announced that his Excellency the Governor-General, having been informed of the following amendment to the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Funds for 1924-25 [U.G. 29—’24], recommends the appropriation contemplated therein to the consideration of the House, viz.:

I would like to ask the Minister if there is any report from the Board of Trade in regard to this amendment. The tariff of carbonate of soda was originally fixed at 1s. 6d. now it is raised to 2s. The Minister merely says it is recommended.

I have already indicated to the hon. member that the report was considered. I discussed the matter with the Board and I had all the members present. They agreed that the originally proposed amount of 1s. 6d. would be inadequate and would not help to protect the industry and they also agreed that if they desired to help these people the amount would have to be increased to 2s.

When an important amendment like this goes against the written report of the Board I think a further report should have been received from them.

Agreed to.

On Clause 3.

I want to appeal to the Minister once more to put into immediate effect the changes in taxation. There existed some uncertainty about me date when the change would come into operation, with the result that manufacturers will still have large quantities on hand when next year’s crop comes on the market. Ultimately if the market is cleared for the next crop the farmer is bound to get the benefit. It should be our aim to help the small factories because they are threatened by a monopoly. It is no secret that the tobacco tax was inspired by a big tobacco company. The existence of many small factories, especially in my constituency, is being threatened. If the change is not made, buyers will wait with their orders until next year, when the new order of things will come into operation. It is possible that the factories will close down for a few weeks towards the end of the year if the amendments do not at once become operative.

I would like to move an amendment which I have no doubt the Minister of Finance will be prepared to accept, because I do not forget that two years ago when the co-operative Act was before the House, my hon. friend gave me great assistance in passing it. I hope the amendment will be of considerable assistance, not only to the tobacco farmers, but in furthering the spirit of co-operation. The Bill introduced last session in connection with the wine industry contained a provision to extend co-operation. That Act, to a certain extent, has been a great success, and I would like to propose an amendment, which will, if adopted, give the farmers in the tobacco business an equal opportunity to further and control their own industries. I move—

If my hon. friend will accept this he will do a great deal towards inculcating co-operative principles amongst the tobacco farmers. As I said the other day on the second reading of the Bill, the great difficulty in the way of developing the tobacco industry is the fact that the farmers do not co-operate. This is not only detrimental to the tobacco farmers themselves, but to the industry as a whole, for unless you have co-operated organizations with warehouses in which the tobacco is treated and put on the market in a proper manner, the small producers alone will never have an opportunity of deriving a legitimate profit out of his industry. We must now look to the overseas market. Some of us were disappointed that the preference proposals which the Economic Conference adopted were not accepted, for I believe that within the British Empire it is perfectly possible to produce all the tobacco which Great Britain requires. Nothing would do more to assist the production of that tobacco than the adoption of the principle of Imperial preference, but in the meantime if we are going to look out for a market and are going to compete against the tobacco trade of the United States, it is essential that our farmers should co-operate, that their tobacco should be treated in the best possible manner and the Government should make provision for making loans for the erection of tobacco warehouses. That will be materially assisted if the Minister will accept my amendment, which will give great encouragement to co-operative organizations by giving them a reduction in the tobacco excise. When I visited Rustenburg and had an opportunity of seeing the good work done by the Magaliesberg Co-operative Company I was told that one of the obstacles to everybody in the district joining the organization was the fact that opposite the co-operative store was another store. A grower would get 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the value of his tobacco from the tobacco store and would have to wait for the balance until the tobacco was sold, but the people in the other store said to him: “If you will sell your tobacco to us we will pay you the same price as the co-operative store, but give you the cash at once.” When I went through the district represented by the Minister of Lands, this question was discussed, and I do not know that the Minister did not come to Cape Town with a deputation from the Magaliesberg Tobacco Company to urge that we should reduce the tobacco excise.

You did not accept the proposal.

The hon. member and others so misled the unfortunate voters of this country that the latter believed the nostrum fairy tales they were told on the hustings, and the voters put another Government in office. One of the reasons why they put another Government in office—as the Minister of Lands knows well—was that they were told that the tobacco excise would be wiped out, and that they would have somebody who would deal with the tobacco farmers in a really sympathetic manner. The constituents of the Minister of Lands will not be satisfied unless my amendment is accepted. If this proviso is adopted it will give the greatest possible stimulus to cooperation in this country, and it will do more than anything else to enable us to produce our tobaccos and treat them in a proper manner, and to obtain our fair share in the world’s market, which we are not getting at the present time, because our tobacco is not properly treated. The small grower who is not a member of a tobacco society is now at the mercy of the tobacco buyer.

I quite agree with the hon. member who has just sat down. There is much expense in connection with the organization that is necessary for the sorting of tobacco, and for getting it in form for transport and sale. It costs a lot of money, and the organization which takes the trouble ought to get the assistance of the State in the form of a low excise duty.

I am a supporter of co-operative societies, and during the greater part of my life I have worked in the interests of that movement. If the Minister accepts the amendment, however, it would create a precedent which will give other societies a claim to preferential tariffs, such as mealies for instance. I would welcome the giving of preference, but then it should be equally applied to all co-operative societies.

I cannot quite understand why the amendment has been moved. The tobacco tax is simply kept because the Estimates were already framed. I promised my constituents that the tax would be repealed, but it is impossible for the Minister to do so now because he wants the money at present supplied by the tobacco tax. The only thing will be for the Government to turn a deaf ear to the criticism of the Opposition until next session, when I hope the tax will be abolished altogether. It is the small farmer who suffers and not the big co-operative societies. If there is to be relief for anybody it should be for the small producer who often has to travel a hundred miles to take out his licence, and then still has to supply two sureties. If the tax must for the present remain, it should apply equally to all, no exception should be made for anybody. I shall vote against the amendment.

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I do not want to discuss the amendment on its merits. I have no doubt if the House would take an opportunity of examining it, it would find that this amendment is just as ill-considered as all the previous proposals of the late Government on this tobacco question. It is quite clear that the hon. member has not thought this question out at all, or he would have seen how impossible such an amendment would be. I have already stated what was the policy of the previous Government in this connection, and what we propose to do. Although I would like to do away altogether with this tax immediately, I cannot do it now as the revenue will not allow of it. The proposals in the present Bill are the full extent to which the Government can go at this stage. During the recess, as I have already stated, the whole question will be gone into by the Government, and further proposals will be laid before Parliament next session. I cannot accept this amendment nor any other amendment at the present time. This is the limit of concession to which I can go to-day. I cannot go back on the date fixed—the 1st of January, 1925. The main reason for the objection was that it will be hard on the small farmer, but I would point out that by now he has sold all his tobacco. The consumer did not ask for it, and consequently there will be no less tobacco consumed on account of the Government’s proposals. Having regard to the state of the finances, the Government thus makes as big a concession as is possible. Possibly amendments may be introduced to place it on a better basis, but the Government cannot now forego the revenue. The reduction is the most that the Government can do.

I am rather sorry my hon. friend has taken that position, but he is entirely wrong when he says this question has not been considered. He is rather hard too on his colleague the Minister of Lands. The first body which brought this question to my notice was the Magaliesberg Tobacco Company through a deputation from the Rustenburg district. They have since taken advantage of the late Government’s provisions to put up a store. The Magaliesberg Tobacco Company sent a deputation down here which was met by representatives of other tobacco organizations, and that was one of the points which was very strongly brought forward, so my hon. friend is wrong when he says it has been hastily considered. These organizations stated that there were no means whereby you could better strengthen the position of the co-operative tobacco farmers than by a proposal of this kind. The Minister must know that the great difficulty of the small tobacco farmer is that he has not facilities for treating this tobacco, and consequently it becomes a drug on the market. If this proposal was accepted you would have a very different state of affairs, and a big export trade. I am sorry the Minister has taken up that position. I hoped to have the support of the Minister of Lands, but if the Minister of Lands under some influence which has been brought to bear goes back on the position he took up last year I cannot do more. I am very sorry.

Speaking on behalf of the small tobacco grower, I think the Minister has lost sight of the fact that the small tobacco grower will be crowded out in the trustification which has taken place in regard to tobacco. Take for instance the Vredefort farmers, they are being entirely crowded off the ground through want of expansion in opening up all our markets. I am not convinced to-day that the big co-operative organizations have been entirely useful as far as the small grower is concerned. In my opinion the first field that the co-operative organizations have exploited have been to the advantage of the big trusts themselves. The markets have fallen to the trusts. To-day we have a big trustification of tobacco with the cooperative organizations acting as the intermediary for gathering up this tobacco. I am sorry the Minister has not been able to go the whole hog and remove this Act entirely this session. The whole thing is wrong in principle, the restriction is wrong, and any amendment such as that of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), which goes to the restriction, is also wrong. If a restriction is given for tobacco it should be given for every other produce. It is entirely wrong that we should try to prevent the producer from producing the quantity because we have not expanded the market. The fault lies with the Government. If they had not expanded the markets abroad, they should not have formed the farmers into these big co-operative organizations. I shall press for the entire abolition of the tobacco tax. It should be the policy of this Government to remit that tax at the earliest opportunity. It presses hardly on the small grower.

I am just as convinced as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that the tobacco farmer will be saved only by co-operation. There is a surplus in this country, and unless we find markets abroad for our product there is no future for the tobacco farmer. If we want to export, the quality of our tobacco should be improved and also the means of export, and in this connection co-operation is indispensable. The amendment is quite impracticable, because the treated article is being taxed to-day. That means that the farmer gets no rebate, as would be the case if an excise were levied on leaf tobacco. The Tobacco Growers’ Association advocated that in the past, but they saw that it would not be possible, and their congress passed a resolution requesting the Government to pass legislation enabling the farmers in a certain area to cooperate if 60 per cent. of them were in favour. Two months ago this resolution was passed in Johannesburg. I think it was a very good resolution, and the Minister ought to give his attention to it. The Agricultural Department should go out of its way to encourage the farmers to form co-operative societies, and officers ought to be sent out to give them the necessary information. That will cost money, I know, but the farmers have to pay the tax, and it can be justly used in the interests of the tobacco growers. It is a wrong principle to compel a certain section to form a co-operative society, but where there is already a spirit of co-operation, everything possible should be done to encourage it. The tobacco farmers are realizing to-day that co-operation is necessary, and where 60 per cent. of the farmers are in favour of it the State ought to give a hand to establish a co-operative society. For these reasons I cannot support the amendment, although I am whole-heartedly in favour of cooperation, especially in respect of tobacco growers.

There are huge combinations and trusts which are working against the co-operative societies, and if the members get a rebate, it will enable those people to become members of these bodies. I do not wish to go so far as to use compulsion to the farmers, but we can make membership desirable by means of the amendment that has been suggested, namely, to let the members of the societies pay a small excise.

The co-operative societies ask for a penny reduction in the excise, not in order to let the farmers pay less, but because the society wanted that small sum for advertisement and propaganda work. I cannot vote for it and I am glad that the Minister refuses it. The Government had gone as far as it is possible to go. The tax has been reduced, and the Government cannot do any more. Next year there will undoubtedly be new proposals.

May I point out to the hon. member opposite that he is under a misunderstanding. Naturally when this was discussed by the co-operative societies the manner in which they were going to use the penny was left to be discussed by their members. All these questions we discussed; but what was not discussed was the argument by which an hon. gentleman like the hon. gentleman opposite, who is not in favour of this principle, has not given the House the reason why under different circumstances he was not prepared to vote for it.

The amendment was negatived.

Clause 3 was agreed to.

New Clause 7.

I now propose to move a new Clause 7. I think this is the proper place for it to come, and I feel perfectly certain the hon. Minister and hon. members opposite will accept it. We have heard a great deal during the year or the last two years of the incidence of the Tobacco Excise and the severe manner in which it pressed on the small man—the small man not being able to sell his tobacco as he likes, but being obliged to accept what is offered him. The small man with one or one and a half morgen of ground is driven off the ground. I found during my tour of the country and especially my own district which is a large tobacco-growing district, that the question was put to me as it was in Piet Retief whether the small man is not enormously penalized. He was not able to treat his tobacco properly and when he wanted to sell it, four-pence was deducted and if you give him only twopence it has not only a tendency, but it has actually driven a man out of cultivation. Now what I want to propose is as follows:

That the following be a new clause to follow Clause 6:

The result of that amendment will be that these small people about whom we hear so much, and there is such a desire to come to their assistance, will be able to treat their tobacco and sell to the consumer direct without paying excise. That will not touch any of the ordinary tobacco sold by retail, but it will come to the assistance of small men in the disposal of their tobacco. This will carry out the principle that obtains in nearly all other agricultural pursuits—that the producer of an article has the right to sell direct to the consumer without an intermediary coming in. I will be able to give the hon. Minister of Finance better figures than the Customs Department, which is out to get revenue. I am out to help the producer, and I hope my hon. friend will not be of so miserly a character, as this will cost him very little money and will remove a great deal of dissatisfaction that exists at the present time. My hon. friend has struck a great blow at these small people already.

In what way?

I will tell him. I have done so on two occasions. Because he has reduced the duty on roll tobacco to two-pence a pound and he keeps the duty on leaf tobacco at threepence halfpenny.

Is not this proportion more favourable to him than the former?

It is more favourable to the roll man, but not the man who makes cut tobacco. I thought I made it clear the other day. From 90 lbs. of leaf you get 135 lbs. of roll tobacco at 9½d. per 1b. From the other tobacco you make only. 60 lbs. of granulated tobacco and whereas roll is paying an excise of 2d. and you sell the 135 lbs. from the 90; of the other sort you are able to sell only 60 lbs. from the 90. I also want to assist these men to whom my hon. friend has done such an injustice. Naturally, if the consumer buys from the producer and sells retail, he will fall under the law. I would appeal to my hon. friend to give that small amount of relief, and we gave a definite promise that we would do everything we possibly could to get Parliament to adopt that principle. Hon. members on the opposite side made the same promise, and now they have an opportunity of redeeming that promise, which was made not for electioneering purposes, but to meet the needs of the small producer.

It has often been said by members opposite that the responsibilities of office would do the Nationalist party good, and that it would calm down. That may be so, but I am sure it does the S.A.P. good to be on the Opposition side. There is the hon. member for Fort Beaufort, for instance, who is now quite a different person, and it is certainly good for him to be in opposition. I am glad to see that the Opposition is taking up the position adopted by the old Afrikander Bond—it is urging the claims of the farmer, but when it was in a position to help him, the party and its Government levied a tax on tobacco, and despite the strong opposition of the Nationalist party maintained that pernicious tax. Now the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) gets up and at the most impossible time advocates its abolition. Five months of the present financial year have passed, and now he expects us to repeal this tax. That surely is unreasonable. I am certain the Government is going to change the tobacco tax considerably. A great deal has been said about the medicine tax, of the tax on the increased values of stock and on the estate duty. All these taxes will be dealt with in due time, but the Government cannot do it now. There is no time to abolish all the taxes and put new ones in their places. This amendment is inopportune. If it is adopted it will give rise to all kinds of difficulties with the big producers and the co-operative societies. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) should stop kicking dust, and have a little patience. There will be a time—

The producer will be dead then.

If the tobacco grower dies, the S.A.P. will be the cause of it. The Nationalist party will not kill him. It is useless now for the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) to shed tears at the grave of the small tobacco farmer. He may as well leave that out. It was he who killed the small tobacco farmer.

If one listens to the hon. member, one is almost moved to—

Become a Christian.

This is a case where the Nationalist party always pitied the poor man, and now the S.A.P. wants to help him.

Then why did you not do it?

You know just as well as I that the late Minister promised the small producer some relief. I quite admit it is difficult for the Minister to make a change just now. I know of many small growers, however, especially in Zoutpansberg, who sell their tobacco direct to the kaffirs. That district has to suffer a good deal from locusts and drought, and it will be a good thing if the Minister can assist those people. In the past the Nationalists often accused members of the S.A.P. of voting sheepishly for their party. I know that many members opposite are in favour of the amendment, and I would specially mention the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) with his 300 poor families. I would advise hon. members not only to talk, but to do something for their constituents.

The present position in the House is nothing but a farce. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is moving an opportunistic motion simply to catch votes, and the motion moved by him is to encourage co-operation and another motion calculated to kill it. That sort of thing reminds one of a certain incident of the elections when the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) promised in Pretoria to amend the tax, whilst the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) promised it would be repealed. The tax is just as impracticable and disastrous to the farmers as these hasty motions and utterances.

I did not say that.

I found that in the hon. member’s own party press. In order to try to carry out his promises he now comes up with these foolish proposals. If it is proposed to exempt the farmer he will never join a cooperative society because he will then have to pay a tax. That opens a way to abuse. It would also mean that the manufacturer will have to close down his business because nobody will sell anything to him. We must not cause ill-feeling between the farmer and the manufacturer, and this tactless proposal will do that. The Minister showed the right spirit when he promised to investigate the whole matter during the recess.

This proposed new clause was put, and Sir Thomas Smartt called for a division.

The committee thereupon divided:

Ayes—41.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott. W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miller, A. M.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins. W. R., De Jager, A. L.

Noes—63.

Alexander, M.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp. J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Smit. J. S.

Swart. C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, C. A.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl. J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J., Vermooten, O. S.

Proposed new Clause accordingly negatived.

On Clause 9,

I move—

To add the following new paragraph (to follow paragraph (l)):

There is no precedent for the amendment, which I think is very objectionable. Clause 9 does, at any rate, state specifically the articles to which a rebate is to be applied, but in the amendment complete power is left to the Board of Trade to state what rebates are to be given. The amendment takes away the prerogative of Parliament, which should state what is to be taxed and not to be taxed. You propose to give this power to the Board of Trade.

No.

Certainly. It is left to the Board of Trade to say whether a certain article should be put in the rebated list.

That is a mere recommendation.

But the Government will accept it. They should not have the power to put anything in the rebated list unless it is brought before the House. This is a new departure, and there is only one thing to be said in its favour, and that is it is taking off the duty. What is to prevent the Minister from putting the control of all the tariffs in the hands of the Board of Trade? The amendment takes away the prerogative of Parliament, and I am strongly opposed to it.

This principle has already been accepted in previous legislation. The hon. member is not quite right when he says that the power contemplated in the amendment is given to the Board of Trade. The Board has to go to the executive Government, and it is only contemplated that the executive Government should have the right to exercise this power during the recess. It will then have to come to Parliament and the decisions must be confirmed by Parliament. This is an innovation which most countries which go in for protection of industries have found essential. In America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, this power is given to the executive Government. In America the President has the right to vary duties and give rebates for the benefit of industries. It is merely carrying out the principle which exists in other countries. When Parliament is not in session it may be of the utmost importance that certain raw materials should be admitted free. Without such remission, perhaps the industry could not be established, and without this provision it would have to wait until Parliament was in session. I agree it is a departure from the generally accepted principles that Parliament only should tax, but this is not a tax, it is a remission of duty. I think the only person who should object is the Minister of Finance, because it would influence his budget. Hon. members need have no fear that this power will be used too freely. Only in those cases where an industry is recommended by the Board of Trade as having made out a strong case for protection, will this power be used. If we want to go in for a policy of protection of industries, the executive Government must have this right to make the slight alterations when Parliament is not sitting, in the interests of our manufacturers. I say that principle has already been departed from m Clause 9, which, as I pointed out on Friday, is already on the statute book. That having been once accepted, I think the hon. member will agree it is only a logical thing to do to give the Government power to act in these cases when Parliament is not sitting.

I do not wish to enter into the principle involved in this clause, but I will point out to the Minister that the way I read the amendment the whole responsibility is relegated to the Board of Trade and Industries.

No, no.

Yes, an outside body has first to report favourably before the Minister can take any action at all. I think the hon. Prime Minister will realize the serious principle involved in this amendment. The Prime Minister’s hands are tied if this amendment is adopted. The Board of Trade and Industries, an outside body, has first to report in order to give the Government the power to put any article on the free list. Speaking as a very strong protectionist, as one who is doing everything he can to assist South African industries, I should not like to see the prerogative of Parliament and the responsibility of Ministers reduced as they will be by a proposal of this sort.

Do I understand that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) takes the opposite view to that taken by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger)? The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) wants me to act without even taking advice from the Board of Trade and Industries. Of course, as I have pointed out already this afternoon, the Government is guided by the reports of the Board of Trade and Industries, but reserves to itself the right to act without a report. It has been so in the past and will be so in future. If I understand the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) correctly, his objection is not that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). He is afraid I am not taking sufficient power. I do not think it is necessary for the protection of our industries that we should go so far as he would appear to wish. I think as we have this Board, it will be sufficient if the Government should act when it receives a report from that body.

My hon. friend does not understand his own amendment. My hon. friend says that the Government can act if it has a recommendation from the Board of Trade and Industries or if it has not. But there it quite clearly says in the amendment that the recommendation must come from the Board of Trade and Industries. You leave it to the Board of Trade and Industries. Unless you get a recommendation from the Board you cannot give the rebate or know the industries which require it. You can refuse, it is true, but you cannot give the rebate without the assent of the Board.

Quite so.

That, as I and the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige), contend, is taking away the prerogative of Parliament. It is only fair that this House should know what it is doing in this matter, as it is setting a precedent for the future. I quite expect the time will come when you will be asking the Board of Trade to raise duties.

I do not think there is any dispute as to what the effect of the clause is. The ordinary procedure I take it would be that some industry will come to the Government and say we should have certain duties taken off to start or continue our industry. The Government will say: We are sympathetic, but we must refer that to the Board, and the Board, if sympathetic, will report accordingly. Then the Government, fortified by the opinion of the Board, will take the duty off. That is, I think, almost unconstitutional. I think the real question which emerges is this: are we going to be sufficiently sure that the Board will be capable of dealing with all the questions which are referred to it? We have another Bill before us just now in which very wide powers are given to this Board and I think it is unlucky that we have to discuss this clause in this Bill before we have had an opportunity of discussing the whole question of the appointment to the Board of Trade and Industries. I must say I share the view of my hon. friend on my right in thinking this is a dangerous procedure to adopt. It is only one step from this to giving the Government power to raise duties which of course would be a very serious thing to do. I think further in 99 cases out of a 100 it would not hurt the industries concerned if they did have to wait until the next session of Parliament. It is obvious that there is nothing particularly urgent now because if the Government knew of any article on which it was intended to make rebates promptly, I take it they would have included that in the schedule to the Bill.

The hon. Minister did not tell us the reason why on second thoughts he introduced this amendment, because there is no doubt when he introduced this Bill he gave Clause 9 a good deal of consideration, and in Clause 9 he scheduled a number of articles on which he was to be empowered by Parliament to make certain remissions. The reason my hon. friend did that, I suppose, was because his advisers pointed out to him that there were possibilities of establishing certain industries for which these remissions would be helpful. But now he introduces an omnibus clause and says there can be no item besides those particular ones with which he shall not have power to deal, even without the consent of Parliament. Is not my hon. friend asking the House to vote a little too much? We are already giving him the right to remit the whole or part of the duties on twelve items. Not content with that, he comes forward and says: in every other raw product under the sun I should have power to do the same. I think the hon. Minister is going a little too Far.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is wrong as usual. A few days ago he twitted Ministers because they were not present in the House. Had he been as assiduous in attending to his duties as we have, he would have been present when this matter was discussed, and he would know the reason why this clause is brought in in this way. He wants to know why I have not introduced it into the Bill before. One of the reasons was that my hon. friend the Minister of Mines and Industries had made provision for this power already in another Bill, but Mr. Speaker ruled that it was for me to take over the clause. There upon it was agreed that this amendment should be introduced in this way.

I want to know the reasons.

I have given them to you. The hon. member wants to know why I did not include this amendment originally in my Bill. I have told him because another Bill had been introduced into the House in which this provision was already made.

What I want the Minister to tell me is this: why he did not put into the Bill, having given it a good deal of thought and scheduled 12 particular articles, this provision? How is it when the Bill was granted, it did not strike the Minister that he must come and ask for an omnibus power?

I have given the reasons. In this Bill I was dealing with those articles that had already been investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries—those industries which had already made out a good case. It was for them I had made provision in the Bill. But the Government had decided independently to take further powers and for this they provided in another Bill. We want to have power to deal with those industries for which rebates are absolutely necessary, during the recess. We wish to have power to deal with those industries that cannot afford to wait until Parliament is in session. The Government thought the proper place to insert the clause was in a subsequent Bill, prepared by the Minister of Mines and Industries, but according to the ruling of Mr. Speaker, we had to take it out and put it in specially here. If we want to treat our industries sympathetically and remove all obstacles, we must not have the ordinary cumbersome procedure of Parliament. After all, if Parliament is not j satisfied with what the Government does, it can turn the Government out. It is absolutely necessary that the Government should have these rather wide powers.

And supersede Parliament?

In other countries where they have also gone in for a policy of protection they have also done this.

The hon. Minister does not seem to quite grasp the point. My objection is not that it is protection; but in essence the hon. Minister is binding his hands. He cannot put any article on the free list unless he gets the consent of that board. He admits that.

I admit that.

That is a most serious admission. I can understand the Minister doing it in consultation with the board, but to make the hon. Minister and the Government entirely dependent on the board—a body outside Parliament, and not directly responsible to Parliament—is inaugurating a more serious point of practice, if we accept this amendment as proposed by the hon. Minister. No; I remember that Speakers in this House have ruled, where Ministers have moved motions also on matters of taxation and customs and that the House should refer these to the Board of Industries for report, that such a motion was out of order and must be referred to the Government as the responsible body, and not to a body outside Parliament. We are giving this outside body supreme power over the Minister.

No.

It is advice.

The hon. Minister of Defence will agree with me that the Government’s hands will be tied.

No, it gives them greater powers than they have at present.

The hon. Minister seems to me, I must say, to purposely try to evade my point.

Surely this does not make this House subordinate to the board at all. This amendment, in effect, says that we are going to give to the Minister certain powers that he was not possessed of before: and it limits these powers by saying they shall not be exercised in respect of a matter recommended by the board. Surely that is not limiting the powers of Parliament. The hon. Minister may come to Parliament at any time.

He may have reduced the duties nine months before.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is getting excited as usual.

I am not getting excited at all.

This measure simply asks for further powers, and limits them.

The hon. Minister is equally open to the criticism of my hon. friend here that he does not take the point put to him. My hon. friend is not objecting to the hon. Minister being tied by Parliament or by art Act of Parliament—that is the natural constitutional position of the Minister. But here is an outside body not responsible to Parliament at all. Unless this outside body make a recommendation the Government can do nothing. We are not asking whether the Government should have this power or not, but you are setting up an outside body which is not responsible to Parliament at all.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is at the North Pole, and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) at the South. The former is an ultra-protectionist, the latter a free trader. The Railway Board has the power to which the hon. member takes exception. The Government wants to have power to reduce the tariff, but only when that has been recommended by the Board of Trade and Industries. What is unconstitutional about that? The Government has the right to introduce a list of exemptions, and now in that particular case the power of the Government is curtailed. That is no violation of the rights of Parliament.

I think the hon. Minister will admit that this amendment involves a change of principle. We are allowing the Government to take the place of Parliament, which, to my mind, is an important change of principle, and when we have a change like this we should have a good reason for it. I do not think the hon. Minister has given a single reason for this change, or mentioned a single industry that, but for immediate action as suggested, would have failed. I know of none, and before we can accept a very important change like this we should have some good reason from the Minister, and before we do, we ought not to accept this amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

Clause 10, the Schedule and the Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed.

Bill reported with an amendment, which was considered and agreed to; third reading on 27th August.

The committee felt that in view of the enquiry by the commission which was appointed some little while ago to consider the failures reported in connection with the Durban grain elevator, in view of the early dissolution of Parliament some little time ago, and the expected short duration of this session, and seeing we had á new committee sitting, we express no opinion with regard to the Durban grain elevator report. The committee feels that as far as the Auditor-General’s report is concerned he has reported no more than it is his duty to report, and quotes with approval the British Controller and Auditor-General’s statement in 1916—feeling that the report may go beyond the scope of reference to him, as it is his duty to bring to the notice of Parliament any matter he considers should so be brought to its notice. In view of the conditions that have arisen and the promise of the auditor-general to embody in his next report the essential features of this year’s report, your committee do not report further, and asks permission to cease our sittings. That shortly is the report, and I suggest that we receive the permission that we ask for. I move—

Sir DRUMMOND CHAPLIN seconded.

Agreed to.

I would like to know whether another arrangement is not possible here. Industrial education falls under the Provincial Councils, under the Child Life Protection Society, and also under the Union Department of Education. The class which it concerns is the same in every case, namely, the neglected child. I think all the work should be placed under the supervision of one authority, namely, the Provincial Administration. At present there is much overlapping. There are also many private institutions doing more or less the same work, some of them being subsidized by the Union Government and some by the Provincial Administrations. The work will be done more efficiently if there is better coordination. If one goes into the question, one discovers some wonderful things. For instance, private institutions do the work 30 per cent. cheaper than the Union Government, and the Provincial Administration does it on a scale 20 per cent. higher than it costs the Union Government. There ought to be a greater concentration of energy, and then I am sure the work will be done more efficiently. It seems to be a general impression that the Government has a lot of money to spend, and the public forgets that it has itself to pay the bill. At present there are thousands of neglected children, and they would be cared for much better if the private institutions get more assistance. The work should be done by the authorities who administer primary education. There are many abnormal children who have to be separated, and under the present arrangement are entrusted to the care of the Department of the Minister of the Interior, but normal children should be under the care of the Union Government. These unfortunate children should be placed under supervision at an earlier age, because otherwise it is very hard to make anything of them. The law ought to be amended in such a way as to empower the magistrate to take a child away from his parents or guardians, if it is proved that they are the cause of his neglect. Experience has taught us that it is money wasted to place children under supervision unless they are very young. I would like to know if it is the intention to co-ordinate the work better, and possibly to give more assistance to the Provincial Administration in order to enable them the better to cope with the work.

Although it is impossible to vote against this vote owing to the fact of the new Minister not being long enough in office, I want to inform, however, the Minister that I shall expect included in this vote next year a sum sufficient to cover expenditure on indigent schools in the Cape Province. In the past it was expected that the cost in the upkeep of these schools would be included in the education vote. It is therefore impossible to advance education in this province unless we allocate to education money voted to be spent on education, and it is just as essential for the cost of these schools to come under the heading of Child Welfare as it is for Industrial schools. I want to impress this matter on the Minister because in the past there has been much talk and argument in this House on the increased cost of education, and I feel that money expended on anything outside education should come under its proper heading. Unless the money needed is allocated there will be an outcry on the part of the people against our neglect of the children. I hope that next year this vote will cover all the expenditure which should legitimately come under this heading.

That is one of the smallest items on the Estimates, but it is one which is growing in importance. Already 9,000 children are registered under the Child Life Protection Act, and that is one of the good things which we have inherited from the late Government. We got very little that is good from them, and it is a pity that bad administration of the Act has somewhat retarded the matter. That was a result of the policy of the S.A.P. Government to starve the Provinces. Page 10 of the report of the Hofmeyr Education Commission reveals a very unpleasant piece of history. It appears that at Bethlehem, Ladybrand, Bloemfontein and Win-burg there was some friction between the authorities, which rather pleased the late Government. The consequence was that the Provincial authorities only accepted responsibility for 39 out of the 205 children, and the Unino Government refused to take responsibility for the rest. I simply mention these figures in support of the arguments of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Rev. Mr. Fick) namely, that the time has long arrived when it should be definitely decided what authority should administer the Child Life Protection Act. The administration of the Act leaves much to be desired. There are many children who should, but do not, fall under the law. Then there are still such anachronisms as unilingual magistrates, with the result that the Act is not always carried out sympathetically. There are children in those institutions who ought not to be there, while some are not in who should be. The Minister will do a great deal of good if be will create better machinery for the carrying out of the Act. There are people who are assisted by several bodies, while there are others who cannot get help from anybody. In countries such as Holland and Germany all this work is supervised by one department, and in Holland there is an excellent organization for doing social relief work. In the Free State the public does not know to what authority to apply. The large sum of nearly £1,000 has been spent by the church and benevolent societies in order to build these institutions. The Government, however, contributed nothing. The institutions are all overcrowded, although they try to admit as few children as possible. Some even have to sleep on the verandahs, whilst many of these institutions are heavily in debt. We have a sympathetic Minister to deal with the matter, and I need not, therefore, go into further details. A word to the wise is sufficient.

It is customary in this House to extend invitations to Ministers, and I want to invite the Minister concerned to pay a visit to the orphanage at Ladybrand. The institution has done a great work in the past, but it has to struggle with many difficulties. It is not only an orphanage, but also an industrial and agricultural school where boys and girls are being trained. They are taught there to make boots and shoes, harness, etc., and also agriculture and stock farming. They are also taught the usual subjects under the supervision of the school at Ladybrand. It is felt, however, that the Minister is not sympathetic enough towards the institution, an institution which trained boys and girls to become good citizens. I hope the present Minister will visit the place and see for himself the useful work that is done there.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to a report which was made by Dr. Dunstan some time ago on the school children of this country. I was horrified to see that he classified no less than 40 per cent. of the school children of South Africa as a sort of mental deficients. In ordinary countries if you classify 2 per cent. as being mentally deficient that is regarded as a high proportion. Personally, I doubt Dr. Dunstan’s figures, and I protest against statements like this going to the world, for I do not believe a word of it. I would like the Minister to consider a report that was made on the advisability of having a mental survey made of our school children. Many of these children are probably not strong in their minds and we should find the cause of this. During the last twelve years of industrial depression many of these children are in that state through absolute deprivation, they having been denied the necessaries of life, to a great extent. I have seen children going to school on the Rand without their breakfast, and they suffer from absolute want. If their minds are not as strong as they ought to be it is because of lack of proper nourishment. A child may not have a very strongly developed brain, and in that case it should be sent to an industrial school, where it may be made into an excellent artisan. I do not think a child, because he is not very strong in book learning should be classified as mentally deficient. You should study a child from a psychological point of view, and bring him up according to the power of his mind to develop. I think the time has come when these children should be classified according to the power they have for development. We have men in South Africa who are experts in psychology and could do that work. The expert on insanity, you must remember, is not necessarily an expert on psychology. There are many people who are in an asylum who ought not to be there at all. They ought to be in industrial schools having their mental capabilities developed. Half the people who are in asylums ought not to be in asylums. Our asylums are overloaded with people classified as mentally deficient, but who, for want of food and nourishment, are simply in the state that I have referred to, that is to say, their brains have not been given a chance to develop. A proper mental survey of school children and those in asylums should be made.

The matter raised by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) deserves the attention of the House and of the country, and I hope it will reveal to the Government the pernicious system we have existed under in the past. I mean the way that we have been governed in watertight compartments. This matter was raised by the hon. member on the vote for child welfare, and yet it is bound up with the whole question of our educational system. I hope the Minister will see how necessary it is for the Government departments to dovetail into one another. It is sheerly impossible to carry out the suggestion made by my hon. friend when the provinces and the Government are dealing in a most parsimonious fashion with education or at least the book-learning side of it. When you realize that a teacher has often as many as 60, 70 or 80 children under him, how is it possible that the psychology of the children can be studied by those who should study it, that is to say, the teachers. Estimating the bent of a child’s mind, of the direction it is likely to take and what the child is best fitted to be in the future can be done—these things can be seen in the germ, right in the beginning of the educational career of the child. Those who are trained in this work can do this. When you give a teacher the task of controlling so many children it is impossible for him to do such work anything like adequately. I urge the Minister to consider those points. In the first place children have to be properly bodily fed, and then if their brains are capable of being developed at all they should have the opportunity of that development. Myself and some of my hon. friends have seen dozens of school children whom it was shameful to expect to study at all. They are not fed properly and their parents are not able to feed them properly. It will be well for the Government to study this question and with a view to dovetailing the energies of the different departments. We want to develop the physical and mental powers of our children, not only in their own interests, but also in the interests of the State. Then I would ask the Minister to look into this question of industrial schools. I find here we have six industrial schools with no fewer than 1,220 children. In these schools, no doubt, all sorts of subjects are being taught and the children are being trained for different occupations. I take it the staff should be so comprised that it can cope with all the different bents of mind the different children may have. In my opinion industrial schools are only playing with the farming side of the work. There are four which are purely boys’ industrial schools, and yet we have only four trained farm-assistants to the large proportion of 1,220 children. Four instructors to that number are insufficient. Then we find 15 trades instructors. I presume that amongst these children some will be trained as mechanics, yet we have no provision on the Estimates for those children to be trained by mechanics. You cannot make first-class carpenters unless you have first-class trainers, and you cannot have first-class trainers if you have only got two handymen who presumably have to teach all the trades. It would be well for the Minister to look into this and see, if the teachers are not fully qualified men that fully qualified men are appointed and paid the ordinary standard rate of pay or higher.

I would like to express my appreciation of what the Government has done for the orphanage at Bethlehem, one of the best institutions in the Free State. The children are also taught to farm there. By means of private assistance the place was built for 500 children, about 75 per cent. of whom are orphans, but as there are also many neglected children, so that it can hardly be called an orphanage. And yet the institution has to subsist on the favours of the church and the general public, and the Government did so little in the past that I am almost ashamed to ask for more. But there are so many underfed and neglected children in every part of the country that the Government ought to place a larger sum on the Estimates for their relief.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) a few minutes ago spoke about industrial schools. I should like to say that during the last year I had an opportunity, when I was visiting the South-Western districts, of going over some of these industrial schools, and I ask the hon. member to do the same thing. When he does he will find that the work done at these industrial schools is an eye-opener. I know the class from which these boys had been taken and the circumstances under which they had been living. It was an eye-opener to see what training had made of them. The boys were as fine, upstanding, self-respecting and good-looking a lot of young fellows as you could wish to find anywhere about the place. From the quality of the work done, they must have had excellent instructors indeed, because better specimens of furniture-making or work you could not wish to see. Some of the boys have been taken from the schools to first-class furniture manufactories at very good wages indeed. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a word on behalf of these schools. Judging from the cost per head, some think it is expensive to work these schools, but the actual work and good done cannot be measured by the actual cost per head only. It means you take these boys away from their surroundings, and you deal, not only with the unemployment problem, but with the problem of the poor whites in the best way. You take a boy like that away from where he is a drug on the market and turn him into an asset to the community, and he gets that self-respect and training which is going to be a great factor in the solution of our poor white problem. It is for that reason that I should like to see as far as possible an extension of these industrial schools, because we should not look upon the economic factor as the sole thing but consider the effect it has upon the life of the community.

I think the hon. member (Mr. Close) rather misunderstood me. I did not decry industrial schools, not for a moment; and I also agree with him that with advantage an extension might be made in regard to the vote for these schools. But the argument I brought forward was that it is no use playing with the subject. These schools may turn out good tradesmen up to a point. My hon. friend may be a good judge as a lawyer.

And also a good judge of a sideboard and other things.

My point is that if these children should be trained as carpenters, fitters or turners their trainers should be of the very best. You can’t have them turned out as well trained as they ought to be unless you have the very best training material. My argument is to increase the scope of usefulness of these industrial schools.

I am most deeply impressed by the value of industrial schools as I have studied them in the country. The hon. Minister of Education will remember the action we took at Graaff-Reinet with the intention of getting an industrial school, and I am sorry that, because of divided authority, we were not able to establish one of these excellent training institutions; I hope that next year the hon. Minister will see his way to make a start with an industrial school which will serve the needs of the people of five or six districts. I wonder whether people sometimes understand that it is not only the work done by these industrial schools that matters, but the self-sacrificing work of the teachers who teach there. There is the case of a furniture manufacturer I know who gave up his work to teach these poor boys at Knysna. I want to bear tribute to the excellence of these men and purpose of these schools.

A good deal has been said during the discussion on this vote, but taken as a whole, little has been said about child welfare as far as it falls under the Union Government. Take for instance what has fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce), who has put in a good word for a very good institution in the Cape Province—the indigent boarding-house. As is well known, the indigent boarding-house question is one which falls not under the Union Government but under the Provincial Councils. Take for instance another question, the question brought up by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser). As I understood him, he makes a distinction, and correctly too, between the backward child in the school, and what is known as the feebleminded child. His distinction is correct because the backward child is not necessarily mentally disordered, while the feeble-minded child is usually mentally disordered, and for whom provision is made. As far as the inspection of schools are concerned and the proper inspection of children classified as backward, a great deal can be done in that direction. But that is the question which falls under lower education and is something with which the Provincial Administration have to deal. Another question has been raised by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) with regard to one item on the vote, namely, trade instructors and the necessity of proper training of children in industrial schools by properly qualified men. I could give him the information that these fifteen particular instructors mentioned here are all skilled men, properly trained men. Of course you must take it into consideration that we have to deal with children of all ages committed under the Childrens Protection Act, and in these industrial schools we do not only have industrial training proper but we have also to provide for the general education for the inmates of such institutions.

*The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) and the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. J. H. B. Wessels) invited me to pay a visit to the local institution, which I would very much like to do if I have the opportunity. Orphanages, however, do not fall directly under the Union Government, but under the provincial councils, and the Government is only interested in the sending of these children to school. That brings me to the complaint of the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. van der Merwe) in connection with an anomalous state of things in the Free State. Under the pressure of financial difficulties, and acting on legal advice, the, Free State provincial administration saw fit to throw a part of its responsibilities overboard by making provision only for children who have lost both parents, and not for those who have lost only one. Under the Child Life Protection Act the Union Government could not do anything as, in terms of that Act, assistance could only be granted to those children who are not helped in another way. As hon. members will see, it is a technical difficulty, but in such an important matter we cannot allow technicalities to stand in our way. Consequently a sum of £7,200 has been put in the Estimates for children who have lost only one parent. An important point has been raised by the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Rev. Mr. Fick). He asked whether it would not be better to place industrial schools under the control of a single authority, namely, the provincial administration. He pointed out that private institutions were much cheaper than those managed by the State. All will admit that it is so, and that church institutions do excellent work. Their expenditure is low because the teachers who do the self-sacrificing work receive inadequate remuneration. The question of control is one of great importance. The industrial schools fall under the provincial administrations, but the children who are taken away from their parents under the Child Life Protection Act fall under the Union Government. That has led to all kinds of anomalies and lack of uniformity in the system which ought to be remedied as soon as possible. I am not prepared to-day to say in what direction the law should be amended, that is to say, whether the matter should be delegated to the Union Government or to the provincial administration. During the recess, and after I have inspected some of these institutions, I will go into the whole question in conjunction with the Minister of Finance with a view to the financial relations between the Union and the provinces being put on a better footing.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote 28, “Agriculture,” £955,928.

I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister the conditions prevailing in the North-West. Hon. members are inclined to smile when we speak of the difficulties encountered there, as for instance, our struggle with scab, but that is because they are not acquainted with things there. It is incomprehensible that Parliament could pass such a law as the Scab Act and think that it can be applied throughout the country, as conditions in the different parts are totally different, as hon. members will agree when they compare such parts as the Western Province with the Kalahari. An Act which is good for the South-Western districts cannot be applied in the same way as in the North-West. It is hard for people in parts where they have to move from place to place in order to get water for their sheep, to carry out the stringent regulations of the Scab Act, and the consequence is that more sheep are killed by the Act than are saved by it. Often the farmers have to wait for a whole week on the boundaries of a certain district because the sheep inspector cannot inspect his stock. But it is also difficult to carry out the scab regulations owing to lack of water. I would suggest to the Minister to have a conference with the farmers of the North-West in order to try to find a way out of the difficulties. The Scab Act is in disfavour with the farmers because in the past they were treated unsympathetically. Often an inexperienced townsman is appointed scab inspector, and he only thinks of one thing, and that is the eradication of scab. The result is that he treats the farmers unsympathetically. I think it will be a good thing if the magistrate is assisted by two assessors when cases of contravention of the Scab Act are being tried. In the higher courts we try cases with a jury, and I do not see why the same principle should not be applied.

Call them Heemrade.

Yes, we can call them that. There is a sum of £160,000 on the Estimates for sheep inspectors. Their number has increased, and I think it is an unnecessary expense. Now that we have motor-cars and can go so much further and do more work, we can do with less inspectors. The extermination of locusts is a matter of vital importance to the North, but it is impossible on a farm of 20,000 or 30,000 morgen to convey a big vessel of poison from one point to another to follow up the locusts; nevertheless, farmers are being prosecuted when they do not do that. It would be better to pay for the work by the amount of locusts killed, say at so much per bag. If that is done all the people, including the coloured people, will catch locusts and sell them, and I think the work will progress better in that way than by spraying poison.

Mr. JAGGER moved—

Agreed to.

On sub-head A, “Administration and General”, £40,664.

Under this head I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to get into communication with the Imperial Government in regard to the exportation of another batch of Friesland cattle from South Africa to Great Britain. I would like to point out that last time, through the good offices of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), who I may say is a farmer and did an enormous amount of good for the farmers and assisted us whenever we went to him, we were allowed to send over those cattle. Those cattle are being sold in England to-day at even a higher price than was paid for them. The question was asked in the English House of Commons a few days ago as to whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to allow of the import of livestock into Great Britain. Mr. Buxton replied in the affirmative. That shows that such legislation is going to be introduced. In the meantime the cattle industry here is in a parlous condition and we should like to get a permit to send over more cattle. To-day, South Africa holds the world’s record for milk and butter, and we are not afraid of any other breeders. We have one of the greatest markets in the world open to us and all we have to do is to get the permission of Great Britain. It would bring to this country something like £300,000 to £400,000. I always understood this vote was a non-party vote, and I hope hon. members will try to assist me to get Great Britain to open her doors to our breed of cattle. There was some discussion about sending our cattle to America, but they already have more than enough there and do not want it. There is no opening but Great Britain. Everything is ready for us to send, and I trust the hon. Prime Minister will take some action to see whether Great Britain will do something to open her doors. Perhaps it could be done through the Colonial Secretary who is here now. The last time we were able to send it brought to South Africa something like £260,000.

I am very glad my hon. friend the member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has raised this question, and I do not think he could have raised it at a more opportune time. I hope it is one of the things the Prime Minister will take an opportunity of discussing with Mr. Thomas. The High Commissioner in London has taken up this question of trying to introduce our cattle to Great Britain and from time to time has made representations urging the Imperial Government to introduce legislation such as that my hon. friend refers to. Then I would suggest that there should be free interchange of stud stock between the Dominions as there is already between Great Britain and the Dominions, I know from representations made to me that the Friesland Breeders’ Association are anxious to have another opportunity of sending cattle to England. It is true that some Friesland breeders over there are not quite as keen as others that these cattle should be sent, but I think the majority of breeders in Great Britain are anxious to have another opportunity of getting cattle from South Africa, At the present time all we can do is to import slaughter cattle to Birkenhead. Both South Africa and Canada are extremely anxious to introduce cattle. Canada is anxious to introduce breeding animals not of a stud quality, but now that the Imperial authorities are allowing Canadian steers to be landed in England and bought up by the graziers for fattening purposes there should be no objection to allowing us to introduce our Friesland cattle into the country. I hope the Prime Minister will take the opportunity of Mr. Thomas’ visit to see whether this cannot be done. It is only fair, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has pointed out, that Great Britain should take her cattle from us. In the last importation there was a certain provision for quarantine, and the Imperial Government allowed the month on board ship to be included in the four months’ quarantine. Now that this country is absolutely free from pleuro-pneumonia, which is the one disease which they fear, I do not think there should be any difficulty in their agreeing to our proposals as quickly as possible to make provision to allow us to export these cattle. Large numbers of Friesland breeders do not know what to do, but if they could export to Great Britain, and that quickly, a large number of their cattle which it was the intention of the breeders to send to the United States of America would be sent to Great Britain, and would be of as great benefit to the herds there as the previous ones were. There is a great fear of foot-and-mouth disease, but there can be no fear of that being introduced into English or Scotch herds from South African cattle. There is no fear of our cattle introducing disease of any sort under the quarantine regulations. I was under the impression that the matter would remain in abeyance until Mr. Thomas came out, and I hope the hon. Prime Minister will see him about the matter. We are not a jealous body of people, and the people who have not the luck to be Friesland breeders are only too pleased to see that those who breed Frieslands should have opportunities of exporting them to Great Britain.

I want to address a few remarks to the hon. Minister on sub-head A3—Grants in Aid, £2,500. This is a ridiculous sum, and ridiculous to have withdrawn these grants from the country show. They get no grant at all. The shows of this country assist in their educational faculty, and many shows which might have been held cannot be held owing to absence of necessary grants. I am sure that the hon. Minister of Agriculture must be in sympathy with what I am saying, and I hope he will persuade his colleague to increase this vote. It is lamentable that certain country shows cannot be held for the want of a few pounds. It is a short-sighted policy.

One branch of agriculture has been neglected in the past, namely, the growing of mealies. A few small experiments have been made with the growing of mealies in certain parts, but nothing further. The growing of mealies in this country is of too much importance to be neglected. There are complaints overseas that the grain is a little too big, and the Government ought to investigate whether it would not be better to grow a smaller grain. We should also experiment with mealies better suited for a dry climate, such as the Sahara mealies. Experiments are also needed in regard to the exhaustion of the mealie fields and the best way to fertilize them. The industry is well worth some investigation.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks which have fallen from the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane). It is not only from the educational point of view that it is regretted that these grants have been discontinued, but it is a distinct hardship to take away grants without due notice being given by the Government of its intention to discontinue them. Many of these societies incurred expenditure, in the expectation of receiving these grants, with the result that they were left in financial difficulties, and are still in financial difficulties. Speaking for my own society, Klipriver, it incurred an expenditure of about £300 on buildings and then the grant was withdrawn, as a result of which my society finds itself in difficulties and was unable to hold a show last year. Circumstances such as this constitute a very strong case for consideration. Country shows are of immense educational value to the young struggling settler who cannot afford time or money to attend the large central shows.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

I wish to ask the Minister a question. I know he is keen on protection and I know that the Agricultural Department uses a large number of windmills, and I wish to know whether he is going to do anything to protect a deserving industry. In 1920 £153,000 worth of windmills was imported, in 1921 £117,000,1922 £124,000 and in 1923 £69,000. and 50 per cent. of all that comes from the United States of America, and there is a duty of only three per cent. The Agricultural Department uses such a large number of these windmills that I think something should be done for the local industry, and I suggest that a duty of 15 per cent. should be levied—or at least the department should in all contracts give local manufacturers the usual ten per cent. preference given by all other departments on all contracts; the industry would then have an opportunity of going ahead. The Irrigation Department will tell the hon. the Minister all about the good quality of the goods turned out in this country, they are quite as good, if not better, than the imported goods. I think we are justified in asking for protection in this industry, and I think if the Minister will enquire from the Board of Industries he will find that they have suggested a protection of 15 per cent., but that is a protection which has never been put into force. The result is that that particular industry is suffering. One particular firm in my mind in Cape Town find a large number of their apprentices who completed their apprenticeships cannot get work and most of them have to walk the streets. If a little protection is given, these people would be to a large extent employed, and, even though in but a small way, the Government would be doing something to solve the unemployment question. Another point is that the imported article is transported on our railways at exactly the same rate as the local article, and here again the Minister can do a little for the industry, and I hope it will meet with consideration. If the Minister does give it that consideration he will be helping a very deserving industry.

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the question of East Coast fever. The whole country is calling out for the Government’s policy. One hon. member has said, and rightly too, that agriculture is outside party politics, and it is in that spirit that I approach this subject. Any of us who have experience in this fell disease should assist the Minister to formulate a policy which will be beneficial. The disease has been with us for many years, and the only way to check it is by dipping, and I assure the Minister if he will follow the advice which has been given and concentrate his inspectors in seeing that the work of dipping is carried out—

I would like to know whether the hon. member is in order in discussing East Coast fever under this head.

The hon. member is entitled to raise matters of policy when the Minister’s salary is under discussion.

I merely want to ask the Minister a question. I want him to give an answer and define the Government’s policy in regard to East Coast fever. I hope he will consider the question and I know he will get the sympathy and co-operation of the farmers. I would point out that if dipping is carried out on farms and on contact farms there will be no need to restrict movement between them. I assure him that there are farmers who are secreting and hiding outbreaks of the disease because) they fear an imposition of this description. The unnecessary tax on the farmer by this restriction of movement is heartbreaking. I know one district in a circle of 10 miles where movement is restricted merely because there is an outbreak on one farm in the centre. During the last season farmers had a very bad time. They had drought and disease, and if the Minister can give a little assistance in this direction he will not be weakening his policy, instead he will be strengthening it and it will not be false economy. There is another question in connection with bag worm. As many members know there is a restriction of export of 20 per cent. owing to the ravages of this insect, and that means a lot of money. The Minister, I hope, will not lose time; I hope he will not postpone the matter; the industry is an important one, and I know the American supply is petering out with the result that this is South Africa’s opportunity. I hear there are two entomologists in Zululand, and there are two elsewhere, and if one was seconded to the department, to investigate, it would do a great deal of good.

I would like to ask the Minister in connection with the Division of Botany whether the work done by that department is not already done by professors. I do not wish to say anything against the head of that department, for I know he is a very able man. But we can economise on this head. A sum of £2,500 is ear-marked for grants to agricultural societies. A few days ago I read in “De Burger” that the Transvaal Agricultural Union is going to agitate for the principle that farmers should be represented only by farmers. The Opposition says: “Hear, hear.” I suppose because the S.A.P. is used to the democratic state of things under which the members of that union did not have the right to say who would be their representatives, but had calmly to accept people who were forced on them. It is rather an unusual resolution, for that union recently dismissed its secretary because he stood as a candidate for a certain party in Marico. In January, 1922, the executive of the agricultural union supported a resolution promising assistance to the Government of that time against the strikers. The result of the strike has shown that that resolution was detrimental to the interests of the farmers. Thinking members of the Opposition will agree that it is a democratic principle to allow any party to nominate the man wanted by the members, be he farmer, barrister, or even a poor journalist. Now the agricultural union comes on the scene and says that the only one who can represent them is a working farmer. The Opposition says “hear, heat,” and that shows that the resolution of the union is liked by them, and it confirms my suspicion, that the resolution was an attempt of the S.A.P. to harm the Nationalist party. I would like to know whether it is right to grant State money to an agricultural union which allows itself to be used for political purposes.

Is the hon. member in order?

The hon. member is entitled, on the item of the Minister’s salary, to discuss general questions of policy.

I think the hon. member has only the right to discuss the general policy of the Minister, and not that of the Government in general.

I hope hon. members will bear a little with me, as members of the Opposition with their interruptions took so much of my time. If it is a fact that the S.A.P. is using the agricultural union to work against the Nationalist party, then I ask: Is it right to give State money to such a body which is so exploited for political purposes? It is desirable that the agricultural union should be consulted when appointments in the Agricultural Department are contemplated. We are supposed to appoint the best people, and the agricultural union is not likely to be affected by political considerations.

I suppose I shall be in order if I discuss agricultural policy and not politics. One is rather at a disadvantage just at present as the only report of the Agricultural Department we have before us is at least 14 months old, so it is possible though not probable that some matters to which I am going to call attention may have been remedied. If we add the Irrigation Vote to the Agricultural Vote, it will bring the total up to £1,100,000. I do not think that sum is too much, but it is interesting to compare it with the results, and with the results obtained elsewhere. In South Africa we spend roughly 12s. per head of the European population on agriculture. New South Wales spends 4s. 9d. a head, and Victoria 3s. a head, in each case omitting the Irrigation Vote. There is no question that we have in this country some very eminent men indeed in the agricultural world, but I would suggest that it is time their activities were extended beyond research into the practical application of their studies. We have a very liberal staff in our agricultural schools. At Elsenburg there is a total staff of 33, while the students for the main courses number 66; at Cedara there are 28 professors and 32 students; at Glen there are 28 professors and 46 students. There are, however, casual courses sandwiched in between the main courses. It would certainly appear that we have a staff large enough to enable some time and thought to be devoted to the economic side of agriculture. For the first time, I think, the Secretary for Agriculture states in his report: “In view of the ever-increasing importance of the economic side of agriculture the Public Service Commission has been approached with a view to extending this branch of the department.” We certainly want the attention of the department to be directed to solving the great problem before us to-day—that is why in so many instances farming does not pay. There are many questions which might be investigated with advantage which hardly come within the purview or attainments of the ordinary farmer. The cheap use of capital, for instance, and the buying and marketing co-operatively, whilst buying co-operatively is a comparatively simple matter; the difficulties of farmers arise when they try to market co-operatively. Marketing is usually in the hands of men who have a special aptitude for the business and have devoted a lifetime to that study. The wool trade may be taken as an example, where amateur wool-broking leads to financial disaster. The provision of transportation to markets is outside the farmers’ power to a large extent. All these ought to be studied by our educational institutions and of course so ought the question of agricultural wages. As regards wages, we are going on in the same haphazard way we have always gone. A good deal has been done about production, but entirely oblivious of the cost of production. A minimum of attention is devoted to the producing of crops at economic prices. The motto in all our agricultural school class-rooms ought to be: “Produce at a profit.” If you do not produce at a profit you will soon cease to produce at all. Why is it always forgotten that a farmer is really a manufacturer? He manufactures food from soil, air, water and sunshine, but in comparison with other manufacturers he is at a disadvantage. For other manufacturers, when circumstances indicate there is going to be a surplus, can stop production; the farmer cannot. The manufacturer of boots, for instance, can close down his work if he knows there is going to be a glut on the market. The farmer cannot cut down the crop which is already in. All these matters affecting agricultural economies can be studied in our educational institutions. There is another matter which I would like to deal with. Surely it is time that South Africa should be able to produce its own breadstuffs in sufficient quantity. We are dependent to this day on overseas importations of wheat to one-third of our consumption. Vast areas which are not being used for wheat production could be so used in the future. No doubt our research department has gone a long way towards telling us how plant and animal diseases can be avoided in the future. We have accumulated a great deal of information, but we have no information in a form readily available to the farmer on the economic position. A farmer may be a very good agriculturist, but may come to grief through playing a lone hand. It is difficult to say what advance the practice of agriculture has made in the last few years. No doubt we have made great advances in adding to our knowledge, notably of diseases, but the knowledge which applies to the agricultural and economic aspects of many questions we have not got. Liberal as the vote is, no doubt many hon. members would not object to seeing it increased if our agriculture were to advance. But there is this satisfaction, that a great deal can be done without increase of the Vote. I refer more particularly to what can be done by demonstration farms. These farms should be made paying concerns as they are in other countries. I can give one instance of experimental farms elsewhere, the costs of which amount to £57,000 per annum and the proceeds from the sale of produce and so on to £68,000 per annum, showing a profit of £11,000 per annum.

I would like to say a few words about the subsidies to agricultural associations. I am informed that most of these grants go to the agricultural unions and that the grants to the ordinary associations were stopped three years ago. I am sorry about that, because it leads to the centralization of the associations, which is wrong both in education and in administrative matters and agricultural associations. The central agricultural societies are quite useful, but they are only advertising media for a few big farmers. The small farmers and the beginners cannot become members. Too little has been done so far for agricultural education, and most of our children leave school when they have passed Standard VI, and do not know anything about farming. Agricultural societies in the country will encourage competition amongst the young farmers, and the shows will be important educational forces if the Government send instructors there. There should be much more State support for these societies in the outlying districts.

In making a few remarks on the agricultural policy of the Government I want to direct special attention to the subject of afforestation. We all realize that the late Government took a very keen interest in this subject and did a great deal of good work towards advancing the growing of timber in South Africa. But in view of the immense importance of this country producing its own timber, I think we should try to do still more in the future. A study of the timber resources of the world reveals a very grave state of affairs. In spite of the use of many substitutes for wood, the consumption of timber is increasing year by year. So long as the surplus resources of the world’s timber were represented by virgin forests the position was not so difficult, but we have to face an entirely different state of things to-day. I am confining my remarks especially to soft woods, as they represent 80 per cent. of the timber used in the world. Canada, Northern Europe and the United States supply 80 per cent. of the world’s timber and of those areas Sweden and Norway alone, realizing the vital importance, are so managing their forests that the growth is equalling the cut. In every other country forest resources are being depleted and the forests are not being renewed. In Europe, excepting these two countries, on present consumption, supplies of soft wood timber will be totally exhausted in the next eighty years. The official reports show that America’s accessible timber supply will be almost completely exhausted in the next 15 years. The original forest area in the United States was 822 million acres. Today virgin forests only cover 137 million acres, very much of which is inaccessible. To-day America is almost entirely dependent on Canada for her supplies of wood pulp, and she will shortly find it necessary to come into the European markets for her supply of timber as she has already started to do for pulp. In Canada, the third great source of soft wood in the world, the accessible stands of soft timber will not last more than 23 years on present consumption, and with America coming into the Canadian market this again will be greatly accelerated. This is a very serious state of things indeed. It is impossible to exaggerate its gravity, but fortunately there is a great awakening of scientific working of forests in order to conserve our resources. The necessity of dealing with the situation was so insistent that in 1920 the British Empire Afforestation Conference was called to meet in London and discuss the whole position. Out of a mass of resolutions the first one passed was to the effect that the minimum requirements of soft woods for each part of the Empire should be grown in each respective country in scientifically managed plantations.” I do not think that South Africa can do better than give effect to this resolution and see that she produces her own timber supplies in the near future. Our importations of timber amount to over £2,250,000; with wood pulp, cardboard boxes, strawboard, and so on, they make a total of nearly £3,000,000. That is an enormous sum of money and a great part of it could be kept in this country if we were to tackle the matter of growing our own timber in real earnest. If you go round the various industries, creameries and fruit growers to-day, and ask where the boxes used for our export produce come from, one invariably meets with the reply they are imported because we are not growing the timber to make them. A great deal can be done and is being done by private enterprise, but the outlay is so large, and the period of waiting so long that it is only a wealthy man who can undertake it on a large scale. Therefore, I think that we may consider that timber growing is especially an enterprise of the State, and I feel that the Government should give more consideration to establishing plantations—even more than it has been doing in the past. If the Government is to borrow money for that purpose, it can rest assured that it is going to be remunerative in the best sense of the word, and instead of voting money for relief and unemployment doles, which at best are only palliatives, a forward policy of afforestation will give work, and not merely temporary work, to a large number of men in the future, and as the effects of such a policy becomes apparent the forests will afford work for ever increasing numbers and, as I said, the money expended will be reproductive in its fullest sense.

I know that the late Government has done a lot in the matter, but I hope that it will be the aim of any Government to give the fullest effect to that resolution of the Empire Forestry Commission and to put this country in the position of being self-supporting in its timber requirements.

I would like to make a statement. I want to say right away that I am glad the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) is advocating economy. The hon. member told us that we pay 12s. per head taxation for agricultural education. We never heard that when the hon. member sat on this side of the House. I shall rely with confidence in future on the support of the hon. member and others in the carrying out of economies in the department. There are parallel divisions in this department. We have the laboratory at Onderstepoort doing research work in connection with diseases, but it does not beat them. Then there is the Veterinary Department to fight diseases, and the Sheep Division for dealing with diseases amongst those animals. In order to take away these parallel divisions, that for sheep has been done away with and is now placed under the Veterinary Department. By doing away with that division, we save £15,000 per annum. It is possible that further economies may be effected as the department for veterinary research and for fighting disease may perhaps be amalgamated. It may be that we shall economise in other directions to the extent of £10,000 to £15,000. For the time being Onderstepoort and the Veterinary Division will be maintained, but I hope to be able to place them under one authority later on. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) asked why we cannot export cattle to England. England refuses to let cur cattle enter, but the British Government has promised to change this by means of legislation. We do all we can to find a market for our meat overseas, and I shall take advantage of the presence of Mr. J. H. Thomas, the Colonial Secretary, to discuss the matter with him. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) made similar remarks, and what I have just said also applies to the points raised by him. The hon. members for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), Klip River (Mr. Anderson) and Wepener (Mr. Hugo) urged the Government to give grants to agricultural associations. According to the old law the Free State gets £1,300 out of the £2,200 and cannot therefore complain. The agricultural unions of the Transvaal and the Cape Province received the grants from their respective Provincial Councils until two years ago, and I would advise them to apply to those bodies again. If the central Government has to take over more of the obligations of the Provincial Councils, where are we going to land? At the present moment the Union Government grants £200 to the S.A. Agricultural Union and the same amount each to the Poultry Association and the Stud Book Association. In reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. dost) I may state that the Agricultural Union tried to dictate to me in the matter of the appointment of officials. I wonder what would happen if the Chamber of Commerce tried to dictate to the Minister of Justice which magistrates he should appoint in the different towns? I should like to cooperate with the agricultural unions, and I shall try to meet the union as far as possible, but shall have to use my discretion and to appoint the best men, because I am responsible to Parliament for such appointments. In reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. P. W. le R. van Niekerk), I may state that I shall instruct the department to enquire what kinds of mealies are suited best to South African conditions. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) said that the Government should allow the people in Natal to move with their stock in East Coast fever areas if their own farms are free from the disease. I would like to ask the hon. member if he knows that the position with regard to East Coast fever is very bad indeed in Natal. The Transvaal is almost free from it, and the Free State is quite clear: but in Natal there are 333 farms in quarantine. I have had much experience with East Coast, fever, and know that you have to take it very seriously. If you allow people to move about it may happen that one person travels with infected cattle and gives the disease to a hundred others. I am afraid the Government is not in a position to remove any restrictions from Natal, and I have already appointed more inspectors. I have also appointed a commission to enquire into the regulations in Natal, and hope the agricultural union will give evidence and help to tight the disease. In the Transvaal we took stringent measures, which were very hard on the people, but we eradicated the fever. It is better for the people to suffer for 18 months and be free after that, than to allow the disease to spread by making the restrictions less stringent. I hope the Natal farmers’ associations will support me in the attempt to wipe out East Coast fever. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) pleaded for protection for the Local windmill industry. That, however, is a matter for the Minister of Lands. I am in favour of the protection of industries, not only of windmills, but also other articles. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) says that the Division of Botany does work which does not belong to that department. The hon. member must be wrongly informed, as that official does only the work of his own department and I cannot allow any officials to do other work. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) spoke of afforestation. I agree that we import far too much timber. We have a number of forests, but they are still young. I am strongly in favour of afforestation schemes, and if the Minister of Finance does not stint me, hope to get a little more money for that purpose. Although the money invested in afforestation seems to be un-reproductive capital, we shall reap the fruits later on when we are able to supply all our timber wants. Even now we supply half our sleepers for the new railways. That is a very satisfactory position.

I do not like to rise again after the Minister has spoken, but he was in such a hurry to reply, that there are many members who still want to speak. I understand that the Advisory Board of the Agricultural Union had an interview with the Minister and that he promised them his cooperation. To-night, however, the Minister takes up a different attitude. With regard to the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) he attacked the Transvaal Agricultural Union.

No.

The Minister said to the Advisory Board that he first had to get acquainted with matters in his department. I would like to know what mistakes the Minister has found there. If he proposes reasonable economies the Opposition will support him, as we have far too many officials. I find two new ones, namely, an officer for agricultural economics and markets and a director of stock-rearing and soil analysis. Probably that is another legacy, but I would like to know what the work of those officers is. Our biggest market Johannesburg, and all the other markets are not under the control of the Government but of the City Council, which in turn is under the Provincial Council. The Farmers’ Association in Johannesburg has many complaints regarding the treatment of their products on the market. Often the Labour party alone controls the market. If it were the Pact, it would be better, but more often than not it is only the Labour party, and that is a dangerous party, which has no sympathy with’ the farmers.

Who says so?

I say so! I have experience of the actions of the labourites in Johannesburg. They damage the interests of the farmers whenever they can. They would like to confiscate all the properties of the farmers.

Nonsense!

That is the class of people who have to look after the interests of the farmers. It is quite time that the farmers had some control over the market. The Pact administration in the Transvaal levied a tax on all the products sold on the markets. And it will go further. The Farmers’ Association sued the Johannesburg Council because they allowed speculators in the markets instead of farmers. The Government party always says that the late Government squandered money, but it would appear as if sub-ministers are appointed because these officers draw such high salaries.

I move—

The Government is desirous of proceeding with some legislation in order to have something ready for the other place which assembles to-morrow.

Mr. Chairman, is it fair and reasonable that the Minister should move a thing like that without a moment’s notice? Members have come here to-night prepared to do some work, and is it right that we should switch off like that? It may be important, but this matter now before the House is equally important. I think it is unfair and unreasonable. He has not given any reason whatever; he just said he wanted to switch on to something else.

I told the whips that we intended to switch off at 9 to-night. I think it must be left to the Government to arrange the business of the House. The other place is meeting to-morrow, and the Government is very anxious that there should be sufficient work to keep it going. I think it will be convenient to proceed with some of the bills.

Do I understand that you intend to go back to Supply after the Rents Bill is through?

No, we are going to proceed with the rest of the Order Paper.

Maj. G. B. VAN ZYL As far as the Rents Act is concerned we admit it is very necessary, but after the Rents Act comes the Government Attorney Bill on which there is an important ruling to be given. Until we have that ruling members on this side cannot go on with that Bill. If we can get an assurance from the Minister that he is not going on with the Government Attorney Bill, until we have had an opportunity of considering Mr. Speaker’s ruling, then we shall be prepared to report progress.

You will receive it.

Yes, but we would like to consider it.

I would like to know how the Chairman can put such a motion to the vote when the Minister has not replied yet.

If we report progress we proceed with the agenda. Hon. members ought to be ready to go on with the work. We will get the decision of Mr. Speaker and then hon. members will have an opportunity to go on with the work.

We recognize that, but we have not the ruling yet. We have come prepared to work on the estimates and nobody had any idea that we should switch off.

I told your whips.

We are prepared to assist the Government as far as we possibly can with the Rents Bill, but the Government Attorney Bill is not of sufficient importance to the country that we should put other things on one side in order that progress may be made with it.

Raise that point when you get to the Government Attorney Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

House Resumed.

Progress reported; House to resume in Committee on 26th August.

The previous amendment having been defeated, mine consequently falls to the ground, and I beg to withdraw it.

The amendments in Clause 2 were agreed to.

New Clause 3,

I have a motion on the Order Paper on page 52, and that is to add a new clause to the section of the original Act which dealt with the powers of ejectment of tenants. The object of this clause which I am moving to insert is to enable a landlord to get back the premises where the lessee himself sub-lets and does not reside on the premises. The idea of the original Bill was that men who had need of premises and were using them should not be ejected. The object was to protect the poor man and enable him to continue in occupation notwithstanding the desire of the landlord to get back to the premises. I do submit that there is no earthly justification for a lessee of the kind I have mentioned having protection from the landlord. I do suggest that while you are preventing the landlord getting his premises back, you are enabling the tenant to sub-let at a profit, and the entire object of the Act would be defeated. I move—

Mr. HEATLIE seconded.

I am not accepting that amendment.

Mr. Close called for a division.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—31.

Anderson. H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, J. P.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford. R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; de Jager, A. L.

Noes—56.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff. L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Wet, S. D.

Fick. M. L.

Ford ham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp. J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, M. L.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naude, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pirow, O.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J, W. J. W.

Sampson, H. W.

Smit, J. S.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk. P. W. le R.

Van Zyl. J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Van Niekerk, C. A.; Vermooten, O, S.

Proposed. New Clause accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3 agreed to.

New Clause 4.

I move—

1. 4
   1. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Act No. 13 of 1920 or any amendment or extension of the same a lessor or lessee may, within seven days after the date of the service of any such order as is referred to in section 8 of Act No. 13 of 1920. give notice that he intends to appeal to the magistrate’s court having jurisdiction where the dwelling is situate; and if he serves such notice within that period upon the secretary of the rent board concerned and upon the lessee or lessor (as the case may be), the order shall be suspended until the appeal has been heard and determined by the magistrate’s court. The hearing and determination shall be within one month after the service of the order as aforesaid. Upon the hearing the magistrate’s court may make such order in the matter as in the circumstances seems to it just and equitable.
   2. (2) No appeal to any superior court shall lie against an order of the magistrate’s court under this section.

The amendment which I have placed on the paper provides for an appeal from the findings of Rent Boards. At present there is no appeal, and they have practically more power than a judge of the Supreme Court. Complaints have been made from time to time about the decisions of these boards, and many of the members have no knowledge of estate matters and no other special qualifications. Last session the Minister in charge of the Bill promised that representatives of certain interests would be appointed on these boards. This has, however, not been done. There are precedents for my amendment. That is for an appeal from an extraordinary tribunal to the courts of law. I might mention two. There is an appeal from the Water Court to the Provincial Division and also an appeal from the Electrical Control Board. As the measure, is now being re-enacted, not for one year, but without any limitation on the point of period, I think that property owners, especially those who have put their savings in property—people of small or moderate means—should have some protection, and therefore they should have the right to appeal to the magistrate from the findings of the Rent Board. My amendment provides that the appeal must be brought and concluded within a specified time, and there can be no appeal to a higher tribunal. I think the amendment is a very desirable one because, as we have it now, both lessor and lessee are entirely dependent upon the discretion and finding of these boards.

Mr. O’BRIEN seconded.

I do not think we should complicate the measure by introducing this new clause. The magistrate’s court is scarcely a higher tribunal to which you would take an appeal from a Rent Board, because according to law the chairman of a rent board shall if possible be either a magistrate or ex-magistrate, and in a large number of cases you would be appealing from a magistrate or ex-magistrate plus two persons to a magistrate alone, and that is scarcely a higher body than the body from which the appeal is made. Further, you suggest an appeal to the records kept by a rent board. They need not keep any records at all. Provision is not made for the costs of the appeal, and I assume there would be costs. I do not think the present magistrate’s court rules would cover the costs of such a case or decide what the costs are. I do think that we should complicate the matter too much. The possibility of an appeal has been fully considered, and I do not think an appeal of this kind would assist. It would also delay matters. The whole idea underlying the Act is to make proceedings as cheap and expeditious as possible. Under the circumstances I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Have I the right to address the House?

I am afraid not.

The amendment was negatived.

Bill as amended adopted.

I move (if there be no objection)—

I object.

Third reading on 27th August.

Exception has been taken to the introduction of the Government Attorney Bill as a public bill on the ground that it proposes to interfere with the rights and powers conferred by private legislation on the law societies of the various Provinces of the Union and it is contended that the bill should be treated as a private or, at any rate, as a hybrid measure. I shall first of all deal with the argument that the bill should be treated as a private measure. Standing Order No. 1 of the Standing Orders relating to private bills provides that:

It cannot be said that this bill is “for the particular interest of any person or persons.” On the contrary it is clearly “a measure of public policy” and seeks to establish a public office which is to be part and parcel of the Public Service of the Union. Difficult as it frequently is to determine the question as to whether a bill should be treated as a public or as a private measure, I have no hesitation in holding in this case that the bill could not properly have been introduced as a private measure. The question as to whether the bill should be proceeded with as a hybrid measure raises a question of some difficulty, although it seems to me, for the reasons which I shall give later, there can be no doubt but that the bill was properly introduced as a public bill. In Standing Order No. 178 a hybrid bill is described as follows:

“If a public bill affects private interests in such a way that, if it were a private bill, it would, under the Standing Orders, require preliminary notices before its introduction, it is subject partially to the Standing Orders which govern private bills and is called a ‘hybrid bill’.”

If we take the wording of this Standing Order in its ordinary sense, it clearly implies that there may be private bills which do not require before their introduction the “preliminary notices” contemplated by the Standing Order, and these “preliminary notices” cannot therefore be taken to refer to the notice required to be published under Standing Order No. 2, because that notice is essential in all cases where leave is sought to introduce a private bill. It would almost seem as if the “preliminary notices” contemplated by the Standing Order can only refer to the notices required under Standing Orders Nos. 9, 10, 11 and subsequent, Standing Orders relating to private bills, to be given to owners, or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, occupiers or riparian owners of properties likely to be affected by the proposed legislation. If that were the case, it is clear that the present bill would not fall within the description of a hybrid bill contained in Standing Order No. 178, because no such notices would have been required even if it had been introduced as a private bill. In practice, however, bills have been treated in this House as hybrid bills where they have been introduced partly for the particular interest of a person or persons and partly as a measure of public policy as was the case with the Registration of Pedigree Livestock Bill (Votes and Proceedings, 1920, p. 289), and it would appear that the “preliminary notices,” referred to in Standing Order No. 178, have been regarded as including the notice required to be published under Standing Order No. 2 (Private Bills), although the point never seems to have been considered. It seems to me that Standing Order No. 178 has been taken over from the Manual of Procedure of the English House of Commons without due regard to its proper significance or application and an amendment so as to give a clearer indication of what measures should be treated as hybrid bills might well be considered, Although this House will not lightly allow private rights to be interfered with by means of public legislation, especially when those rights have been conferred by a private Act, I cannot agree with the contention that a private Act can in no way be amended by a public measure. The authorities go to show that, as a rule, where a bill is introduced as a matter of public policy, it should be treated as a public bill even though its provisions incidentally impinge on private rights. In the House of Commons bills relating to the administration of justice and various public jurisdictions have often been treated as public bills. It has also been held, where bills dealt with public interests or were measures of public policy, that they should be treated as public measures even where they affected private interests and, in some cases, amended local or private Acts (May 11th Ed., pp. 678 and 682. See also ruling in Railways Bill (Procedure) 1921, H.C. Debates, Vol. 142, p. 43 and May, 12th Ed., p. 604). As a general rule bills concerning only the City of London have been treated as private bills and the references in May quoted by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour), including the reference to the Metropolitan Cattle Market Bill, is covered by that general rule. But even in the case of the City of London, bills concerning the City, but at the same time affecting public interests and involving considerations of public policy, have been introduced and passed as public bills (May, 11th ed., pp. 675-676). The rulings in the Cape House of Assembly referred to by the hon. member are not in point, because in all those cases the proposed measures dealt with matters of a purely local character and no questions of public policy were involved. Nor do I think that the ruling given in 1916 on the University Bills applies, because there it was sought specifically to repeal in to by means of a public measure a number of private Acts of Parliament and it is interesting to note that my predecessor in the course of his ruling said: “Had this repealing been merely incidental in measures dealing clearly with questions of public policy the position might have been different.” It seems to me that the ruling given on the Natives (Urban Areas) Bill in 1922 is applicable to this case. There it was sought specifically to repeal certain provisions of private Acts by a public bill and it was ruled that such repeal being merely incidental to the public policy outlined in the bill, the measure had been properly introduced and should proceed as a public bill (Votes and Proceedings 1922, p. 787). In the present case the Bill does not purport specifically to repeal or amend any of the provisions of the Law Society Acts or Ordinances of the four provinces. The object of the Bill is to create a public office, it affects the whole Union and, in so far as its provisions impinge on those of the Law Society Acts or Ordinances, the amendment is merely incidental and subsidiary to the main purpose of the Bill and it is applicable only, in so far as the office of Government Attorney is concerned. Under these circumstances it seems to me that the Bill has been rightly introduced as a public measure and should be proceeded with as such. It is, of course, open to the House to send any bill that is brought before it to a select committee, if that is considered advisable.

The Bill does not propose to create a new state of affairs in the sense that the position of Government attorney is created by the Bill, because your Government attorney has been in existence for a large number of years under that name. It is only intended to make special provision in connection with the office. The position that we have at present is this: The Government attorney has his office in Pretoria; there are two other attorneys in his office and they do the central work of all the Government departments with the exception of the Department of Railways and Harbours. So far the Government attorney has never recovered costs where he embarks upon Supreme Court litigation, or where he appears in a magistrate’s court, or does legal work, and it is largely to deal with this position that the present Bill has been introduced. I find that ever since 1911 draft Bills had been prepared from time to time for the use of previous incumbents of the position of Minister of Justice, and in 1921 special attention was drawn by the Auditor-General to a proclamation issued in South-West Africa, laying down what we wish to lay down for the Union. The Auditor-General then asked whether there was any intention of a Bill of this kind being introduced from the point of view of saving of public funds. The Secretary of the Department of Justice replied that his department had drafted a Bill to make provision in this respect for the Government attorney’s office, which it was hoped to introduce in the 1922 session of Parliament. Presumably owing to pressure of public business the Bill was never introduced, but so far as previous Ministers of Justice are concerned they were all in favour of a measure of this description. The position of Government attorney is not unknown in the past in South Africa, or in many parts of the British Empire. The old South African Republic and a State solicitor who was paid a salary and who recovered fees, and Natal, prior to Union, had a corresponding official. Practically in all parts of the British Empire there are solicitors for departments of State, The position there being dealt with in the same way in which we propose to deal with the position here. Each important department of State in England has its Crown solicitor, but the legislation there goes considerably further than I propose to in this Bill. There is legislation in England laying it down that anybody employed in the Crown solicitor’s office, whether qualified or not, is entitled to the same privileges, to recover costs and to deal with all legal matters in exactly the same way as if he were an attorney. In Australia the position is the same, and so it is in practically every part of the British Commonwealth. Nobody proposes to slavishly follow what is done in other countries, but I am endeavouring to show that this particular measure is neither new nor strange. The principal points of the Bill are contained in sections 6 and 8 which deal with the recovery of costs and allowances. There is no intention on the part of the Government to saddle the country with branches of the Government attorney office.

Will these attorneys be able to practise on their own at the same time?

No, they will be full-time officials. I am quite prepared, as far as the Bill is concerned, to make it quite clear that Government attorneys are all fulltime officers. There are three points on which members of the Law Society of Cape Town saw me. I do not wish members to think that the Law Society is satisfied with the Bill, which they asked should be postponed to a later date. But they raised three points of which the first was that we should only do professional work by means of professional men, to which I agreed. Their second point was that Government attorneys should be full-time officers, and I said that was the intention. On the third point I agreed that a Government attorney should practise only in the province in which he had the necessary qualifications. Power is given in the Bill to establish branch attorneys’ offices wherever the state of public work renders it necessary, but what we propose to do in the present state is this: The Government attorney’s office is at Pretoria; we propose to leave it there and the Government attorney will obtain the work of the departments there and then he will instruct private attorneys to do the work in various parts of the country. It seems to me also to be necessary to have a branch office in Johannesburg where there is a very considerable amount of legal work. I am going to suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that it would be essential for the railway work to be performed by the Government solicitor. The head office of the railways is in Johannesburg, therefore it would be necessary that this branch office should be placed in Johannesburg. I do not think it would be either necessary or convenient to establish branch offices in other parts of the Union. It may be necessary later on if private attorneys do not properly co-operate with the Government attorney, but I do not anticipate any difficulty in that direction. I do not think the different attorneys in the country will be against the principle of this Bill because the attorneys who are affected to a greater extent than anybody else are the Pretoria attorneys. The work is actually being done by a Government attorney in Pretoria now, although he does not charge fees. It means that your private attorneys do not receive that work to-day. I am pleased to say that I have not received a single complaint from Pretoria.

Who will get the appointment?

I am glad that interjection was made, because I want to make it clear that the position is filled already and has been filled for a large number of years by the present incumbent. The newspaper criticism on the measure is valueless because that criticism is mutually destructive. For instance, on the 9th July, the newspaper comment was that “leading attorneys” in Johannesburg did not regard the Bill with favour. Part of the criticism was to the effect that the Government was. “to be enriched by fees” and that it is “another attempt to reinforce our already overstaffed civil service, a burden which the country can ill afford to bear.” You can take your choice of these arguments—that the Government is going to be enriched or that the Government is going to be impoverished. The two statements are seen side by side, made by the “leading attorneys” in Johannesburg. As a matter of fact, the only way you can deal with your Government Attorney’s office is to treat it entirely as if it were a business office. You don’t want chief clerks, principal clerks, first-grade clerks, second-grade clerks, and so on; all you want is a very small staff; probably the staff you now have will be almost sufficient. From the financial aspect on the reports made to me it seems to me that the Treasury is going to benefit by sections 6 and 8 passing into law to the extent of £20,000 to £30,000 per annum. Taking a conservative view, I expect that the Treasury will benefit to the extent of something between £15,000 and £20,000 per annum. Then there is the question about sharing fees with an unqualified person. The Crown can never be regarded as an unqualified person. The Crown always stands in a different position from that occupied by municipalities and other public bodies. The functions of your legal profession are derived from the Crown. The Crown could exercise those functions itself but it allows private practitioners to do so. I am only dealing with that aspect to show that the argument cannot be used that the attorneys employed are sharing fees with an unqualified person. The Crown chooses its own officers and insists on having the same fees in respect of their work as your private attorney would have. Dealing with the matter from that point of view, it is almost impossible to conceive that we are not going to prevent the revenue of this country being enriched to the extent I have mentioned. We are not indulging in any innovation. We are simply putting this country in the same position as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, and therefore, when we see that that is the position, I submit it is not a very large thing to ask this House to adopt this Bill. I have no doubt there are certain amendments which could be usefully dealt with in committee, but as far as the principle is concerned, governed by sections 6 and 8, I think there will be no objection. I am going to ask the hon. Minister of Railways at a later stage to allow us to do also the work of his department. This law does not compel him to do so, but we are taking certain powers under sub-section 3 of section 3. The railway work is being done by a private firm which is being paid £2,400 per annum as a retainer under which the firm inter alia gives general advice and does conveyancing work. As far as that work is concerned it has been done for a very large number of years. The contract is terminable on six months’ notice from either side. The Government Attorney’s Department will do this particular work of the Railways and Harbours Department for £500. As far as this amount is concerned, it is only a question of one department of State putting its hand in its pocket and handing the amount to another department of State, but even assuming that it is an ordinary payment, the Minister of Railways will have a profit of £1,900 per annum. The details of the measure can be thrashed out in committee, but the large principle involved is in connection with paragraphs 6 and 8. I move the second reading of the Bill.

On a previous occasion as on this the hon. Minister emphasized that from Pretoria he had no opposition, but that here, where attorneys would be affected, there is opposition. I take exception to the suggestion underlying those remarks. I am free to criticize without any suggestion that I have an interest in the matter, for I have not been blessed by any favourable choice of the Government attorney. The Minister, like so many of his branch of the profession, may I say, runs the English precedent. I am rather surprised at that, because I understood, and this was impressed on us from time to time, that the last thing he wanted was English precedent.

According to the “Cape Times,” of course.

If he and others could only be induced to go—like that old school now fast dying out which we might call the Brand, De Villiers, Kotze school—to the old Roman-Dutch law, which is our law, and not take the easy course of quoting English precedent, we might come to some uniformity of practice in this country. He has asked us to accept English precedent, and I would like to go into this matter, because I want to show him that Government attorneys were appointed there long before the profession was organized, and in Natal it was the same thing, so that the precedent quoted is as a precedent wrong. We find that the profession of attorney existed from the earliest ages, and under a statute of Edward I. judges were to select as attorneys persons who were of good learning and of good fame. But it was not until Edward IV. that it was established that all attorneys should be examined, and under these Acts it was already clearly laid down that the exemption was always in favour of the Government attorney, which proved that prior to these Acts the Government attorney had a recognized position in England. But these Acts did not fully regulate the practice of attorney, and it was not until 1843 when the practice of attorney was regulated in England, when an Act was passed which consolidated the law in connection with attorneys and solicitors. To-day, although the same statutes are, in force, I understand the Government does not appoint any man to that position unless he is a barrister. What we hold to-day is that the profession has been properly regulated by statute here; therefore the appointment of someone who does not come under this statute is an infringement on the rights of attorneys. That goes a long way to establish the argument I used the other day when objecting to the Bill being introduced, which argument has now been ruled out. In this country we have passed laws at great trouble and at great expense regulating the practice, and those laws should be respected. In the old days when there was no regulation as to admittance or practice, almost anybody could start practice, which led to all kinds of practice which was very questionable, and it was to the interests both of the public and of the profession that the Acts regulating practice were introduced; and in every province the profession was properly regulated. The only reason for this Bill seems to be that the Government should take fees, because, as I understand, the Government is perfectly satisfied otherwise. They have their attorney at Pretoria who is doing good work, and they have their attorneys at Johannesburg for the railways, who, I understand, have also done good work; and in the whole of the Union they have other attorneys and I have never heard any complaints. I think the principle contained in the Bill is bad, and for several reasons. I doubt very much whether the Government is going to get the best practitioner as a Government attorney. You bring a man into the Civil Service with a regular salary, and no opportunity of broadening out and improving his position. He is going to do the work that is put before him, and not going in any way beyond that. We had an experience in the Railway Department in the Cape, and although the officer was a sound lawyer when first appointed; after a few years, having routine work and nothing else to do, he got out of touch with the ordinary practice, and you found the work was done by different attorneys in Cape Town while he was sitting in his office. Then we have the position that he may appoint them on such pension list enormously. A leading man will not be prepared to take up the work. I want to draw the Minister’s attention and refer particularly to Clauses 6 and 8 about which he made some play, but I shall not retaliate by making play on Clause 2. I think he knows to what I am referring. He says the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, appoint. He is evidently to be the sole being who has the say as to who is to be appointed, the Civil Service Commission have no say in the matter, it is purely the Minister of Justice. What is the position going to be—I do not suggest it in this case, but we do not always have the same Minister of Justice and the time may arrive when some certain promises have to be fulfilled. We have the position that he may appoint them on such conditions and remuneration as the Governor-General may from time to time determine and here it is in the hands of the Minister of Justice again. “They may appoint such other persons as may from time to time be necessary for the purposes and functions, etc.,” and I want to know if every employee in the service of the Government attorney is going to be a qualified attorney, or is it the Minister’s wish to allow those employed in the office to sign documents as if they were attorneys—I think he gives that power, for an authorized person in the office seems to have the right to sign documents as if he were an attorney. I refer to sub-Clause 2. Is every employee subject to the regulations of the Supreme Court as regards discipline? This is an important matter, and I think it should be carefully considered. Then we find a Government attorney, in addition to performing recognized functions, may carry out such other functions as may be prescribed by the Minister. Here again he is going to perform functions which it is possible an attorney may not be permitted to perform, it is against the interest of the profession that he should be allowed to do so. In Clause 3 we have the same thing as regards the function of the Office. I understand on sub-Clause 2 the hon. Minister is going to amend that particular clause. In sub-Clause 3 we find that the Government attorney can not only in the ordinary course charge the usual fees, but he may also charge interdepartmental fees. By sub-Clause 4, Clause 2, if the Minister of Justice so directs, the Government attorney may perform like functions where in the opinion of the Minister it is in the interest of the public. We should have some information with regard to that. Clause 4 relates to privileges and duties and confers on attorneys the right to practice in any part of the Union. I am not quite certain whether the Minister of Justice is going to amend that to make a practising attorney practice only in that part of the Union in which he is entitled to.

Yes.

That will meet the case. Then it is sought to give the Government attorney special powers to collect fees and pass these on to Government. This is a sweeping change. It is a change giving rights to Government as against the public such as they never had before, and I think privileges should be reciprocal, so I say that if Government gains it is only fair that the public should have some gain, and therefore have the right to collect fees from the Government by a writ if necessary, and also be placed in the position of being able to obtain a writ against Government to enforce a judgment. I know of cases in which the Government has kept a litigant out of these fees and avoided a judgment for more than a year. As to the very objectionable Clause 8. Suppose I, by some chance, am favoured with instructions to carry on a case here on behalf of the Government, the attorney at Pretoria would expect from me an allowance. This allowance I would know is to go to the Government, and I would also know that the Law Society would deal with me, as I am permitted to give an allowance only to a practising attorney.

The Bill would entitle you to do that.

I doubt it. Under Clause 9 the Government attorney will be allowed to do what other attorneys are not permitted to do. These points should be reconsidered. I would like to refer to the important case decided in the Orange Free State Court and upheld on appeal. The case concerned a point of attorney’s discipline, unprofessional conduct, being an agreement to send all legal work for a company to one attorney. As I have still much to say and it is now very late, I move—

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned until 26th August.