the terms to this House and to tell the House the grounds of his statement—that the right of the Union to impose a dumping duty is indisputable. The Committee is entitled to this information. In matters of this kind it will not do merely to attempt to score debating points, but I beg of him, in the interests of the country as a whole to be frank and perfectly unequivocal.

I am glad that the hon. member has emphasized that this is not the time to score a debating point. I also agree that this is not the time to revive the atmosphere of the Budget debate. I shall content myself to confining my remarks to the facts of the case. The real difficulty of the hon. member’s contention is that he assumes the existence of a collateral agreement, tells us the German Foreign Office has repudiated it and makes various statements of that description—not statements of facts, but fallacious inferences from what the hon. gentleman thinks he has adduced from what I have said in this House. I therefore want to summarize the position and find out what really is at issue between the hon. gentleman and myself, and to find out what necessity there is to go into these far-flung details with which he has treated the Committee. I wish to emphasize that the German treaty is the only commercial agreement between South Africa and Germany.

Is it the only agreement?

If the hon. member will allow me to proceed instead of interjecting. The second point I wish to emphasize is that no question of the modification of the treaty arises, excluding for the moment, Article 8. Consequently with that possible exception—I do not admit that it is an exception—of Article 8 there is no question of any modification in any shape or form. Therefore as regards the terms of the treaty there are no grounds for argument. The third point is—and I mention it for the benefit of gentlemen for whom the hon. member so eloquently pleaded—even as regards Article 8, no possibility of modification need be considered except in connection with dumping. That is to say, eliminating for the moment the question of dumping, Article 8 can be construed in the way in which the hon. member or anybody else wants to construe it. As regards dumping, the attitude of the Government is this—Article 8 does not exclude in its terms the right to levy dumping duties. The hon. gentleman referred to the duties on asbestos and cement which were in existence when the trade agreement was entered into. The hon. gentleman knows that those duties are still in force, but although the hon. gentleman contends that the retention of these duties is in conflict with the treaty, Germany has not made that point. The hon. gentleman has been unduly concerned about the legal position of Germany, but I can give him the assurance that Germany has not considered it worth while to raise that particular point. Quite apart from whether or not the hon. gentleman is right in his interpretation of Article 8, and in spite of the authority he quoted, our contention is most definitely that under the wording of the clause as it stands, the existing dumping duties are not interfered with and future dumping duties are not prohibited.

You are telling us a different story now.

It is very often possible that the Government has two strings to its bow. I thought the hon. member would be glad to hear that the position of the country in this matter is absolutely assured, instead of laughing at my statement. If hon. members opposite really felt concerned about our position, or the validity of the treaty, they would welcome the statement I have made. I do not want to re-introduce the atmosphere of the Budget debate.

You are telling us a different story from the one contained in your Budget speech.

It may interest the hon. member to hear that America has exactly the same agreement with Germany, and America has contended successfully that a clause worded as this clause is worded, does not prevent the imposition of dumping duties by America. The agreement between Germany and America was entered into long before ours. As regards the authority of the House of Lords, naturally the hon. member has a very great respect for that authority and we, as members of the legal profession, share that respect, but the question of differential duties dealt with in that particular opinion is entirely different from dumping duties as understood in the dominions. In Europe the dumping duties are not believed in. There is no State in Europe—I am speaking of the great Powers—which takes up the attitude that dumping duties are desirable. On the whole they prefer clear cut additions to tariff charges, and for that reason when this question was dealt with in England, it was dealt with under circumstances which precluded the very idea of imposing dumping duties. Great Britain has never levied a dumping duty, as far as I know. America, on the other hand, is not in favour of dumping duties as a fixed policy, but on occasion has levied them. America has exactly the same treaty with Germany as we have, and has successfully contended in the past that she is entitled to levy dumping duties. We therefore have—apart from the question of legal authority, although there is very high legal authority supporting this attitude, precedent for the wording of this clause. The hon. member may have seen a very instructive article in this question in the “South African Review”; I do not say that this particular legal argument as set forth in the article is adopted by me, but it does indicate that there may be a difference of opinion on this point. In that particular article on page 17 the hon. member will find this—

I quote that not as a high legal authority compared with the authority of the House of Lords, but as simply indicating to the hon. member that there is a difference of opinion on this point. I think the precedent of America is conclusive to the point; not only has America contended it, but she has successfully contended it and Germany has accepted the position. Assuming for a moment that America is wrong, and that the hon. member is correct in his interpretation, I said the position had been considered and the position had been provided for. Naturally I adhere to that statement. In so far as the hon. gentleman may be right and America be wrong, I want to repeat my assurance that we have definitely retained our right to impose dumping duties, and that Germany was under no misapprehension as to our attitude, and that the only remedy or relief which could be claimed in terms of the treaty, reference to arbitration, does not apply to Article 8.

By what mandate do you maintain that right?

On that I think the hon. gentleman ought to be satisfied, even if his interpretation is right, that the interests of South Africa are adequately safeguarded. If the hon. gentleman is sincere in wanting to avoid debating points, it seems to me this explanation should suffice. He has had it definitely stated on behalf of the Government that our position is safe. The exporter, the importer need not worry, they can sleep soundly at night.

Will you indemnify them?

That is a legal point which appeals to the hon. member, possibly appeals to me, but does not appeal to the Committee. If the hon. member were right in his interpretation, I now give the Committee the assurance that our position is more favourable than the hon. member contends. If he is wrong, the question falls away, but if he is right I have given him the assurance that this has been provided for. It seems to me that is quite sufficient to set at rest the fears he put forward on behalf of exporters and importers here and in Germany. Germany has not complained about the existing dumping duties on cement and asbestos, nor has Germany raised the question of our proposed dumping duty in connection with sugar. Germany is quite able to look after her own interests, and if she did raise the question, I have grave doubts whether she would select the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) to raise it on her behalf. She might do worse, and she might do better. If the hon. member wants to break a lance on behalf of Germany, I cannot prevent him, but, as far as South Africa is concerned—and that is all we are concerned with—I have made it abundantly clear that our rights are protected. That brings us to the second question which the hon. member has just dealt with, the question of whether this is secret diplomacy. The question of secret diplomacy has no application to this question at all. We are dealing here with the possibly doubtful interpretation of one single clause in connection with one single kind of duty, and in respect of that possible doubt I have given the committee the assurance that there is no reason to be alarmed because it has been provided for.

You are carefully evading the whole issue. We want to know how you are providing for it.

It is not in the interests of public policy—

Why not?

I am telling the Committee that the details in connection with Clause 8 are details which we are not prepared to disclose to the Committee, which we cannot disclose on grounds of public policy. I know the hon. member ridicules the idea that there may be matters which cannot be explained to the House.

You are splitting hairs.

Hon. members who have been in the Ministry, who know what it means when the Government claims privilege on grounds of public policy, known that when the Government does claim that—it is a serious thing to do—the Government is prepared to face that responsibility, and in this particular case I want to assure members that while they ought to be satisfied that our interests are adequately safeguarded, and that they need not concern themselves with the interests of Germany, seeing Germany is not complaining, the Government is definitely taking up the attitude that any further details cannot be disclosed.

The Minister began by telling my hon. friend that his premises were all wrong. If they were all wrong, it is entirely due to the atmosphere of mystery and secrecy with which this matter has been surrounded. That atmosphere has not been dispelled but has rather been intensified by the statement the Minister has just made. He began a series of remarkable statements by saying that the German treaty is the only commercial agreement between South Africa and Germany, and he seemed to stress the word “commercial.” I want to ask the Minister quite plainly, was I wrong in thinking that he stressed the word “commercial”?

No treaty of any description.

I am relieved to hear it. The Minister was rather unfortunate in the way he put that matter, and he seemed to me to stress the word “commercial.” We may take it, then, that this is the only treaty of any sort between South Africa and Germany, commercial or otherwise. He then said that no question of modification of the treaty could arise except in regard to section (8), and that even in regard to section (8) there could be no question of modification, except in regard to dumping. He then went on to take up an entirely different line from that which he took up when he discussed this matter on the Budget debate. I have his words here, and I have what he said in my recollection. He said quite definitely then that the interpretation of Section 8 given to it by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) was prima facie correct, and he said— I noted his words—

Am I not entitled, sir, to point out that a statement on the question he is now discussing is at variance with a Statement he made in a previous debate? If I cannot do that the whole of this discussion is worthless.

The rules of the House are very clear on the matter.

On a point of order, sir, that reduces the debates of this Committee to a nullity—if we are not in order in saying that something said by a Minister now contradicts what he said in a previous debate. My hon. friend, I understand, is not referring to the Budget debate, but criticising a statement made by the Minister now, and saying that what he has said now is different from what he then stated.

On the subject of what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has said on this point of order, you will realize, Sir, the continuance of fair discussion in this House would become quite impossible if a Minister makes a statement of great public importance, as this is, and we cannot say how a statement made by him now compares with a statement made by him on a previous occasion—no matter what that previous occasion may be. I do not care where he made the statement—whether on the platform or anywhere else; the point is whether he made it. It is legitimate criticism, I submit, to point out any apparent discrepancies between two statements.

It is quite clear from the rules that there can be no reply in Committee to speeches made in Budget debates. An hon. member can reply only what a Minister has said now.

I am very grateful for your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and I am not going to continue a war begun in the Budget debate. I am merely pointing out that the statement made by the Minister this afternoon and its ground point is inconsistent with the ground point made by him a week ago. I am well aware of the rules, that you cannot use the Committee stage to continue a debate begun on the Budget debate. The statement of the Minister is entirely different from that made by him on a former occasion, when he took up the attitude that Clause 8 means what it says it means, and that on the first reading, and on any reading, it prevents the imposition of dumping duties. The Minister said that this question of dumping duty was considered and provided for my the Minister in charge. That was very plain language, and can mean only one thing; that is, in whatever form it existed there was some reservation and collateral agreement which prevented the imposition of these duties. [Time limit].

When the Minister gave us his last explanation he undoubtedly left, anyhow this side of the House, under the impression that Article 8 does not allow the imposition of dumping duties. That was the very clear impression he gave me, at any rate; other hon. members can speak for themselves. He said that if Article 8 has stood alone this Government would not have been entitled to impose dumping duties. Otherwise, if that was not so, what is the meaning of saying that the point was carefully and meticulously considered in the drawing up of the treaty, and that when the treaty was signed the German Government were under no misapprehension as to the rights of this Government. If Article 8 does allow the imposition of dumping duties, why did not the Minister say so? What was the use of all this laboured explanation; of the understandings, reservations and all that sort of thing? His answer would be that we are entitled to do so under Article 8, and we are going to do so. I wonder what is the meaning of all this extraordinary mystery and shifting of points of view—telling us one thing one day and another thing some other day; and then telling us that although Article 8 does not allow us to impose duties, still we are all right; we have something up our sleeve; it is something good for you; but it is something that closes Germany’s mouth. We are not concerned with Germany’s rights under this treaty; we are concerned with the rights of the public of South Africa; Germany can look after her own interests. What we are concerned with is that when a treaty is laid before this House we are entitled to know that it means what it says, and that there are no other articles or understandings, or anything else, that it is not good policy for us to know.

Might it not be subject to two interpretations; and for that, arbitration is allowed?

There is something we are not told; what then, if Germany disputes this article she cannot go to arbitration. What it is I do not know. There is another matter which I would like to put to the Minister. Under Article 7 of the protocol it is provided that a separate agreement shall be entered into with regard to certain customs matters be tween the two contracting parties. Has that agreement been entered into?

No.

Then there is no secret agreement here, but we want to know what this wonderful hold is that he has got over Germany which prevents Germany from asking that the agreement be carried out according to its provisions. Our political constitutions on this side of the House are quite strong enough to be told what this is, and we want to know.

We have had many speeches from hon. and legal members of this House, but I think the House ought to appreciate that this is not an academic subject to the commercial men who have to work under this treaty. The Minister pointed out that the commercial community need not worry about any article except Article 8. Instead of that statement relieving the anxieties of the commercial community it makes them greater, because the inference is that under Article 8 the commercial community have got to sit up and think. We now know that we shall have to get the advice of legal experts outside the country as well as in it if we are to see our way through. Another point arises with regard to this secret agreement, which we understand is in existence. The commercial community would like to know what Germany got in exchange for this arrangement regarding our power to put on a dumping duty. We understand there has been some correspondence of some kind. Has Germany got any rights which the commercial community might bump up against with regard to any of our exports?

Definitely not.

I do not see why the Minister cannot put on the Table the exact terms of the arrangements with Germany. It would settle the matter once for all, and the commercial community would know where they are. I cannot see what difficulty there can be in the way of disclosing an ordinary commercial agreement, an agreement safeguarding our trade with Germany. According to the Minister the commercial community have not the right to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, regarding this treaty. The gentlemen on the Treasury benches, as far as I can see, are only making the case worse from the point of view of the commercial community. The only thing we have found out this afternoon is that we have got to be very careful if we trade, because clause 8 does not mean what it says it means. The Minister of Finance mentioned that there may be two ways of reading the article. Is it not possible, by means of the two languages we have at our disposal, for the experts in the External Affairs Department to frame a clause in a treaty so that an ordinary human being who reads it can understand it?

That would be too hard on the lawyers.

Surely if you read the article it must be admitted that it is very explicit to a man of ordinary intelligence, and yet the Minister tells us that it does not mean what it says it means, that he has got advice form America that it does not mean what it says, and that Germany will not claim that it does. We are also told that it is not in the public interests for the Government to tell us what the diplomatic people think it does mean. I think the Minister should tell us what is known about this matter by the Government.

I have had the advantage while sitting down of reading carefully through the whole of the Minister’s last statement on the point, and in that statement there is not a word which indicates that the Minister considered that this interpretation of clause 8, which he now has suggested could exist in law. His attitude in his statement on the treaty was that we were quite right in saying that Clause 8 laid it down that a dumping duty cannot be imposed, but that the right of imposition of a dumping duty had been meticulously and carefully reserved. But you cannot have it both ways. When he first gave information to this House in that sparing manner which has become characteristic of him during his short ministerial career, he told us that there was a distinct reservation and understanding. Now he has told us that America thinks under a similar clause in their own trade treaties dumping duties can be imposed. There is another remarkable statement by the Minister that if the meaning of clause 8 became a matter of dispute between Germany and this country, in spite of the terms of article 23 of the treaty, it is not capable of being sent to arbitration. If a dispute in regard to the interpretation of this treaty cannot be solved by diplomatic means with a reasonable time, it should under section 23 be submitted for a decision to a court of arbitration. I can only say in the words of Alice in Wonderland “curiouser and curiouser.” Take the case of a man importing German sugar. He is justified in thinking that clause 8 means that no duty can be put on German sugar which is not put on other sugar imported into this country. That is my interpretation of Article 8.

There is no question of differential duty.

I ask the Minister of Finance a plain question. Is this duty to be put on sugar from Cuba or not?

As soon as conditions obtain with Cuban sugar the same as German sugar it will be my duty to put it on.

Suppose there is nothing to justify the imposition of a dumping duty on Cuban sugar? One day the merchant wakes up to find that something secret exists in the treaty which allows a dumping duty to be put on German sugar and not on Cuban sugar, and in this way the whole of his business arrangements may go to pieces. Is it fair to the House? I ask the Minister of Finance who is one of the fairest minded men I know, does he mean you can put dumping duty on German sugar and not on that from other parts of the world. If that is the sort of thing that the Government does, with its secret reservations or understandings, it is most unfair and almost amounts to sharp practice. It leads the commercial community to believe that a state of affairs exists which is quite otherwise. This is entirely a matter of commerce. I explain again, the commercial community were led into the belief that if they handled German goods, that something could not be done to German goods which could not be done to the goods of any other countries. And now something has been done which is a contravention of the plain terms of Article 8.

We heard in an earlier part of this debate of the two strings to the bow of the Government. Now the Minister of Finance has provided us with a third string. In regard to Article 8, he asks this House solemnly to believe that to impose ten per cent. on German sugar and not on Cuban sugar is not to differentiate between the products of the two countries. There is a conclusive answer to the Minister of Finance. This is a most favoured nation treaty. The object of Germany is to get the most favourable treatment allowed to any other nation. Not only does Article 8 make it clear, but there are other clauses of the treaty which give unquestionably to Germany the right of the most favoured nation treatment. How the Minister can tell us that it is permissible for the Union to impose a dumping duty on German sugar and perhaps in two years’ time on Cuban sugar, I cannot understand. With reference to the statement of the Minister of Mines and Industries, he asked him if to get out of its difficulties the Union Government has asked Germany to waive its right under Article 8. He prefers not to answer that question. It might have been a way out of the difficulty. We shall have, I see, to go without an answer to that question. For the Minister to argue that Germany has not raised the point with reference to the repeal of dumping duties subsisting on 1st September, 1928, does not carry us very much further. He may do so in future. There are in effect dumping duties in England; they are there called safeguarding duties.

They are not the ordinary dumping duties.

If England applied a differential duty on German wheat, for instance, it would be called a safeguarding duty. Those engaged in trade cannot rest satisfied with the mere assurance of the Government as to their rights, for if they go into a court of law on this matter they must produce the authority for their action, and they cannot say that on a certain date a very versatile Minister of Justice gave them a certain assurance, for if they did they would not be listened to. The Minister will leave trade and industry in a very unsettled position on this point. I am not going to deal any further with the dumping duties on sugar, but wish to return to the subject of the State diamond diggings at Alexander Bay. I wish to say a few words about the leakage of diamonds, a matter which falls under the department responsible for the administration of these diggings. The other day I raised the question of the appointment by Government of diamond buyers who purchased diamonds illicitly, and in the Budget debate, I gave the House certain information showing that evidence had been given in a court of law on this point. The Minister, however, dismissed it by saying that it was wholly false, and added that when I got to know a little more about the witness I might have the same opinion of his veracity as the Minister has. I am not at all satisfied with the Minister’s reply, in the course of which he said the Government had felt it necessary to test the position of illicit diamond sale. There is no analogy between this case and that of the trapping system, and the suggestion of the Minister that the reference to what had occurred was an attack on the trapping system was beside the point. When an individual is trapped, someone appointed by the Government will go to him and sell him specified diamonds, or buy diamonds from him and the whole transaction will be very clearly regulated. But that is not what Government did in the case I have mentioned. In this instance Government appointed four diamond buyers, and gave them permission to go to Namaqualand to buy diamonds.

That is not correct.

That is the information I have received from a resident of Namaqualand, who offered to give me the names of the four individuals concerned; they received carte blanch to go into that illegal market and buy diamonds.

Can’t you give us the names?

The names are not material.

You might assist us to prosecute them.

I am perfectly certain that the Minister will not prosecute them. They bought diamonds in unlimited quantities, and in at least one case Government provided funds for the purpose, allowing the individual concerned to make a profit of £15,000 in return for his services. For all one knows, the four persons might have amassed fortunes by reason of this wonderful dispensation by the Government. What was the value of the diamonds purchased by the four persons? What became of the stones, and who provided the funds for their purchase? If the stones were resold at a profit, who received that profit? To commission four persons to make a fortune in this way is entirely irregular.

It would be illegal if it took place, but it did not take place.

I have the authority in the form of this sworn evidence of one of the persons concerned. If his sworn statement is untrue, has the Minister procured the witness for his defence in making untrue statements? [Time limit.]

Of course, I accept without any reservation the sincerity of hon. members who dealt with the German trade treaty, but at the same time, it is difficult to eliminate the idea that some hon. members opposite are sorry that we did not blunder in connection with the treaty. It would have been some satisfaction to hon. members opposite to have been able to say, “There you are, with this amateur diplomacy, against which we always warned you.” One or two new points have been raised during the debate. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said I left him under the impression that I did not dispute the contention of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). I did not think it necessary to emphasize in detail what the Government’s attitude was, because I want to give the full and complete assurance that whichever way you interpret that article, South Africa’s position is safeguarded. I hoped that the hon. member would be satisfied that our position was so safe. In regard to the statement of the hon. member for New-lands (Mr. Stuttaford) that the commercial community is bewildered, I am afraid that that is a very rash statement. I do not know of a single instance of a man who has been confused on the point, except the hon. member who has been confused for the purpose of this debate. After the explanation given by the Minister of Finance, everybody knows what our dumping policy is. Even the gentleman who professes to be bewildered by reading Article 8 knows what our policy is.

He did not know you have this reservation.

Apart from this reservation. As far as Cuban sugar is concerned, if it is landed in South Africa under circumstances where our dumping policy would apply, our dumping policy will be applied. If it is landed under circumstances which do not call for that measure, obviously it is excluded. It is not a question of differentiation. It is a question of an entirely different class of duty. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) raised the question of the unfortunate man who is landed in the law courts and has to provide some proof that his contention is correct. Will the hon. member construct for me any case in which this could possibly happen? How can anybody go to law in connection with Article 8 and be called upon to show an interpretation of Article 8? How can that arise? We are dealing with a treaty between two States in respect of which one remedy, and one only, is provided, that is the remedy of arbitration, and I have already given the hon. member the assurance that that remedy is not applicable to this particular clause. If the hon. member thinks there is anything in his point, let him construct for me a case in which this can happen instead of just making the statement. The hon. member came back to the question of our policy in regard to “testing” in Namaqualand. I have no intention of replying to something which was disposed of under the Justice vote. I have told him it was the Department of Justice which instituted the test in question. I just want to repeat this, so as to prevent any misapprehension being spread outside the House. The Department of Justice did not appoint four buyers to buy diamonds, and did not supply any money to those buyers. If the hon. member will give me the names of those buyers I will see if a prosecution can be instituted against persons who bought diamonds under those circumstances.

I would like to ask the Minister to give consideration to making an addition to the recently appointed phthisis commission. When we consider there are between 6,000 and 7,000 miners’ phthisis beneficiaries in the country, men who have received compensation, it will be seen that they have a claim to be represented. There is an association of these men and they had a meeting on the 14th June, when they passed a resolution asking that this should be done. A representative on the commission of the people who know from first-hand experience what the difficulties are, would be a valuable addition. I hope the Minister will consider that, and will be able to do it. There will be little expense attached to it, because the commission is able to sit all the time on the reef, and it will give satisfaction to the people already suffering from miners’ phthisis and they will feel that every opportunity is being given to them to see that their point of view is not only fully represented to the commission, but is also fully considered by the commission when they are making their reports. I would also like the Minister to consider if he could extend the terms of reference to the extent of again going into the question of the conditions under which the miners are working, not only the daily paid men, but also those who work under contract. The same difficulties that existed when the de Villiers award was published exist to-day. The dissatisfaction amongst the underground men on the Reef is as strong, if not stronger, to-day. They feel their position very much. They believe they have a good case. They believe they can put forward to the commission good reasons why they should have better conditions. These men do expect from this Parliament more consideration than they have ever had before, and I can assure the Minister this would be a great step in the direction of showing them that we want to do something for them.

We feel that the policy of the previous Minister for Mines and Industries was quite clearly to try and get rid of the diggings. We do not quarrel about that policy, and many persons err who think that the diggers live on the diggings on the Western Transvaal for their pleasure. No, they live there because they have no other means of existence. Notwithstanding the fact that we give our approval to the policy of the Government we feel that the Minister’s attention must be called to certain things so that he can try to relieve those people. We quite agree with the principle of the Diamond Act but we find since it came into operation certain sections press so heavily on the diggers that we must ask the Minister for relief. In the first place we find that under the lottery system when land is drawn for by the people by lots, any person in the large area of the Western Transvaal who wants to take part in the lottery must go personally to the place where the claims are being allotted and that he must personally hand in his application. Instances have occurred of a person travelling 100 or 200 miles to make an application and there is still the chance of his not getting a claim in the lottery. The position is that there are many small diggers on the fields, who have not the money to go there and take part in the lottery, seeing there is a chance of their possibly drawing nothing. The result is that they have no opportunity of sharing in a lottery. What I want to ask the Minister is that the digger should have the right to apply to his local mining official so that they need not go all those miles. It may be said that it now has to be done in the way provided to prevent speculators sharing in the lottery. I cannot see, inasmuch as the law provides that only diggers may take part in a lottery, what difference there is whether the individual makes his application locally, or whether he makes it some distance off. I want to point out to the Minister that the diggers in the Western Transvaal are having a hard time and I want to ask him seriously if he cannot grant this relief. Then we find under the new conditions of prospecting that it is only allowed to sink prospecting holes of 7ft. by 7ft. I have been informed that the Department under certain circumstances allows 5ft. more. It seems to me that in view of this, that in parts where the diamondiferous ground is shallow, it is not necessary to grant more than 7ft. The diggers’ experience is that even in shallow gravel more than 7ft. by 7ft. is necessary. The shallow gravel is poorer than the deep and when it is poor 7ft. by 7ft. is not enough to make a discovery. Of course I do not want such large prospecting holes to be permitted so as to have the old position, that entire farms are completely prospected, but we should like a prospecting hole to be 14ft. by 14ft. Then there is another matter. When the diamond fields in Lichtenburg were so large there was a danger that the diamond market would he spoilt and we quite agreed with the former Minister of Mines and Industries to apply further restrictions on the further proclamation of ground. To-day however the position is so changed that the diggings in the Western Transvaal produce less than what used to be normal. As there is so much poverty on the diggings, more than ever before, and as the danger of spoiling the diamond market is practically non-existent I want to ask the Minister to consider the possibility of proclaiming more ground. The diggers in Lichtenburg have hardly any ground left to work but yet there are quite a few farms in the Western Transvaal which can be proclaimed. I do not see why the Minister should not proceed to stop the restrictions of proclamations seeing that the diggings can no longer produce enough to make it a danger in the future. I therefore appeal to the Minister to proclaim more ground.

I would like to ask the Minister what the policy of the Government will be with regard to the extension of the life of the mines on the Rand. I am particularly glad to have the opportunity of speaking while the present Minister is in a position to deal with these matters. I hope he will consult his able brother the mining engineer on this very important matter. It is commonly accepted as a fact that there are millions of tons of ore in our working mines just below the margin of playability. Monthly reports show so many feet of unpayable ore and so many of payable. The unpayable ore is not barren, but does not contain sufficient gold content to be worked at a profit. I want the Government to appoint a commission of mine managers and other mining engineers to investigate and report as to whether these large bodies of ore exist, what is their average gold content, what would be the most economical way of handling these ores, and what would be the approximate loss. No time should be lost because once a mine is closed it will never be reopened. Many great gold producing mines like the Robinson Ferreira Deep are already closed down and being dismantled. If these low grade ores can be worked they can only be worked at the least cost by the existing mines. I know the financial pundits will squirm, but I believe that if it cost the State £100 to produce £80 gold, it still would be justifiable expenditure, and good business. The State has been carrying out this principle in other commodities and in local produce for years. For instance we can import sugar cheaper than we can produce it. The theorists say that it is uneconomical. If this is so, then every sugar producing country in the world is governed on uneconomic principles. One need not pick out sugar. Almost everything we eat, drink or wear can be imported cheaper than it can be produced locally. Theoretically it is uneconomic to spend £100 to get a return of £80, but I believe it could be demonstrated that even in actual cash the State will lose little or nothing at all. The fact remains that wealth is being rescued which would otherwise lie dormant, and the wealth of the State increased enormously. But in my opinion the other benefits arising out of the overbearing of these low grade ores completely outweigh the financial considerations and possible financial loss. It would afford employment for a large number of men who are now working on the roads or other blind alley occupations. It would offer to our sons more opportunities to become skilled miners. I don’t mean white overseers, I mean properly skilled miners. The demand for skilled miners is bound to increase. A skilled miner need not work all his life on the Rand. He could get employment freely on base metal mines with not so much danger to health. If these millions of tons do exist. If they can be worked. Even at a considerable financial loss, then it opens up a vista of prosperity hitherto undreamt of.

I wish to refer once more to the German treaty. The Minister has taken up the position that Article 8 means “articles produced or manufactured and not sold at a lower price in the country of importation than the country of exportation.” The Minister practically says that these latter words should be understood to be in the clause. I think that reading of the clause is impossible as the Minister imports another condition in the clause. The dumping duty simply deals with the selling price of goods. No dumping duty is ever put on except when the price of goods is lower in the country of importation than in the country of exportation, and there is nothing in the original clause of the treaty qualifying the right of Germany to export goods to us on the most favoured nation conditions except that the goods are produced or manufactured in Germany.

That is not the only dumping duty that is put on. I don’t see the point of the hon. member’s argument. I want to remind him that our legislation recognises several kinds of dumping duties. There is the ordinary dumping duty where there is a difference between the sale price in the country of manufacture and the sale price of the country into which it is imported, and there is the exchange dumping. The words of the treaty to which the hon. member has referred merely details the various classes of goods to which duties are applicable. We and America have always considered that we do not differentiate if we apply the dumping duty to all countries to which the conditions obtain. In the case of sugar, so far as the Board of Trade has advised us, Czecho-Slovakia and Germany sell sugar at a very much higher price in their own countries than they sell it out here. Cuba used to be a very serious competitor of South Africa. If a report is made by the Board of Trade and Industries disclosing that certain methods of trade are being observed, it is my duty, when there is damage or injury to a local industry, to impose such a duty. We know that it has been the policy of countries in which there is over-production of a commodity to try to get rid of it at any price in other markets. Cuba sells most of her sugar to America, but we know that she would like to get rid of some of it in this market. We might have to take action with regard to Cuba too. When we impose dumping duties we do not discriminate against a country, because we apply those provisions against any country where those conditions obtain.

I want to ask the Minister whether anything has been done with regard to the coal ring operating in the Transvaal. I raised this question during the Budget debate two years ago and in the recess following I received a letter from the Board of Trade and Industries in which they informed me that the Minister had no power, under present legislation, to deal with rings or combines, but the letter further conveyed to me the impression that the matter would not be lost sight of. In recent years the Coal Owners’ Association has succeeded in bringing in most of the large producing collieries in the Transvaal and as a result there has been an arbitrary increase in the price of household coal from 20s. to 25s. per ton. This bears very hard on the poorer classes of the community. Further, there are only certain agencies through which coal can be obtained, that is to say, the Coal Owners’ Association will not supply coal direct to a trader, nor will any colliery that is a member of the association supply direct but only through these favoured agents. I have here correspondence that passed between a trader and the Coal Owners’ Association. This trader wanted to add coal to the other commodities in which he dealt. He wrote to the association requesting to be supplied direct from the pit and to show his boni fides enclosed his cheque in advance. His cheque was returned together with a list of distributors from whom he could get his supplies of coal. This would have meant paying an enhanced price, making it unprofitable for him to trade in coal. Another trader in my district must confine his trade to the native location, should he sell one bag of coal outside the location his supplies would be immediately stopped. The Minister will agree that this power should not be in the hands of any trust or combine. Local authorities are no exception to the rule so far as the ring is concerned. One town council on the Rand called for tenders from various coal companies for the supply of coal for the year. In each case the council was referred to the Coal Owners’ Association. When the association was asked to tender they in turn referred the town council to the local distributors, the upshot being that in the end the council had to accept a tender at a price greater than that of any previous year. There is no doubt about it this coal combine is operating in restraint of trade and to the detriment of the community, and I submit that some steps should be taken to curb its power.

I am as jealous as any other member of this House for the honour of any treaty made. But I am more concerned with the position of the commercial community in this country. The Minister has asked us to formulate any particular case where an injustice could be done. We have got down to bed-rock in regard to the Minister’s position. It is this—"We consider that Clause 8 does not exclude the imposition of a dumping duty. Even if it does I tell the House that an understanding or reservation was in fact arrived at which will allow us without a breach of faith to put a dumping duty.” On the 17th September last, this country entered into a trade treaty with Portugal with regard to Mozambique, and in that treaty says—

Then it says—

Why was this done?—

In order to be extra careful.

I can tell the Minister that in his desire to be careful he has entirely misled the commercial community of South Africa. Any lawyer reading the two treaties and seeing that in the one there is an express reservation of the power, and in the other no reservation, anyone not possessing occult knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes would be justified in assuming that dumping duties could not be imposed after this treaty had been entered into with Germany. In your Mozambique treaty it says dumping duties are not to be included, but in the German treaty not a word is said about the right to impose a dumping duty. Is it fair to the commercial world in this country to come forward and say there was a reservation which allowed us to do it, or to leave people to argue before a judge that what the treaty says it means, it does not mean at all. You can see how Germany regards this matter. They have scouted the idea that there was any such reservation as the hon. the Minister has spoken about. We are told that the machinery for arbitration cannot be invoked in this case. The commercial community have been misled. Take the case of a man importing German sugar. He is led to believe that no dumping duty can be put on German sugar which is not put on the sugar from Cuba or Mauritius, but we are now told that a dumping duty is to be put on German sugar. Is not a higher duty then and thereby levied on German sugar than on the sugar of Cuba? Are not the plain words of this treaty then infringed? “It is a mad world, my masters.” I deny that there was any hint given to the commercial community that there was any such interpretation of Clause 8. I repeat that the whole story is one of blunder and mismanagement.

When this vote was under consideration last year I drew attention to the desirability of appointing trade commissioners in Northern Rhodesia and the Belgian Congo. The Minister then in charge of this department was very sympathetic, but absolutely nothing has been done in the matter, there still being only on the Estimates a trade commissioner in Kenya. Developments in Northern Rhodesia and the Congo warrant us having trade commissioners there. I am not speaking about ministers plenipotentiary or envoys extraordinary. Recently the Prime Minister referred to these territories as having a population of 13,000,000 natives and 13,000 Europeans. I have had occasion to visit the Belgian Congo and Northern Rhodesia, and found that where a little while ago there were only hundreds of white men, there are now thousands. These two territories are expanding most rapidly, and within the next year or two there will be a big increase in their population. We have, in Northern Rhodesia, copper field which, in time, may surpass the Rand in population. Instead of trying to put a ring fence around the Union we should do something to increase our trade with these rich northern territories. I hope the Minister, therefore, will consider the appointment of trade commissioners in Northern Rhodesia and the Belgian Congo, as well as in West Africa. The extension of trade to the latter country is receiving the attention of the commercial community both here and in England, but a newspaper stated that the Union Government was not sympathetically inclined. Nevertheless I hope the matter will receive the careful consideration of the Minister, for we have a great market for our industries in the north, and I hope we shall take advantage of it.

The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) suggested the appointment of a representative of phthisis men on the Phthisis Commission. I am prepared to go into the matter, but one has to consider whether the association to which the hon. member referred does represent the majority of the phthisis men, and whether it is advisable that from amongst these beneficiaries a member should be appointed to the commission. It is possible that these men might not be of very great assistance to the commission, for they might possibly put their case so strongly that they might weaken the result of the commission. However, I am prepared to consider the position, and I shall be glad if the hon. member will give me an opportunity of going into further details. The hon. member raised a second point, in respect of which I am afraid I cannot meet him. He asked me to extend the terms of reference so as to cover underground working, but I fear that cannot be done, for I do not think that such an enquiry should be coupled with one into the working the Phthisis Act. I fear that by widening the scope of the enquiry in the way he has suggested we might defeat the object we have in view. I do not think it would add to the interests of the phthisis patients themselves if there were added to the terms of reference a general inquiry into pay and conditions underground as referred to in the de Villiers award. I am afraid it would be impossible to extend the terms of reference, as desired by the hon. member.

*The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Moll) mentioned the question of lotteries on the diggings. That matter, as well as the question of larger prospecting areas and the throwing open of additional ground for diggings is at present receiving the Government’s attention. We have had repeated complaints about lotteries, and we are considering a slight alteration in the system. Whether we shall go so far as to allow applications being sent by post I want to express no opinion. As for the hon. member’s second point I just want to point out the Mining Commissioners now have the discretion of making more ground available in suitable cases, and that the discretion is already being used for the benefit of the diggers. Regarding additional ground for diggings I may say we have various farms which are being enquired into. It is possible that the wishes of the diggers may be met in the near future.

† The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Rockey) raised a very important question of low grade mines, a subject upon which the Chamber of Mines has already made certain representations which are now being considered. It would seem to resolve itself very largely into a question of native labour. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, however, would hardly agree that our dumping of sugar could be compared with the unpayable working of low grade ore, but in the main there is a great deal in what the hon. member says, and when my successor takes office he will give the matter every consideration. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) there is no general law in the Union, as there is in the Cape Province, against trust monopolies or rings, and legislation would be required to deal with the Association of Coal Owners. Apart from that the hon. gentleman would have to produce for the Board of Trade specific instances, not merely that this control has operated, but that it has definitely operated to the prejudice of the public. From the way he spoke, however, I am quite convinced that he believes that he has a case, and if any such instances were brought to the notice of the Board of Trade it is obvious that steps would have to be taken in the matter. The Board of Trade issued a report in 1926, No. 73, in which the whole position was set out as they saw it at that stage. If the hon. member can add anything to the information before the board at that stage I am sure they will work on such information, and if a strong case is made out indicating or proving that prices are being unduly driven up, and that the public is suffering, no doubt the Government will have to consider the question of interference by means of legislation. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg dealt with trade commissioners in Rhodesia and the Congo, and he also mentioned West Africa and Tanganyika. The Government is fully aware of the possibilities of trade relations with Rhodesia and with the Congo, and I think I can make this statement now that sooner or later, one hopes sooner, the Government will have to face the position of the appointment of trade commissioners in those territories. As regards West Africa and Tanganyika I am afraid that is looking rather far ahead, and at this stage I can give the hon. gentleman no hope that any such trade commissioners will be appointed. Kenya, of course, covers Tanganyika, but I understand the hon. member wants a separate commissioner for Tanganyika and a separate one for West Africa, and that I am afraid cannot be done at the present time.

I was particularly pleased to hear from the Minister that an enquiry will be made by his successor into the question of low grade ore. That is of supreme importance to the Witwatersrand and to the country, and I hope it will have successful results. I would draw the attention of the Minister to the item “fuel research institute, £30,000.” I presume that will stand over until the House has had an opportunity of considering the Bill. The money will not be spent in the meantime?

The money will not be spent.

Then on page 134 there is an item for state alluvial diggings, and I would like to draw attention to the large sum proposed to be spent for management on these diggings. There is not only to be a manager at £3,500, but also a technical manager at £2,065 and assistant technical manager at £1,753. It seems to me the appointment of a manager is entirely superfluous in this instance. In an enterprise of this nature it is usual to appoint a technical man. An interjector from the Government side referred to the general manager of De Beers. The cases are not parallel in the least. The general manager of De Beers occupies a position which requires technical qualifications of the very highest order, and to compare him with the manager of alluvial diggings is absurd. The running of an alluvial diggings is a very simple affair compared with the complicated operations at such a place as De Beers, and therefore the comparison of the one with the other is entirely absurd. The superfluity of this managership is further affirmed by the fact that there are going to be a technical manager and an assistant technical manager. A technical manager is all that is necessary, especially when he has an assistant, and I therefore suggest to the Minister that it would be well to delete this item from the estimates and save the country an expenditure of £3,500.

In connection with the Commission which the Government intends appointing on miner’s phthisis I just wish to bring a few facts to the notice of the Minister and I shall be glad if he will bear in mind, when constituting the Commission, that there are to-day about 7,000 men working under ground, who come under the Miners’ Phthisis Act. As for the granting of compensation for disease I want to point out that the men can only get compensation if they contract the disease. In the case of mines the man must first contract miners’ phthisis before he can get compensation. In this connection we must remember that the man who gets miners’ phthisis dies of it.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he cannot advocate fresh legislation.

I am only talking about the Commission of enquiry and the result of the Miners’ Phthisis Act. I want to draw attention to the fact that the Commission must also investigate the point so that it can report on it. Every year about 800 to 900 men die because they have contracted silicosis, and as a result have been discharged. The figures we have, show that the normal life of the miner is on the average nine years and four months. Because they go into the mines they must be healthy, and they are specially examined but they can get no compensation, unless they contract the disease. This may be fair in other industries, but in the case of mining we have to do with a special state of affairs. Approximately 35,000 people, family connections of the silicotics usually go under in the existing circumstances and I hope that the Minister will in the terms of reference to the Commission include an enquiry into this matter. So long as we continue following the inherited policy that only those who have already contracted the disease get compensation thousands of men will be sacrificed every year.

We are indebted to the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) for drawing the attention of the committee to this new department, State Alluvial Diggings which is being created under this vote. For the new posts, a salary of £1,600 is fixed with other allowances of £1,900, an enormous figure for which we have had no explanation whatever. A technical manager gets £1,000 salary and £900 allowances. The Minister ought to give the Committee the fullest explanation of the necessity for these posts and why there should be these enormous figures appearing on the Estimates. We have also on page 133, 0 2, miners’ training schools, for which the amount last year was fixed at £7,250, and this year £16,650. We should be indebted to the Minister if he would explain that. Then again, under 08, contribution towards expenses of the mining and metallurgical congress, amounts to £4,500 whereas last year it was £500.

I think it is convenient to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Springs (Sir Robert Kotzé) and the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) at this stage, before other subjects are brought up. One has to admit that the salaries fixed in respect of Namaqualand are large; one might call them very large, but I am afraid hon. members do not quite realise the operations to which we can look forward. The State diggings at Alexander Bay are computed to have a life of ten years, and we have already gathered £7,000,000 sterling. We hope to recover at least £1,000,000 per annum from Alexander Bay alone, but in addition to that, there are other areas available for extension. The State diggings could be kept going for 30 to 40 years On a payable basis. Hon. members will see that they should be so equipped and have such a personnel that they could have one coherent policy for the whole of this area and period. We have not settled the policy in detail. We shall carry on as we have done during the last 18 months; and in future hand-picking will obtain only during the initial stages; afterwards washing and other means will be resorted to, and the £10,000 is for the purpose of erecting power plant which will be used in connection with the washing operations. Alexander Bay is not a very attractive place, to put it shortly, and the Government has come to the conclusion that really good men cannot be obtained for a smaller sum. I can tell the hon. member for Von Brandis that the salary is fixed at a certain figure, and while keeping the salary at this figure it is possible to decrease the allowances. As regards the training schools, hon. members will remember this has been brought up frequently and the Government is bound by contract to pay a certain amount in connection with these schools. The average cost per head of apprentices is £9 5s. The total for 1929-’30 is £66,000 estimated of which the Government, under the present agreement, is liable to pay one-quarter. The balance falls on the mines. The schools have been considerably extended, and the number of apprentices is 600, maintained and taught. The Government is also liable for two-thirds of the capital cost of the schools, payable out of the Vote of the Public Works Department, so the increase In this amount is simply due to the fact that the number of apprentices has increased very considerably. As to the contribution towards the expenses of the mining and metallurgical congress, these expenses were authorised in 1927. The Government approved of the congress being asked to sit in South Africa, which for obvious reasons is of great advantage to the country, and the Government undertook to pay one-half of the expenditure incurred in that connection, that half not to exceed £5,000. The hon. member will see that last year £500 was provided, and an additional £4,500 is now being applied for.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the precarious position of some of our struggling industries. From both sides of the House we have heard of sympathetic encouragement of our manufacturing industries. It is an admitted fact that the fertility of our soil will not bear favourable comparison with other lands the products of which we meet in competition in the world’s markets; it therefore behoves us to pay special attention to our manufacturing industries. As most hon. members are aware, the majority of our industries owe their origin to the great war, the enhanced prices prevailing during that period enabling them to become established. Now that we are coming back to normal conditions and pre-war prices, our industrialists have to meet in competition the output of factories where mass production is the order of the day. They are therefore forced to look to Parliament for encouragement and assistance. Another very important factor in connection with our struggling industries is dumping. We have heard a lot about dumping this afternoon, and I wish to draw attention to the fact that some of our manufacturers are suffering from the effects of dumping to-day. I can speak with some experience of this, because I have been through the mill. The Government has adopted the principle of a suspended duty as an encouragement to new industries. There is an old saying that while the grass is growing the horse is starving. That suspended duty is frequently not available until the industry is able to show a considerable output, I think some form of encouragement should be extended to new industries by way of bounty or subsidy providing such enterprise gives promise of employing a fair percentage of Europeans, and which use as raw materials the natural products of the soil. Take the case of binder twine. The existence of that industry is threatened by an American corporation which works on mass production principles. There is a suspended duty for binder twine, but it has not been imposed. I hope that the Minister will see his way to go into this question, and see if the time has not arrived for the suspended duty on binder twine to be put into force. The retail price of binder twine is lower than it was before the local factory came into existence. If the local factory were allowed to be driven out of existence, there is every probability that the farmer would find that he would have to pay more for this article. South Africa has made very considerable progress in industrial expansion during the last ten or twelve years. But ten or twelve years is a comparatively small span in the life of an industry. Many of them can be regarded as still in the nursery, and they cannot yet dispense with the services of the nurse. I would also like to make a reference to hominy chop. It is, as you are aware, a maize product, and is primarily used as cattle feed, but unfortunately the practice has recently come into force of mixing ground mealie cob with the chop. It is allowable, I understand, to mix 5 per cent. of this mixture with hominy chop, but I am informed that as much as 50 per cent. has been added. I am also informed that a trade has sprung up in mealie cobs for this purpose, and that as much as £1 a ton has been paid for mealie cobs. Ground mealie cobs possess as much nutriment as sawdust, and to add it to the chop is adulteration of a grave kind. Information has been obtained quite recently that German buyers have refused to pay for a large quantity of hominy chop exported from the Union. I have an extract from a letter written by one of the largest distributors in the United Kingdom, stating that the hominy chop referred to did not merit the description in any way. I have gone carefully into the export figures in connection with hominy chop over a period of seven years. In 1922 the value of our export was £20,849, but in later years this increased enormously. The average from 1922-27 inclusive was £47,538. In 1927 this increased to £336,676, and in 1928 to £1,401,596.

I want to tell the hon. member that this very important question in connection with hominy chop was raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) by way of question, and was replied to on the 9th of this month. The hon. member will find all the information in the reply to the questions put.

I hope that before the Minister takes any action with regard to binder twine and hominy chop, he will take into consideration seriously the effect it may have on the farming interest. Binder twine is a necessity to the farming industry, and although it may figure as a small item, every little tells. All the burden of protective duties falls particularly heavily upon the farmer, and the effect it will have on the not too exuberantly prosperous farmer should be considered. There is one other matter to which I would like to refer, and that is in connection with miners’ phthisis. The proposal of the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Christie) is that there should be a representative of the sufferers from phthisis on the commission. I would like to support that suggestion very strongly. I have been in touch with a very large number of sufferers from miners’ phthisis, and the burden of the cry of a great many of them is that although the money which has been voted to relieve them may have been sufficient, yet the method of using it has been very faulty, and the money which has been spent has been largely spent in vain. They have a great many suggestions to make, and I do think that the representation directly of somebody who had gone through the mill in this respect would have been a source of strength instead of weakness to the commission. I suggest to the Minister that it would be possible to obtain a very satisfactory member for this commission who was actually a phthisis sufferer, and who was in touch with others, who would make a valuable contribution to the question.

With further reference to hominy chop in 1928 £1,401,000 was exported, a fourfold increase over 1927. The export has fallen off considerably January to April of this year (the latest figures available). I am rather surprised at the remarks of my hon. friend on my right because this outlet for our maize is an encouragement to farmers. It is far better to export our crops in manufactured form such as hominy chop rather than send it away in a raw state. It is surely a trade which deserves encouragement. I do not wish to score any political point over the Government, but I contend that they have been lax in not providing some safeguard for the honest miller. With reference to the reply the hon. the Minister gave to the hon. the member for East London North on this subject a few days ago I maintain that the hon. the Minister has entirely failed to grasps the full significance of the position which has arisen. I would like to have his assurance that some drastic step will be taken to assure the purchasers of this commodity overseas that the export from this country will be reliable in future. We have also seen some disconcerting reports in the press recently re the adulteration of hides. This is another instances where our export trade is jeopardized and where the innocent suffer for the guilty. Regulations should be formulated compelling shippers to furnish a solemn declaration defining the exact amount of adulteration when foreign matter is added to the mixture. I have no desire to put this forward as carping criticism, but to expose a crying evil that calls for redress. I am advised that German and United Kingdom importers have recently formed an association to protect themselves against fraudulent adulteration. I feel it is necessary to adopt drastic measures to enable honest shippers to regain the trade which they have spent years in acquiring.

In regard to the diamond cutting agreement, I note in that agreement that £7,500 had to be paid to Rosenstrauch and Korbf within the first six months. I would like to ask if they earned that amount, because seemingly £7,500 was not paid out last year. The provision this year is for £15,000 for the whole year. I want to know if all the clauses of the agreement have been carried out.

I can assure the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Williamson) that what he has put forward the Board of Trade is at present concerned with, as to the exact means of relief to be debated. The Board of Trade is considering this matter and it is hoped a way out of the difficulty will be found. In reply to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) as regard the diamond agreement, the terms have been carried out.

There is a great want of system with regard to the assizing of scales which is creating a considerable amount of dissatisfaction among traders. The assizers travel along the main roads to certain centres. They actually pass a trader’s door, and when they are asked to come inside and assize scales, they will not do so, but insist on the scales being brought to the centre decided on. I know cases for assizing where application has been made for heavy scales which were too cumbersome for removal to be tested at a trader’s store. The assizer went out, applicant paying all expenses and he was also shown a small scale, but he would not assize that, as he said it was contrary to regulations, and he forced the trader to bring the small scales into the town, a matter of 20 miles, for testing. One can hardly believe such things unless one has seen them.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 26, “Union Education,” ££868,953,

I understand the Minister of Education has taken over the whole of the responsibility for the salaries of the teachers of the Worcester Blind School, but I should like to know what provision he proposes to make in regard to pension privileges and other rights of these officers who are giving the benefit of their skilled and specialised training in this particular school. Will the Minister also tell us whether he proposes to extend the same consideration to the Athlone Blind School, for the staffing of which one was forced to appeal to the sympathetic instincts of certain teaching staffs who were holding more or less responsible positions under the provincial administration. One appealed with very great effect to certain members of the profession and certain teachers have been appointed there, but under very much worse conditions than those they enjoyed under the provincial administration. The fact that their salaries were not reduced was only a small factor in the general conditions, for on the one hand a teacher in an ordinary provincial school works from 9 a.m. to 3.30 p.m., on the other hand the teachers at blind schools are on duty practically the whole of the 24 hours. Not only do these teachers fill a more onerous post, but they forfeit the whole of their pension privileges, to which they may have contributed for many years. Does the Minister propose to afford facilities to the teachers at the Worcester Blind Institute so that all their services to specialised instruction count for pension purposes? I would like the Minister to extend the same sympathetic consideration to the teaching staff of the Athlone Blind School.

Under the Act of Parliament passed last year there are three kinds of schools. The first are the Government schools out and out, and their teachers are public servants, their pension rights being regulated by the ordinary pension legislation which is administered by the Department of Finance. The teachers’ salaries are paid subject to the approval of the treasury by the public service commission. There is another class of school within which falls the Worcester blind institute. There the Government, as such, has nothing to do with the control of the hostels in connection with the institution. That is under a particular Church. The church appoints under its own conditions those who serve in these hostels, but education which is of a special nature falls to the responsibility of the Union Government, and there we appoint the teachers and salary the teachers and those teachers are considered as those serving in Government schools according to the pension rights of civil servants. Then there is another class of schools, and under this category falls the Athlone school. It is not a Government institution at all—it is a Government-aided institution, and with the conditions of service of those serving at that institution, the Government has nothing to do. That is a matter for the governing bodies. The Government assistance in such a case is limited to a subsidy to the institution as such.

When on another occasion I mentioned a matter of the care of crippled children, the Minister replied that it was philanthropic work and came under the Provincial Councils. I just want to point out to the Minister that I am not advocating an Institution where those unfortunate people are merely well looked after, but I am advocating an educational institution for unfortunate children of that kind. As I have already said there is a private institution close to Cape Town. That work is carried on similarly to the Blind Institution at Worcester. For years the work there was done by private individuals; then the Government gave a grant. This was another such case. The people are trying here to teach the crippled children something. Why cannot the Government then do something in this case as well? It may turn out to be necessary for the Government to extend; but there certainly is a great need of such an institution. If no separate institution is established by the Government it can assist existing institutions. I had a few cases that I brought to the notice of the Union Education Department and the reply came that they had no room for such children. The children can learn to do sitting work such as tailoring and shoemaking. They can be trained as typists, telegraphists and similar work. I can remember one of the best postmasters in the old Transvaal time, was a cripple, namely, the late Mr. Broer of Heidelberg. It may possibly be said that we can allow the crippled children to go to school like other children but this is a case where the school should be brought to the child. The children cannot go to school like other children; they want a boarding school. They may have something wrong with their arms or their legs while their heads and upper bodies are quite fit. I want to ask the Minister again not to consider the work as philanthropic. There are a few hundred of these unfortunates in our country and we can imagine what they must feel. They are despised in society and they would like to be in a place together where more attention is paid to them. We are no worse off in our country than in any other country. There are not more such cripples here. In all other countries those children are looked after, and we also should do something for them. Provision is made for mental defectives, for weak-minded, and for the blind, but we do not look after those who are physically abnormal, whereas if we had an institution where those children could get medical aid, a great deal more relief could be given them. I know a case where such a child made an application for a telephonist’s job, but when it becomes know that he or she is a cripple, he or she is pushed on one side and neglected. I do not think the Minister should treat the matter as merely philanthropic but this is a small corner to which the Government has not yet given attention and where much can be done by medical aid for people who are physically defective. I hope the Minister will give his earnest attention to the matter.

I would like to have some information from the Minister about vocational training, especially agricultural education. It is quite five years since the Union Government took over agricultural education from the Provincial Administrations, and very little progress has yet been made. We take it that there are sound reasons why the Provincial Administrations could not supply the need of the farming population in connection with agricultural education, but even up to the present very little progress has been made, and the Estimates only provide £35,000 for departmental, agricultural and training schools. I think that the Government do not realise the actual need there is on the countryside for agricultural education. We spend hundreds of thousands of pounds every year to take people back to the land, people who would have been on the farms to-day, if in their youth they had received proper education that equipped them scientifically. What are we doing to-day to see that the boy on the countryside who has to remain there gets the kind of education necessary to prepare him for his future life? There is a rush to the towns to-day, and I do not think we shall stop it, but I want us to make provision for the boy who has to make his living on the countryside. The Provincial Administration spends £7,000,000, most of which is provided by the Union Government. How much of that does the child or the countryside get? Our primary schools are intended to feed our secondary schools, and the latter in return are intended to feed universities. Our whole education system is therefore arranged to suit the professional man. Practically no provision is made for the farm boys who will subsequently take up agriculture, and we want the Government to work out a system which will help the countryside. Parents on the farms for the most part remove their children from school when they have passed Standard VI. Why? Because there are no educational institutions where they can receive training which will prepare them for their life on the countryside. Even parents who send their children to the town schools to pass the matriculation find that they are following a course not suitable to their future life. How many of the children do not get accustomed to the town life and who cannot fit in with farm life again? We find that rich farmers can assist their sons in farming, but most sons have to struggle after they come from the towns—and this after they have been absent from the farms for the best four years of their life. I beg of the Government to introduce a system so that we Can know exactly what is going to be done to push agricultural education on the countryside. We want an educational system which prepares the children for after life, and which inspires them with love of farm life, and in order that they can make a suitable living out of it. Here I am pleading not only for the boys, but also for the girls so that the latter can also be trained to become good farmers’ wives. They can be taught chicken, and dairy farming, and even to make their dresses and hats. Girls who have to remain on the farms must be made accustomed to farm life. Further I should like to have a little information about the Government’s intentions about the agricultural training schools in the western Free State. A report was made on this, and the Minister will have a reason for not mentioning the name of the place where such a school is to be established. Here, however, I want to mention the great suitability of Boshof, because it is not only in the western Free State, but it is so conveniently situated that it can serve large parts of the Cape and also of the Transvaal. A more suitable place for an agricultural school could not be found. Besides its geographical situation I can mention in Boshof’s favour that there will soon be a large irrigation scheme which will considerably increase the production. Actually those parts if they were irrigated could carry a population ten times as much as the present one, and I am specially asking for the agricultural school so that the rising generation can be trained to contribute to the development, and benefit by it, and if we have the scheme, that we have farmers who are equipped and suited to make a success of it. Another argument in favour of Boshof is the fact that it has one of the best schools in the Free State. The school is No. 1 in the Free State, and it has already made such a name that it draws children from Cape Town, and all parts of the Transvaal. There are more than 600 children, and therefore the desired material exists for the addition of agricultural education to that school. Moreover we feel in Boshof that we must assist the Government. The Town Council, with the approval of the ratepayers has already resolved to give 1,000 morgen of land for the establishment of such a school. We appreciate the need, and want to contribute our share, and the fact that we will give ground worth nearly £10,000 makes me urge the more that we are entitled to such a school. I know that Boshof is recommended as a very suitable place in the report, and I want the Government to give its attention to the matter, so that we know exactly what is going to happen next year, and where the school is to be established.

I want to ask the Minister if he has this year taken over all the responsibility for payment of teachers in what were the Government-aided schools, and if so does he propose to extend the same privilege to the Athlone Blind School?

I am not going out of my to ask the institution to hand over to me. It is a private institution and I have received no request to take over that institution so I have not considered the matter,

† *With reference to what the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) has said, I just want to answer that where there are cases where children have special difficulty in obtaining education, both as regards the top and the bottom part of the body, the matter comes under the Provincial Administration. Children that are crippled come so far as the bottom part of their bodies, under the Provincial Administration, because poor relief comes under the latter, and as for the upper part of the body, provided the mind is normal, they also come under them, because the education of every normal child falls under them. Only in special cases where special education is required, do they come under the Union Government, as is in the case of the blind, the deaf, the dumb, etc. The minds of the children are normal but their deficiency is of such a kind that they have to receive special education. I quite agree with what the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. van Rensburg) has said. I think that it is a serious matter that 4,000 of countryside boys should leave school every year at Std. VI without provision for special education for their occupation. When the hon. member however says that nothing is being done I think he is wrong.

I said very little.

A number of schools have been established. I think there are now eight, besides those coming under the Education Department, and as money becomes available we hope to extend the number in strategic places where the youths are, and where the greatest need will be supplied.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 27, “Child Welfare,” £249,230, put and agreed to.

On Vote 28, “Agriculture,” £807,655

I move—

There are one or two matters I want to discuss with the Minister. In order to do so as a matter of policy I wish leave to move the reduction of the Minister’s salary by £1 to discuss the Government’s policy with regard to the cattle industry.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I want to follow up the remarks of the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) with regard to the cattle industry. No farmer will deny that the cattle position is becoming worse and worse. In fact, we seem to be getting into a slough of despond. After all, the Department of Agriculture is doing very little to assist in solving the problem, and it cannot be solved without Government assistance. The cattle conference of farmers and the cattle committee set up by the South African Agricultural Union are perfectly helpless so far as the business side is concerned. All they can tell the Minister and the country what we know already, that there is a dead weight of scrub cattle depressing the cattle industry, and that the cattle are deteriorating simply because the farms are overstocked and there is no market for them. It may be said that at certain times of the year the price of fat cattle is good, but that is due to the fact that owing to overstocking and deterioration of veld cattle they are not fattening as they should, and there is not a sufficient supply of good slaughter stock. Overstocking and deterioration of the veld are causes of the depression. Breeding cattle are absolutely unsaleable at even £3 or £4 a head. Then the increase in cattle is becoming smaller as cattle to-day do not pay to feed, so they have to take their chance and the rate of mortality is gradually overtaking the rate of increase. As it is to-day, in many districts cattle simply cumber the veld, which could be used to greater advantage. Then there is no sale for stud bulls because the improvement in stock lies largely in better feeding which is not a payable proposition when the cattle are unsaleable when mature. Stud breeders are becoming disheartened and in a very short time there will not be a sufficient supply of stud bulls. The Minister says that £150,000,000 are invested in cattle in this country, this figure including the value of the land on which they graze. The return from that is practically nil after the country has supplied its own cattle needs, in fact in many cases cattle represent a liability and not an asset, instead of which the cattle industry should be one of the largest primary industries in the agricultural world of South Africa. I gave some figures indicating what other countries are doing and I would like to repeat them. The difficulty is to get an absolute figure, because in Australia and New Zealand there are seasonal variations, but I have tried to strike a fair average. Take New Zealand with a population of 1,500,000. She exports £1,000,000 worth of beef annually, practically £11,000,000 worth of butter and £5,508,000 worth of cheese. Thus she exports from her cattle industry £17,490,000 annually, and that, with a total number of cattle of 3,270,000. Take Australia. Australia feeds 6,250,000 people. She exports annually about £2,500,000 worth of beef, £6,500,000 worth of butter and £1,500,000 worth of condensed milk, about £10,500,000 of the products of her cattle industry and she has 12,000,000 head of cattle. We have 11,000,000 head of cattle in the Union to-day and the export of beef and dairy products is practically nil. This year we shall export about 32,000 cattle through Durban and of these 1,500 come from the Union and the balance from Rhodesia. I am only quoting these figures to show what we should be doing to increase the wealth of South Africa and the circulation of money. Instead of that this enormous industry of ours is simply a frozen asset to all industry and purposes. I do believe markets exist for our cattle. The difficulty is to get at those markets. It is impossible for the farmer himself by his own organisation to find his way into the markets of the world and it is absolutely necessary that there should be some measure of organisation and assistance on the part of the Government. Conferences are absolutely useless, but I do want to make a suggestion to the Minister. I want to see hint appoint a commission with very wide powers to go into this question, and although naturally farmers would be represented. I do not want it to be composed entirely of farmers. To begin with you must have the meat interests represented. I am quite aware I may bring down on my head the wrath of some of the hon. members over there, but it is absolutely necessary that you should have the Imperial Cold Storage, for instance, represented on a commission of this sort. I think we are to a certain extent making an unjust charge against them. They have been held up as battening on the farmers, sucking the life blood of the farmers, and trying to corner meat in South Africa, I hold no brief for this concern, but the farmer is and has always been the prey of the middle man. It is not only the meat interests that are making big money out of the farmers. The merchants of this country, the wool brokers, in fact all middlemen, are taking their toll from the farmers exactly as the meat interests are doing. If an inquiry of this sort is to be a success, we must have the meat interests represented. We must have men who have the export business at their finger tips, and are capable of giving really sound advice. Then again, you have Liebigs. This firm has large interests in South Africa and you want their assistance if we are to solve this problem. If we are to make room for improvement in our cattle, we have to get rid of at least 4,000,000 head of scrub stock. It is going to be a difficult job to find that market. When the farmers ask, “How are we to get rid of them?” the department has no answer to give. It is no use getting rid of scrub cattle if it simply means passing them on to a neighbour, because they will still be in the country and the dead weight is still pressing down on the cattle industry. There are four channels to which we can look for some success. The first is, naturally, the export trade. The second is the canning business, the third is extract and the fourth is the export of live beef. Take the export beef first. There is no doubt there is a market for our beef, at a price. We are rather fortunate in that respect, because the continental nations of Europe are importers of beef, but their taste does not run to prime and Australian cattle. Their taste runs to leaner meat, and what we call scrub cattle, if properly got up, can find a market on the Continent. I believe it is a growing market, but it is going to mean Government assistance if we are to get into it. Glasgow alone has intimated it can take 100 tons of boned beef weekly if we can supply it. We have first got to work out the problem of costs and then come to the Government and see what assistance is necessary to enable farmers to reach these markets. There is much to be gone into. There are shipping costs and killing costs, marketing and other charges, everything must work down to a minimum, and then we can put up to the Government a case which will determine the assistance required. In regard to the market for canned beef and meat extracts, here I include Rhodesia, because whatever we do, we have to work with Rhodesia. The Union and Rhodesia have to join hands in this matter. Here I want to illustrate the position from the condensed milk industry. It happened to be my lot to meet Mr. Marshall, a representative of Nestles, when they first decided to come to this country. He asked me my advice about suitable districts for the establishment of factories, and recognised that Griqualand was probably the most promising centre. I asked him what decided his firm to start here, and he said that the Government had made it clear their policy was to secure the local market for condensed milk for South African manufacturers, and his firm realised that they either had to come into the market if it was worth anything, or give it up altogether. It was worth £400,000, and it was of such value to them that they decided to come here and to put up factories. That is the line on which I want the Minister to go, and I want the Government to make it plain to the canning companies that they are going to hold the canning market in South Africa for South Africa itself. These big concerns have to realize that if they do not start to can in South Africa, some other firm is going to take it up.

Is it this Government or the previous Government?

It is this Government. I am not attacking the Government. I am not in doubt that if Nestles had approached the previous regime, they would have had equally favourable treatment. With regard to the further market for canned beef, you have the whole of the African Continent behind you—Tanganyika, Kenya, and other states. While it is difficult to get the exact amount of the consumption of tinned meats and meat extracts in those States, it is between £100,000 and £150,000 annually. I was struck while in Durban recently by the number of factories, and I noticed among other industries a rope factory which is turning out an excellent class of manilla manufactured from imported hemp and another quantity from sisal. Every ounce of this sisal comes from East Africa. Supposing you say to these people, we are prepared to give you a protected market for sisal and coffee if you give us a protected market for our meat extracts. Some of our envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary might look after that. It would give us a market of approximately £350,000 for canned beef and meat extracts. If Nestles found a market of £400,000 so valuable it is more than probable the canning concerns would find a market of £350,000 equally valuable, and if an inducement were offered, we might get them to start; if not, we must do so ourselves. In addition to the local market, there is a big export market. Australia exports £360,000 annually of tinned meat, and we should surely claim something of that export trade. With organisation and assistance I can see good prospects. The fourth is live cattle. There is a limited amount of export going on to the United Kingdom, and there are ways in which that can be considerably increased. I know the Minister may tell us that the home Government will not agree to let us land them there alive and sell them as store cattle. But the British Government has already gone half way and met us, because it has allowed live pedigree cattle to be landed, and allowed them to be sold alive. I think there is a possibility in that direction. It will mean negotiation, but I do not see why it should not be possible. The Union-Castle Company have done a great deal for this country in regard to the free importation of stud cattle into this country—carried free of freight. I think the time has come when we should approach the Union-Castle Company to ask for a reduction on the export freight of live cattle instead of this free freight on stud animals. There are many expenses attached to this importation of stud cattle under this system of free freight which does not make it so alluring as it is made out to be. I found it more convenient to get them out by ordinary boats and paying freight, just when I wanted them. If this suggestion is adopted, it would be one way of reducing our surplus cattle here. All these avenues would be worth exploring by a body consisting, not only of producers, but also of men in the meat trade whose interests are the same as ours, because it is their business. If you come to the Government with those ideas it is for them to say whether they will give us assistance or not. It must be realised that in order to put the cattle industry on a sound footing some form of protection is a “sine qua non.” The previous Government instituted a system of bounties. The first year the cattle farmers claimed £2,000 under that system. In the second year they claimed £4,000, and in the third year they claimed £12,000. That was the first year of the Nationalist Government. That showed that the bounty system was rapidly increasing the export of cattle. Then the present Government stopped the bounty system. Why they did it I do not know, but the stoppage of the system caused cattle export to cease. Rhodesia was in exactly the same position, and Rhodesia has recently again started the granting of a bounty. The Rhodesian Government has guaranteed the granting of a bounty up to an expenditure of £15,000 per annum, and this is done to enable the Italian contract to be secured, which means that 30,000 head of cattle will be exported from Rhodesia. Does the Government realize the position in Rhodesia, and how it is being dealt with? Does the Government realise that Australia in fostering its cattle industry by paying a bounty of one farthing per lb. for standard beef, and one farthing per lb. for canned beef, and that in 1923-’24 the Australian Government paid £135,900 in bounty. The handicaps in this country are greater than in Australia and Rhodesia, and if the Government are going to get this cattle industry on a proper basis they must render it some assistance. I do not want to suggest that a bounty system should be permanent. I want to see a bounty system until the bulk of the scrub cattle have been eliminated. It has been said that a bounty would encourage the breeding of scrub cattle because it would pay to breed them. Let the Government watch it, because if that took place it would be time to stop the bounty, and to allow the industry to stand on its own legs. It must stand on its own legs eventually. Let me say a word to my farming friends. We have a right to ask for assistance. We primary producers are carrying the burden of industries. We are carrying the burden of a high wage rate and getting little in return. Every farmer is taking the world’s price for his hides, and he is paying a high figure for his boots to support the boot industry. The farmer is selling wool at the world’s price, and he is paying 3s. 6d. per lb. duty on every blanket which he puts on his bed. He is paying 5s. per blanket to support the blanket industry. He is sending his wool overseas, and he is paying 30 per cent. to get that wool back in the form of clothing.

The hon. member must confine himself to the point under discussion.

I was only giving as an illustration the fact that the farmer sends his wool overseas, and that on every suit of clothes he wears he is paying from £1 to £2 10s.—it depends whether it is ready-made or bespoke—to support the clothing industry. The Government did not mind taxing the country to the tune of three millions to start the iron and steel industry, but no industry can exist in this country without the primary industries. Surely it is good business to give those industries a fair start in life, which will enable them to contribute more to the secondary industries which have been started. The solution of the problem is the appointment of a commission to investigate the different avenues of export, and to tell us what can be realised in the overseas market; in fact to draw up a cut and dried scheme and then for the Government to give the necessary assistance. That is the only possible solution of this question. There is one more point. No solution of the cattle problem is going to be complete unless you include the native-owned cattle. I would remind the House that three and a half million head out of our eleven million head of cattle are the property of natives living in reserves and locations. Tractors have come to stay, but that does not mean that trek oxen are going to be done away with. There is no finer trek ox in the world than the Afrikander. May I ask the attention of the Minister of Native Affairs for a moment? I want the Government to realise that when we improve the breed of cattle we are going to be faced with a shortage of trek oxen. The dairy farmers are going to cut the throats of all except their best heifers. What is happening to-day is that the native affairs department say they will not have any more scrubs in the native locations, and that they want well-bred cattle. What they are getting is well-bred scrubs, which are the worst of all scrubs. You have got to improve the native’s cultural methods before you can get well bred cattle in the reserves and locations. Tell the native that he must have nothing but Afrikander cattle in the locations, and he will be with you. If you take a native to your cattle kraal and you have a mixture of Friesland and Shorthorns and Afrikanders, the native will pick out the Afrikander every time. You have approximately 800,000 breeding stock out of the three and a half million native cattle. You can get Afrikander bull calves for £5 or £6 apiece easily of quite as good a class as is necessary to start cattle improvements of natives. That will require approximately 20,000 bulls. Now it is going to cost £100,000 to £120,000 to buy those bulls and it may take two or three years to do it, but we must remember that Rome was not built in a day. I suggest that the Government should make a tax of one shilling a head on every breeding cow and the whole expense could be borne by this tax after two or three years. The position will then be that you are going to breed up a type of cattle which will be very much better than the existing one. You are not going against the wishes of the natives and you are going to build up a reserve in the future of the Afrikander breed of trek oxen which will be an asset to the country. Instead of being an unsaleable asset they will be of great value in future. That will go a long way in solving the question as far as these native scrub cattle is concerned. The Minister is too fond of thinking that when we put up constructive suggestions he can pick up a weak point and attack us on it. He is an old fighter and it is his reputation. I hope, however, he is not going to attack now I have put up what I consider a constructive suggestion.

I just wanted to say a few things in connection with the tobacco industry in our country. The tobacco farmers are in great trouble. The tobacco tax was removed in 1924 or 1925. The compulsory cooperation Act was passed. The result was that there was a big production, an over production. At the last harvest there was an over production of 12,000,000 lbs. and now the people complain that they are saddled with that surplus. It is certain that people do not smoke as much to-day as in the old days. They do not chew or snuff as much either. There are many people who do not smoke for health reasons. I have nothing to say against that. There are many people who do not smoke for reasons of conscience. That is very serious. There are also many people who are too weak to smoke and who therefore have conscientious objections against the use of tobacco, and if our ladies do take the field to increase the consumption, then those people who have conscientious objections, and those who are too weak to smoke, preach sermons against ladies smoking. They say nothing against the snuff which their grandmothers and grandfathers used, they say nothing about the use of tobacco in the old days, but now that the ladies themselves want to help a little by enjoying the smell of tobacco, they object to them smoking. When tea or coffee or another beverage is concerned they have nothing to say, but when it is a matter of smoking and assisting the industry, they object. I think the time has come that the Minister should compel people to smoke. I want to bring another point to the notice of the Minister; although I am not such an authority as the last speaker in the matter of cattle and condensed milk, I am a greater authority on tobacco, and I think that as we have a large surplus of tobacco the Minister should remember that £8,000,000 worth of tobacco comes from Rhodesia and Swaziland. I think that tobacco from Swaziland comes in too easily. There must be a brake on it, because we must protect our own industries from that tobacco from Rhodesia. There are certain kinds of tobacco of a lower grade which can be imported free but I think the dividing line is too indefinite so that the tobacco practically comes free into the Union from Rhodesia to-day. I think the Minister must bear this in mind. My second point is that it has become necessary to-day, that the time has come that we must study the European taste in tobacco more. I think we need experts, to send them to Europe to study what the people want, what sort of cigarette tobacco they smoke, and what sort of pipe tobacco they want. If there is one thing that South Africa is specially cut out for it is tobacco. There is an expert in Europe to-day who is partly paid by the Government but the people have to contribute to his salary, I think they have to pay £2,500 more. I think that if it is in the interests of the country to have an expert there, the Government ought not bear the cost of it. Then the farmers must be left free to dispose of their own money freely in the country on their own organizations. There are, e.g., cooperative societies that should be run more on business lines and if the peoples’ hands were free as regards the expert in Europe, they could do more with regard to their own organisations here. Those are the two things I ask of the Minister, that he should put a brake on the importation of tobacco from Rhodesia, and that he should not discourage the people from planting more tobacco, but say rather: smoke more, plant better tobacco, and so assist the industry in South Africa.

I wish to refer to the north-west of the Cape Province, a district which has a somewhat evil reputation for coming to the Government for assistance during years of drought. However, in the northwest there is a large area which is capable of producing Persian sheep in considerable numbers and of the very best quality. An export trade should be worked up in these animals. If the price of wool goes down, as it is threatening to do, there would be no serious loss of income because the farmers would be able to export the carcases. Persian sheep meat is not known overseas, but efforts should be made to secure a market for it there. We might follow the example of the Americans who, when they desired to introduce grapefruit on the English market, sent over a number of men. They would stay at different hotels and would always ask for grape-fruit which the hotel proprietors were unable to supply. The next morning other men asked for grape-fruit, and so the hotel proprietors laid in a supply. We might go to work on the same lines, and send over a number of Persian sheep and make a present of them to high-class restaurants and clubs. I am sure a very good export market could be worked up, and thus lesson the losses from drought and make the farmers independent. There is a great potential value in the north-west which is not realized even by its inhabitants. It is not a matter of sending samples, as South Africa has sometimes done, but sending genuine lamb not more than eight months old. Today animals of this type are sold at 20s. apiece in South Africa, but the demand is so limited that the market is usually flooded. The farmers in the north-west will be very grateful for any assistance that can be rendered them on the lines I have indicated.

I wish to bring to the attention of the Government the very serious position our fruit farmers are in in regard to the disposal of their produce overseas where, I believe, there is a lack of proper distribution methods, for it is difficult to imagine that the market is overstocked. I am speaking principally on behalf of the deciduous fruit farmers whose produce is of a highly perishable nature. The fruit farmers do not sufficiently realize the difficulties that beset the people who have the selling of our fruit on the European market. I do not know of any other industry which has made greater progress in such a short time as the fruit industry of South Africa, or an industry which employs more poor people than this does. About 25 years ago the fruit export trade was in its infancy in the Cape. At that time they exported about 2,000 boxes of deciduous fruit per annum, and 2.0 boxes of citrus fruit. Then the Government of the day appointed the first trade commissioner from the Union of South Africa, and since that time the fruit industry has been making tremendous strides. As against 2,000 boxes at that time I think, so far as deciduous fruit is concerned, we are to-day exporting in the vicinity of 2,000,000 boxes per annum, and the citurs exporters are keeping pace. I think I can fairly estimate that the money value of the fruit we export is about £1,000,000 a year. Here in the Western Province we have thousands and thousands of morgen of land which was only used for poor grazing stock, and a large area of that has been converted into orchards for fruit and vines for the table wines we export. A man who converts ordinary veld into fruit orchards must have backbone, patience and courage, and money as well. For about five or six years he is working for the orchardt and not for himself. In regard to the employment of people by fruit farmers, we employ in a given area more white people, more coloured people, more native people than any other farming industry in the Union. Take the Cape Peninsula and a district like Constantia, where a little farm of 25 morgen is employing 100 people for three or four months out of the year. We employ a large number of Europeans. The fruit industry is facing a good many problems. We, the farmers, have overcome many of them. We have learned how to grow the fruit to perfection and how to pack the fruit. In the United Kingdom, they praise the way in which we pack our fruit, and our methods can hold their own with those in respect of any fruit from Australia or South America. We have also overcome to a certain extent the problem of the transportation of our fruit by sea. In the old days, fruit used to be kept at the docks for sometimes, three weeks. I want to give the present Government credit for establishing the Perishable Products Export Control Board. That has been of considerable value to fruit exporters. We have also at the Cape Town docks very up-to-date cold storage. That, I think, was initiated by the late Government, and carried into effect by the present Government. We are very grateful for that cold storage. So far, the facilities for transportation by sea have been very much improved, but a great deal more could be done. (Time limit).

I do not wish to delay the vote, but there are a few points that I must bring to the notice of the Minister. I see that he has again provided a considerable amount for the eradication of locusts and I should like to ask the Minister if he can give any information with regard to the position outside of, and within, the Union, about the coming hatching season, and whether he expects if there will be another inroad into the country. In that connection there are two points I want to draw attention to. I think everyone in the country is thankful for the way the Minister has fought the plague up to now, but he will have to admit that the success is to a great extent due to the co-operation of the farmers in his organisation. Without the co-operation with his organisation—I think he will agree with this—the difficulties would have been almost insuperable and he would not have had the success he had. Much money was spent, but I think the country on the whole is grateful. What however I want to bring to the Minister’s notice is firstly, the appointment of district officials. I know that primarily he is not the person responsible, but I think the appointments are of great moment and that on them to a great extent depends the friendly co-operation. Therefore I should like him to give emphatic instructions that the officials appointed must be men that can co-operate with the farmers, and I think as regards the division I represent, the appointments were not always happy. Moreover I have repeatedly had to bring to the Minister’s notice that stock, valuable stock, that represents capital to the farmer, has been poisoned and in most cases it is stated in that connection, that it was due to negligence on the part of the officials. Consequently the people turned to me and the Department for compensation. I should like the matter to be investigated; economy can be affected and grievances prevented. A second point I want to discuss under this vote is the new pest in the Western Province vineyards. I have a few cuttings here from the vineyards that have the disease. I know that the Minister has already given some attention to the matter but I am convinced that the Minister and his Department, and this House do not fully realise what danger there is in it. I am thinking of the mealie bug which has made its appearance in certain parts of the Western Province. I need not enlarge upon the importance of viticulture to the Western Province, and the whole of South Africa, and need not point out therefore, what revenue the Minister of Finance gets from it. It is certainly one of our most flourishing industries and it is assisted and preserved by the enterprise and endurance of our farmers themselves. I think that there is no industry which has got so little support as the wine industry and I think there is none which can claim the support of the Government as much. They have gone ahead by their own strength and will. I shall therefore be glad if the Minister will give immediate attention to this pest, and if necessary will appoint as many officers as are necessary to assist the farmers. The remedies used against it to-day are so dear that the farmer can hardly afford them. We know what the prevention of phylloxera has already cost and we must quickly intervene in this matter. Under the head “Extension of Education,” I feel that the system of officers who give information to the farmers is of very great importance. I notice that the Minister has appointed one of the officials at Postmasburg, Hay. I should like to know if this is to be permanent. The circumstances and difficulties there, make it specially necessary for the farmers to be assisted with advice. Thy are the burden-bearers of the public and in the distant areas they are the maintainers of civilization. I shall be glad if the Minister will also establish an experimental plot there, because it is of great importance to study conditions there to inform the people. The Minister will refer me to the expense but according to his own returns the expenditure on the four experimental farms mentioned here is not so very high and in comparison with their possible usefulness it is low.

It will possibly shorten the debate if I answer the points that have been raised now. Let me in the first place answer the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). He asked me to make a statement about the locust position and I can tell him at once that as far as the Union is concerned it is very satisfactory, and that we expect no hatchings. In Kenya, however, there has been a very serious state of affairs this year, on account of the red locust, and there is a possibility that locusts from there may later enter the Union. Still we hope the plague will be prevented and that we shall not be threatened by the same calamity that has come to the people in the north. Then the hon. member spoke about the appointment of officials, and referred to the successful performance on account of the splendid co-operation between the department and the farmers. I can only say that I will continue appointing officials in future, who can co-operate with, and consult the farmers, because co-operation is necessary for eradicating the locust plague and all other plagues. He also mentioned compensation and in this connection I may say that the Government has always met its obligations by making payments in all cases where it appeared, and was proved, that the damage was caused by the negligence of an official. Sometimes it occurs however that the farmers are careless. It happens for instance that a man is warned to keep his stock for a reasonable time away from the areas where locust poison is being used, but that he is so negligent as to take no notice of the advice. In such cases damage may occur for which the Government is not responsible. The hon. member also asked a question about the mealie bug, and in this connection I may say it is already receiving the attention of the department. The agricultural college—Stellenbosch-Elsenburg—is responsible for such matters, and I will point out to the entomologist the seriousness of the matter so that they can discover a remedy against it as soon as possible. It is not always easy to find a remedy, but the department is doing its best. The department also raised the question of extension officers. Let me say at once that the Government acted very quickly in appointing those officers to advise the farmers. I must sound the warning however that if we are to appoint one of them for each magistrate’s district, we shall have 400 of them. We now have 23, and provision is made on the estimates for additional appointments. Then, further, the officials of the agricultural schools are entrusted with similar work. Although I do not say that we must stop development I think we ought to go a little slowly, and must not increase the number of extension officers in the same way as during the last five years. The hon. member also asks whether the extension officer at Postmasburg would remain there permanently. Let me say at once no, because as soon as the farmers in a year or two—or longer—are instructed the officer will be removed to another part which is not as privileged as Postmasburg. I shall however keep the officer there as long as circumstances require it. The hon. member further raised the question of experimental plots and said that the estimates provided for four. He asked for one in his constituency. I will consider what can be done in the matter. I can however make no promise to-night. Now I come to the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. Chiappini), who referred to the parlous condition of the fruit industry. Well, I do not know whether in this connection we ought to apply the old proverb “Ingratitude is the way of the world.” I think that if there is one industry for which this Government has done much it is the fruit industry. I am very glad my hon. friend admitted that we built the cold storage, which cost nearly a million pounds, in the interests of the fruit industry in Cape Town. That is not all we have done because we have made attempts to get the ships altered in such a way that the fruit can be carried overseas in very good condition. The fruit practically arrives in England in the same condition as when it leaves our coast. Then we further have laboratories in Cape Town where research work is done which costs the Government a great deal. In addition work is also done at Stellenbosch and we also have an experimental farm at the Paarl. In other directions also we have done our utmost to help the fruit industry on. If the hon. member goes into the matter he will find that fruit production has nearly doubled, or more than doubled since 1924. If it were not for the action of the Government, the industry would not have been put on such a good basis. I accept that the hon. member made his observations with the best intentions. There are possibly a few hitches but they must be put right by the fruit exchange. After all the Government has done the hon. member cannot expect the Government to act as seller as well. The fruit exchange and the farmers must themselves be responsible in this respect. We give all the facilities but if it is expected that the Government can also be the seller then it may just as well take over the whole industry. I have received no complaint from the fruit exchange up to the present, but if there are difficulties I hope they will be brought to my notice so that I can take action. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. Hockly) said that we must look to the north-west in connection with the farmers who were breeding Persian sheep for slaughter purposes. We are advising the farmers. We however have no sheep to-day to build up an export market. The market here is so good that the farmers would not thank you for telling them to export their sheep. I am however glad that the hon. member raised the question, because he intended us to remember that the number of sheep was now increasing and that an export market should be obtained. If there is a too large supply for our own market then we shall have to think on those lines. For the present however I can give the assurance that the market for mutton in South Africa is excellent, If any is exported I think a lower price will be obtained abroad than here. We advise the people as to what veld is unsuitable for wooled sheep and where they go in for Persian sheep and other sheep of that kind. Then the hon. member for Potchefstroom (the Rev. Mr. Fick) spoke eloquently about the tobacco industry. I have already made it very clear that we shall shortly be opening negotiations with Rhodesia in connection with the importation of Rhodesian tobacco. We are considering the matter and will see what can be done in that direction. I am only sorry that the hon. member drew too long a bow when he spoke of the imports from Rhodesia amounting to 12,000,000 lbs. The year before the imports amounted to 8,000,000 and last year 5,000,000. I, however, agree that the Government must consider the matter as we have an over-production in the Union, and I may say that we will protect the tobacco farmers, just as we have protected the cattle farmers in the past. Again he also mentions the expert who is advancing the interests of the tobacco trade in Europe. The Government already pays £1,200 towards his salary because there is a feeling that it ought to bear a part of the expense. I am told that the expense will probably be £2,000, and the Minister of Finance and I will go into the matter, and if the amount is not more we will try to pay it. My hon. friend must not talk of £3,000. I think I have already shown that in this respect we are prepared to do enough. Then the hon. member also spoke of compulsory co-operation. There is no compulsory co-operation. Only when 75 per cent. of those who grow tobacco in a certain area register themselves voluntarily as members and ask for the Act to be put into force, is compulsion put on the remaining 25 per cent. Let me say clearly that a deputation on the matter urged that it should be made obligatory throughout the whole country, but I cannot do such a thing. If some of the new areas want to come under the Act, then at least 75 per cent. of the producers must first voluntarily agree, and then I am prepared to make it obligatory. As I am discussing the tobacco industry, I may say that I have had an interview with the Minister of Railways and Harbours, and the Railway Board is approving certain reductions on the rate on export tobacco. The reductions by the Railway Board are per ton; to Lourenco Marques, present rate 24s. 5d., new rate, 13s. 6d. (this is subject to the approval of the Mozambique Government); to Durban 25s. 1d., new rate practically 50 per cent. less; to East London, present rate 29s. 6d., new rate 16s. 6d.; to Port Elizabeth, present rate 30s. 4d., new rate 16s. 6d.; to Cape Town, present rate 33s. 2d., new rate 17s. 6d. Therefore, I hope that the tobacco farmers will be satisfied with the reductions in the railway rate and with the support which the Minister of Finance is giving with regard to marketing, and that they will take action as business men, and not always look to the Government when there is a surplus. This brings me at once to the remarks of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), in connection with cattle farming. He and other members raise this matter every year, but I may say that this Government has done more for cattle farmers than any other Government has ever done. My hon. friend proposed that a commission should be appointed to investigate the matter. It must however be fresh in his memory that the Government referred the whole cattle industry a few years ago to the Board of Trade and Industries, and that a report was made on it. The Board recommended that if the farmers formed cooperative societies on a large scale the Government should then assist in the erection of certain cold storage accommodation to co-operate in the export. We are still waiting on the Agricultural Union and the farmers to form that co-operative society. As soon as they do so we can take action. The appointment of a commission is unnecessary, because we know the whole position. Then the hon. member once more mentions Mr. Pickford’s beautiful scheme by which beef can be preserved. I have heard that his plan is so good that it can be sold for millions. I say that if that were so, private undertakings would have tackled it long ago. We offered to allow Mr. Pickford to come to Onderstepoort so that his scheme could be enquired into but we are still waiting for him. The hon. member asked me what the Government had done for the cattle farmers. We started in 1927 with a scheme to get the farmers only to keep the best class of cows for butter and cream. This scheme was so popular that there are 11,000 cows being tested to-day. In consequence of the test the farmers are getting rid of the poorer cows and the demand is increasing daily. I have no doubt that our farmers in a few years will only farm with milch cows of a high grade. Further the Government protected the Union market for the farmers. Notwithstanding the increase in the number of cattle by more than 2,000,000 since 1924, the prices to-day for cattle in good condition are much better than at that time. This is solely due to the protection the Government has given the cattle farmers, and I am certain that if the hon. member is not thankful, the farmers are. That is why at the recent election they sent the Government back into office. Regarding the export of slaughter cattle I want to point out that the market wants good and very fat cattle and especially young ones. It is said that we could compete with the Argentine and other countries. Mr. Thornton was sent by us to the Argentine and he has made a report about it. Circumstances there are much more favourable for cattle farming. They have large herds of stock and excellent grazing. We cannot argue that way. Our country is more suited to sheep farming than cattle farming. There are certain places where cattle can be bred, but, on the whole, our climate and our veld is not the best suited for cattle. The stock breeders and the Agricultural Union will shortly be meeting together to discuss certain things in connection with our cattle industry and they will, of course, consider the reports of Mr. Thornton, and the Board of Trade and Industries. Then their report will be submitted to the Advisory Board of the Agricultural Union which sits a month later. Let me say that I sympathise with the cattle farmers but it is no use impetuously adopting a policy costing money without bringing anything into the pockets of the farmer. “Hasten slowly” must be the policy, but I can assure hon. members that I am keeping my attention on cattle farming and that we shall discuss matters to see what more can be done. The hon. member said that the Department of Native Affairs should obtain 30,000 bulls at the cost of £100,000. We cannot do such a thing impetuously. We must bear in mind the natives’ feelings about cattle and educate them gradually to change their cattle. Let me say that Mr. Thornton has now gone to the Native Affairs Department and that we will work in close connection with that Department to see how we can improve matters. We have established a large station at Zoutpansberg for the breeding of cattle, and made arrangements at Pietersburg to acclimatize the cattle and to inoculate them against gall-sickness and redwater. I must however honestly say that the encouragement we have hitherto received at Pietersburg was not very great. The hon. member has suggested the fixing of a premium. May I ask the hon. member if there is anyone opposite who will say that the farmers got a single penny of the bonus which the previous Government granted?

Certainly.

I have never heard of it. The price at that time was less than it is to-day.

The main problem confronting the fruit industry is the disposal of its produce overseas. The Minister says that is the business of the fruit exchange. Well, the fruit industry is fairly well organized; we have co-operative societies all over the country and they send delegates to the fruit exchange. We are very thankful to the Government for what it has done for us, but as far as I can see we pay for it. We ask the Government to appoint fruit inspectors, but we bear the expense of the inspection—we spend about £5,000 a year on inspectors. I see on the estimates the sum of £120,000 for sheep inspectors—do the sheep farmers pay for them? We have excellent fruit storage at the docks, but we pay rent, and if a box of fruit is there for eight days we have to pay a fortnight’s rent. It will be seen that we pay our way, and therefore we have a right to ask the Minister to give us whatever support we are entitled to. The sheet anchor of our export fruit trade is the United Kingdom, and it has been so from the very beginning; we have received a great deal of sympathy and help from the Empire Marketing Board which has created a certain amount of sympathy among the people of England and has resulted in their purchasing South African fruit. Hon. members may say there is no sentiment in business, but our difficulty is the distribution of our fruit. There are over 40,000,000 people in England. I have never been there, but I know people from there and they seem very civilized. The Minister says we must sell our fruit ourselves, but it is difficult for us to do that as we are farmers. Formerly fruit used to remain three weeks at the Cape Town docks because there was not sufficient cold storage on the ships, but that drawback has now been removed. However, on the other side, fruit has had to be warehoused because the market was temporarily overstocked. That drawback, however, would disappear if the fruit were properly distributed. The other day the Acting High Commissioner in London made a speech in which, no doubt, he tried to defend the German trade treaty. I have no objection to that, but a large association of fruit dealers in England took great umbrage at it. I do not blame the High Commissioner, but these remarks do a certain amount of injury to the disposal of our fruit, especially seeing that we desire to create a sentiment in England in favour of people buying our fruit, and we should have as much reciprocity as possible. I am in favour of the “quid pro quo.” The exports from the Union are increasing and, in view of the seriousness of the position in regard to the sale of our fruit, the Minister should consider the advisability of appointing a commercial genius on the staff of the trade commissioner to look after the distribution of our fruit. If the Minister is not quite certain as to the seriousness of the position I would also suggest that he sends one of his marketing department officials or a member of the fruit control board to attend meetings of the co-operative societies to ascertain whether what I have said is so, and I think the Minister will find that the fruit farmers are tremendously concerned as to the condition of the market on the other side. Last year we sent during March, 300,000 boxes of pears. It was a very poor season. This year they estimate that the next crop of pears will be over a million boxes. The grape farmers are all expecting to send more grapes. I prophesy that unless we can put matters straight for the coming season the exporters will suffer very severe losses. I therefore trust that the Minister will do everything in his power to alleviate the condition of the farmers in the direction of getting the fruit sold as quickly as possible upon its arrival in the London market.

In the papers there are appearing reports how different farmers from different districts from the Cape Province are coming to the Minister of Finance to discuss the price of wheat. As a farmer who represents a wheat district and as chairman of a co-operative society with between 300 and 400 members I have probably a little more knowledge of wheat-farming than most hon. members here. Of the 300 to 400 members there are I suppose not 5 who in the existing circumstances make money out of wheat-farming. I can assure hon. members that 90 per cent. of the wheat farmers in Lydenburg to-day have bonds on their farms. A bank manager told me that the Lydenburg wheat farmers alone owe about £500,000 to the bank and different other institutions, in other words, the condition of the wheat farmers is so serious that it requires the special attention of the Government. We hear a great deal of the exodus to the diamond fields and the towns and that the people must return to the land, but as long as that sad state of affairs remains this will not be attained. The other day it was stated that farmers in the Cape Province cannot produce a bag of wheat under 25s. Well, take it at 20s. A farmer who produces 50 to 60 bags then makes £10 per year. If the farmer out of £10 has to keep body and soul together, if out of that he has to maintain his family, then it is very clear that such a farmer cannot make a living. If many farmers were to keep an account of their income and expenditure then we would have hundreds more flocking to the towns and diamond fields. I would just like to point out a few facts why the wheat farmer cannot make a living. A farmer has to pay too much for his agricultural implements, as e.g., his two ploughshares, and he makes too little to be able to pay for his implements. Take another instance, viz., fertilizers. If what the experts say is true, that the use of fertilizers doubles the production of wheat, then it is very clear that the railway ought to transport fertilizers at a low tariff, because the double transport of wheat is fit for the benefit of the railways. Another complaint is that the wheat which comes from Canada and Australia is mixed with South African wheat and then it is transported as South African produce under the cheap tariff. Against that foreign wheat which is carried cheaply through to the Transvaal the farmers have to compete. If the import duties on wheat were raised 2s. or 3s. the cost price of bread would not be increased. It has been said here that we need more irrigation works to keep the farmers on the land. It has also been pointed out that protection helps our industries. It has helped so much that already there is a surplus of many products and the wheat farmers too must be protected better. If the wheat farmers are not protected then they cannot supply the needs of the country, for without protection they cannot exist. We must become independent of foreign wheat, we must be able to supply the wheat requirements of our people. Before that is the case we shall remain dependent on other countries.

I would just like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a decision which has been made by his department to transfer the Bredasdorp sheep inspector and to place the districts of Bredasdorp and Caledon under one inspector. For years Bredasdorp has had its own inspector, and as a result of that to-day the district is clean. The Minister himself will know how many thousands and thousands of pounds the Bredasdorp farmers have spent in improving their sheep. Many of the hill farmers have coast and dune farms, and if in the hills it is too dry or they have sown their lands, then they take their sheep to the sour veld farms or downs. The sheep, however, cannot remain there more than a few months. If the farmers cannot change and trek then there is a sad outlook for the sheep, and if scab were to break out in the district then the farmers cannot trek. In the two districts there are roughly 10 towns, 30 butchers, 800 farms, 1,100 flocks and 420,000 sheep. The butchers buy sheep from all parts of the Union and also S.W.A., and it is just herein that the danger lies. It is impossible for one inspector to manage the work properly if both districts are under his supervision. Along the coast the roads are very bad, and the country bushy, and it is impossible for an inspector to examine the sheep on one farm in one day. If a dishonest farmer tried to hide his scabby sheep, then he could do it very easily. This year scab broke out among the sheep of one of the biggest farmers there, and he found out later that the infection came from his stud rams. He had bought a ram and it became infected on the train. Then I would like to point out that the inspector at Bredasdorp got £25 per month, and he had to pay for his own motor car. This is not a large amount. We are all in favour of economy, but I think that in this instance this is foolish economy. I want to ask the Minister to appoint an inspector at Bredasdorp again, because if scab broke out at Bredasdorp, it would cause great damage to the farmers in general.

It is with the greatest of pleasure that I listened to the speeches from both sides about the interests of the cattle farmers, tobacco planters, the sheep, fruit and wheat farmers, and I would like now also to say a few words on behalf of the mealie industry. The mealie industry has grown so much that it supplies not only the needs of South Africa, about twelve million bags, but it also exports a large quantity to the world markets. If this Government wants to look after the interests of the mealie farmers then there is one thing that must be encouraged and that is co-operation. It is because of co-operation that the production of the tobacco farmers has expanded so much that they now have over-production. Since agriculture is the primary industry of our country and our agricultural produce takes first place in the exports of the country, agriculture must be promoted by co-operation. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to what the mealie farmers have already done to consolidate the industry by co-operation—the movement of compulsory co-operation. We know a good deal has already been said about compulsory co-operation and that it will help a lot in the production of foodstuffs. On the one hand it has been said that compulsory cooperation is not sound, but on the other hand we as producers feel that much is to be said for it and that there should be encouragement from the Government and the consumers. Probably in this session there may still be a discussion about the formation of trusts, rings and cartels, and as soon as we succeed in creating a co-operative system in which every producer of mealies in South Africa co-operates with us in putting our output on the world and Union markets it would probably be maintained that we are fixing the price of mealies to the detriment of the consumers. There will, however, be no such danger. Although co-operation has been encouraged by the Government, we find that co-operation of the mealie farmers has not yet attained the success which was aimed at. This is partly because the advances which the members get are not always equal to the costs of production and the members must wait for the balance until the production has first been sold the following year. I have made a calculation and when I take into account interest on the balance and commission then I find that a member of a cooperation, according to my figures for the last five years until 1928 eventually gets 10s per bag clear. If as against that we see that the consumer in South Africa for the same period until 1928 according to the census returns has obtained it an average price of 15s.—(14s. 11¾d. to be exact)—then we can understand that the farmer does not get the result which he expected although in the co-operative movement he sees the salvation of the mealie farmer. The average cost of production of a bag of mealies is 8s. and with an average return of 10s. The next year, only after a year has passed, the farmer finds that the same crop has been sold to the consumer for 15s. That makes all members of all co-operative societies despair. While we know that co-operation means much to the farmers we do not get the results we expect after all this exertion. I get 10s. a bag and the consumer pays 15s. Who gets the 5s.? There is something radically wrong, that is why I recommend that we start a movement to get the whole marketing of our mealie output into our own control. If we obtain control of the whole output we can market it ourselves and the consumer will pay a lower price, say 12s. 6d. per bag, which will give us a living profit. What is more it will help not only our producers but also the consumers in the town and the industries. The industries which use mealies for manufacturing purposes will find it for their benefit. We have several industries which manufacture mealies, but the great difficulty which our producers have to-day is that they have no regular markets on which they can depend. In addition they have to base their buying prices for raw material on a higher rate. If we had fixed prices the producer and the contractor would have the benefit, and especially the poor people in our country who are largely dependent on mealies for food would be assisted.

I want to address a few words to the Minister with regard to the export of citrus. The member for Cape Flats (Mr. Chiappini) has gone very carefully into the export of deciduous fruits. He complained that he was not able to get a market. The reason, I think, is that we cannot afford to do away with the ordinary business course, and depart from the old channels which have been doing our work satisfactorily in the past. I may say that for fruit which arrived in London last week I have already had advice of sale this week. I think that is good enough. I accept the market as it comes along, and sell the fruit when it arrives. I want to ask the Minister if in view of his reply to my question the other day he will request his department to carefully scrutinize payments made out of the levy of 5s. per ton. I am not taking exception to the levy. He said that his department did scrutinize the accounts, but I would like him to have them carefully scrutinized in order to see that a good deal of that money is not spent in South Africa, it should be spent in advertising our fruit overseas. I would like to ask the Minister what is being done now that the Government have made an excellent contract for the shipment of our fruit overseas. The Perishable Products Export Control Board has been a most useful body, they have seen to the despatch of our fruit, and that the fruit as it arrives is dealt with in the order of arrival, thus giving the small man exactly the same chance as the big man. That is what we want. We do require some control. I would like to point out that the mercantile community take care not to have more documents than they can help. The Fruit Control Board demand five bills of lading from us, as compared with three by the mercantile community, and when we complain they say that the extra time demanded from the farmer is nothing as compared with the extra time saved in the office in Cape Town. Further, five consignment notes are demanded on the railway. A merchant has two consignment notes. Why they want five consignment notes I would like very much to know. I think shippers should be free to send their fruit to whatever market they like overseas. The levy last year was £12,000, of which £2,000 only went to the Fruit Control Board. Again, I want to say that I do not complain of the levy, but this year if we are going to have anything like the quantity spoken of, the increase will be anything from 20 per cent. to 33½ per cent. One hon. member mentioned the Empire Marketing Board. There is no doubt that we have received a great deal of benefit from the Empire Marketing Board, and their efforts have been very much seconded by the efforts of the deciduous fruit-growers. They have been spending enormous sums of money overseas in advertising their fruit. If the same thing were done in regard to citrus, it would do a lot of good. We want to make every effort to see that the fruit which goes from this country is such that we can be proud of, and that the customer overseas will want it again. I was a bit nervous the other day when I heard of an arrangement to relax the inspection regulations. I was perfectly satisfied with your explanation which was, in view of the fact that a certain number of shippers had got such a good name, that less than 5 per cent. would be examined. I would rather the whole 5 per cent. were opened up than that a shipment should be unsatisfactory. We want the inspection, and I hope this does not mean that you are going to reduce the number of inspectors. They are a very fine body of men, and we have nothing to complain about. We feel that in being turned down sometimes we are being educated. Then, sir, I received re-appointment from the Minister of Railways recently as a member of the Perishable Export Board at Port Elizabeth. It is wonderful to see some of the stuff that is sent down by growers in ignorance. I would be very glad if, during the interval between shipments, the inspectors could visit and explain methods to the farming community; there would be a great deal less of turning down. I do not believe a man is so foolish as to harm his own name by bad selection when packing.

I would just like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied with the progress which the “Sheep” Division is making under his leadership? Let me say here at once that they are not the spontaneous outbursts of Natal members such as the Minister usually dubs them. Natal is too often made the scapegoat, but I think that the only offence which Natal has committed is that 16 constituencies have not bowed the knee to Baal. If however I take the figures which the Minister himself supplied during the last seven years then we find that the department has sold stud sheep for an amount of £9,500 and has bought sheep to an amount of £11,000 so that £2,000 more has been bought than sold. If this is necessary for technical purposes then I have nothing against it, but I would just like to know the reason why the department has bred stud sheep since 1914 and is today still buying more for stud purposes. Take our figures for five years. Then we find that sheep have been sold for £7,200 and bought for £11,000 so that there is a deficit of £4,000. The last purchase of sheep took place three months ago. I would like to know from the Minister why this is done. Does the department want to act as an active competitor of the stud farmers of South Africa? In connection with the department, I want to point out that the Government in 1926 sold 107 sheep for £1,000 and bought 129 sheep for £800, so that more valuable sheep were sold and less valuable sheep bought. The same happened in 1928. What is the reason? We find that during last year the Government sold more valuable sheep and bought less valuable. There are signs of going back and I would like to know the reason for it. Then I would ask the Minister whether there is agreement with regard to the policy among experts. What is the policy? By one wool expert it is said that fine wool must be cultivated, by another, coarse wool. Where do we stand? We find that now we are advised by many people to produce fine wool, and that the market demands it. Now I would like to ask what is the position, and what the policy? Another point is the change in policy regarding the visits of experts. I would like the Minister to return to the old policy. Now only three visits are free. It is to the interest of farmers that these three visits should be made. It ought to be the duty of the Government to furnish the farmers with expert advice by experts, and to do so as often as possible and free. It is in the interest of the country. The farmers ought to be helped to increase the quantity of wool per sheep. Each pound of wool increase per sheep per year or per two years means an amount of £2,000,000 to the Union, and that is sufficient reason for supplying these services free. There must be encouragement for the farmers, and the farmers must be told more what they must do to get more wool on their sheep.

The hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) boasted that Dundee, in spite of my remarks, elected him as their representative, but I am afraid that if they heard him talking about sheep farming they would be disappointed, and, at the next election, vote differently.

He is a first-class sheep farmer.

I don’t think the hon. member for Dundee requires the reinforcement of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), but, none the less, I am prepared to stand it. The hon. member asked whether I was satisfied with the progress of sheep farming, and I can immediately answer in the affirmative. When the Government came into power in 1924 there were twenty-six million wooled sheep in the Union, and, in spite of the terrible row that was kicked up about simultaneous dipping in the Union, there are to-day thirty-eight million wooled sheep. Not only did the number increase, but the average weight of wool per sheep increased from 6.61 lbs. in 1924 to 7.2 lbs. in 1928. If the farmers are not satisfied with that, then they will never be satisfied. I want to repeat that at the recent election the farmers showed that they were satisfied with the policy of the present Government, and only a few members opposite remain who are like a voice calling in the wilderness. Then the hon. member for Dundee complained that in some years the department spent more on stud sheep than it received. Let me tell the hon. member that every year the department buys rams to improve the stock, and that then old rams are sold. Of course, the price is then lower. This year £9,000 was spent, but that is because the Zara stud of Sir Abe Bailey, one of the best in the country, was put up for auction, and the Government wanted to prevent that it should be lost to the country. Therefore, a certain amount was made available to buy those sheep, and I am sure that the wool farmer is grateful, because now he can obtain those sheep from the Government. I can assure the hon. member for Dundee that in respect to sheep farming we are not afraid of any country in the world. The hon. member says that the experts do not give the same advice to the farmers, but about one thing they are all agreed, namely, that our wool must rise from 64҆s to 72’s. He says that some people maintain that it must be coarser. There are, however, not two doctors whose opinion about a case will be exactly the same, and just as little can he expect that wool experts will not differ from each other. It is, however, certain that when our wool farmers produce wool of 2½ inches length and of the fineness mentioned, then we need have no fear for the future, and we need not be afraid even of the competition of artificial wool and artificial products. Then the hon. member asked if it were not possible to put wool experts in the same position as before. If they are giving such divergent advice, it is peculiar that the hon. member wants them to be placed on the same footing in order to advise people. No, I think we have a much better system to-day. To-day the experts go to certain places and get the farmers together; then they classify the sheep and tell the people to do the same themselves. The idea is that the Government must not always do the work for the farmers, but that they—especially the young ones—must be taught to classify the sheep themselves. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) spoke about the levy of the Fruit Exchange, and would like to know if it is being properly spent. He wants the department to keep a very careful eye on the Co-operative Society to see that the money is properly spent. Let me say again that it is a business concern. The department does, indeed, supervise, but, in the first place, it is the duty of the members who elect the members of the Fruit Exchange and want the money to be spent on advertising, to say what must be done. Why must that business be taken over by the Government? No, I think that the sooner the farmers learn to manage the business themselves, the better. Then he said that he hoped that the Board of Control would see that the same privileges were given to both large and small producers in regard to shipping. I am convinced that this has been the case up to now, because Mr. le Roux and the members of the board are following that line. If there are complaints, then they must be brought to my notice, and I can assure hon. members that they will receive my attention. Then he has said that, in regard to the inspection of fruit, we must act carefully to prevent the reduction of inspection to less than 5 per cent. of the quantity shipped leading to injuring our market overseas. I can assure the hon. member that the inspectors know the shippers well, and that they would not be careless. By changing about care will be taken that proper control is exercised. His request for the visiting of farms by inspectors is also receiving my attention. Then the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) spoke about the mealie position. He knows quite well what my attitude is. If he wants a change in the system of co-operation, then he has the remedy in his own hands. I do not intend to come to Parliament with a proposal to make mealie co-operation compulsory in the whole country, so that all the mealie farmers must sell co-operatively. If the hon. member himself wants to introduce such legislation, and the House is willing to approve of it, then I am willing to carry it out. He cannot, however, expect me to introduce legislation when a large section of the country is absolutely opposed to it, that I should apply compulsory co-operation to one of the foodstuffs of the country. Co-operation is good, but to make it universally obligatory is compulsion. Then you can no longer call it co-operation, but you must tell the farmers that in future it is laid down for them compulsorily how they must sell. The hon. member for Bredasdorp (Major van der Byl) mentioned the transfer of the sheep inspector to Caledon, whose place has not been filled. Let me say that the scab position is so favourable that the areas of the inspectors have been increased. The farmers must understand that we need not always be on our guard, because, fortunately, they have themselves been so scrupulous that it has become unnecessary. During the last year scab has decreased by 75 per cent. and, therefore, we are not justified in keeping on more than 400 inspectors. The time is no longer far off when the position will be so much improved that we shall be able to get on without such inspectors, and that the farmers will be able to look after their own sheep. I can assure him that when I find that conditions in his constituency are such that more help must be given, we shall take it into consideration. Then I come to the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. de Souza), who spoke about wheat. I agree with the member that we must help the wheat farmers as much as possible, but the difficulty is mainly that our wheat production is so terribly low. If we compare it with other countries, then we find that our country is definitely one of the countries with the lowest production. The hon. member suggested certain remedies. Well, I am convinced that the key to the solution is that production must be increased. Regarding the co-operative society in his district, I would like to point out that when I was in his district I ascertained that the co-operative society at its liquidation had a balance of £30,000.

That does not remove the difficulties.

If the co-operative society was in such a state that £30,000 remained in its safe, then the condition could not be so bad. I found, too, that the farmers generally were not so badly off. We must seek the solution in the direction of larger production to which better fertilizing, cultivation of the land, etc., can contribute. Regarding an enquiry into the position, I want to point out that a little while ago the Board of Trade and Industries investigated the matter and made a report. This may happen again if dumping takes place, and if this is so, the Government will be quite willing to tackle the matter. Let me point out that the import duty on wheat has already been raised. We are in touch with the position, but I would also like to point out to hon. members that, according to data, last year there was really an overproduction of wheat in all countries of the world, which has largely contributed to the low prices. I understand that this year it will not be so in some countries, and I hope that, as a result of that, the price of wheat will rise. The hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. Chiappini) is not in the House. He spoke about the export of fruit, and said that the Government must take steps to insure a market in England. That is a business matter, and if the Fruit Exchange thinks that someone must be sent overseas, then the Government must not be asked to do so. They have their revenue, and, if necessary, can send someone.

I do not know why the Minister of Agriculture must always roar when we ask him for certain information. The hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend), is one of our ablest young members and in a reasonable and able manner he asked for information regarding wool and sheep farming. The Minister instead of replying properly, attacks him personally and doubts his ability as a sheep-farmer. Let me say that the member is one of the ablest and most successful farmers in Natal. Why, then, this personal attack?

Then the hon. member must not make accusations.

The hon. member made no accusations, but spoke in a reasonable and able manner, but the Minister attacked him personally. That is a bad habit of the Minister. I speak now as a friend of the Minister and am warning him. I think that both sides of the House will agree that the manner of the Minister is unnecessarily rude. Then I want to ask the Minister a question in connection with my constituency. I would like to know how much money has been placed on the estimates for the citrus station at Nelspruit. I have been there. There are two exceptionally able experts there, but it seems to me that as regards money they are kept so close that they can really do nothing. Now I do not want to say that the two experts have complained to me. They have not said a word, but more than one citrus farmer thinks that the station there appears to be just a blind to satisfy them. I do not say so, but would like to know whether those people there are working under such difficult conditions. It is an important centre of the citrus industry in South Africa, and I would be glad if the Minister would place the experimental station there in a proper position to be of use.

Regarding co-operation, I cannot agree with the Minister. Co-operation without compulsion is no co-operation.

With compulsion it is no co-operation.

The hon. member does not know much about it. If in South Africa co-operation is not compulsory then the parasites will very quickly knock the feet from under the whole system. In the House the proposal has been accepted that if a certain percentage accept co-operation, co-operation can be made compulsory. I understand the mealie farmers want this. I do not know if they have the 75 per cent. required, but if it is so then they have a right to claim compulsion in respect of co-operation, and the Minister ought then certainly to take it into consideration and make it compulsory by force of law. It does not help at all to say that fertilizers must be carried more cheaply and that more information must be given. The practical way is to see that the farmers get value for their labour. We must see that the parasite, the middleman, does not put millions into his pocket. To protect the farmers against those people compulsory co-operation will alone help. If the Minister is afraid that the farmers will demand too much for their wheat, the law can be so altered that the Government can from time to time lay down what prices will be permitted, so that the poor farmers may be assisted and the consumers and the industries may obtain the product at a fair price. Take the price of wheat. We talk a lot about protection, but if the farmers do not see that they obtain the advantage arising from that, if the farmers do not help themselves, it will not help at all. I can inform the Minister that I have learnt that in a certain district the price of wheat is 9s. per 100 lbs., and that if one wants to buy bran at the mill he is asked 9s. per 100 lbs. Of what use is it if the milling companies have the matter in their hands; fix the price of wheat and the farmers have not the least protection against them. Instead of the millers putting the large profits into their pockets the farmer could obtain a proper price and the consumer be protected from paying too much. I admit that the Government has done a great deal for the farmers and we are grateful, but the same time we admit that the man who gathers the most fruit from the labour of the farmers is the middleman, and we must do something to get rid of the middleman. We can do this by means of co-operation, but co-operation without compulsion in our country means nothing. We must encourage the people and in that way help them.

The Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) is not very reassuring. 25 per cent. of the cattle slaughtered in the Union come from outside our borders and breeding stock are practically unsaleable. This has become a national question, and the farmers of the Union look to the Government to solve the problem. 80 per cent. of the 11½ million cattle in the Union are scrub. Compared with Australian and Argentine cattle, our stock is very poor, and we have not very much chance of selling it overseas, because the two big meat trusts have dug themselves into the European market. Therefore, we must look in another direction for a solution. My suggestion is that the Government should approach the great meat-extract companies and offer them a bounty on the production of meat extract in this country, besides giving them facilities for the erection of factories. The demand for trek stock is growing less with the increased use of mechanical transport. During the coming year one company is going to increase its imports of mechanical tractors by 1,200. How many draught oxen will that displace, seeing that mechanical traction is far more economical than animal traction? Then there is the depreciation in value of land used for cattle grazing purposes. The question affects everybody, and commerce is restricted because the purchasing power of the farmer is reduced. The Government must make up their mind they are going to save the situation. I will tell the Minister of Finance where he can get £50,000 to do that. We are spending £100,000 a year to control east coast fever. Reduce that by half and you have your £50,000. How paradoxical it is that we should spend this £100,000 a year, and yet we are making no progress in regard to checking east coast fever. Trying to save the cattle cannot convert them into cash. The Minister of Finance, I am sure, realizes the gravity of the position. This question, if it is to find a solution, must find it on the lines I have indicated. The farmers themselves have failed. It is a national question, and, therefore, the Government must face it. If they do not, they are going to have a period of depression which will be without precedent in the history of agriculture in the Union.

I asked the Minister whether he was satisfied with the “sheep” division under his control. I did not ask the Minister whether he was satisfied with the sheep-farming industry. I know that there has been progress in the last few years, and I know that it is due to the good old principles laid down by the South African party, but I want to know what the condition is regarding the “sheep” division. I made no insinuation. The Minister can accept it from me that when I say anything in this connection I am making no insinuation, but want to help, and I shall never want to gain the temple of fame by entering through the unsavoury and low portals of personalities. We find that in recent years more valuable sheep have been sold and less valuable bought by the department, and, in the interests of the country, I want to draw attention to this state of affairs, and ask what is the cause of it, and what is the policy of the department.

Let me at once reply to the hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend). He said that the progress of the sheep industry is due to the fact that the present Government is following the policy of the South African party Government. But this just shows how ignorant he is. He ought to know how the South African party kicked against my abolishing the “sheep” division of the Department of Agriculture, and how they prophesied how the sheep industry in the Union was done with.

You dismissed the South African party inspectors.

The hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) is one of those who cried so when his friend, Barney Enslin, left, but yet the hon. member for Dundee has the effrontery to say that the South African party policy is being carried on. No, we followed an entirely new course, and it is due to that the number of sheep has increased and the quality of sheep and wool improved. His remarks about the buying and selling of sheep by the department I have already dealt with, and I have pointed out that you cannot expect that the receipts will be the same as the expenditure. The hon. member for Barberton wants to know what we have done for the station at Nelspruit. This matter will be discussed in the debate on the loan estimates, but I can now say that we are going to put this station on a very good basis. The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) pleaded for compulsory co-operation, but as I have already to-night informed the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe), the remedy is in their own hands. If they can convince the House of the necessity for it, then I shall be ready to carry out the decision of the House. (This vote was then put and accepted.)

I ask the Minister now to report progress.

Some of the other votes have already been discussed.

Still, I think we have done enough to-day.

Amendment put and negatived.

Vote, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote 29, “Agriculture (Education)”, £207,483,

I move—

I think we might report progress and ask leave to sit again. We have been here since 11 o’clock this morning.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee to-morrow.