was granted leave to introduce the Financial Adjustments Bill.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading 2nd September.

I move—

On the second reading of the Bill the question of the extension of the railway over the Pongola River was referred to, and the Minister in his reply indicated that an effort would be made to bridge the Pongola River for road traffic. I wonder whether the Minister, while the Secretary of State for the Colonies is in this country, will approach him with a view of the administration of Swaziland co-operating with the Union Government in carrying the railway across the Pongola River.

In reply to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), I may say that I have suggested the course which he has outlined to the Imperial Secretary for Swaziland, and I understand that he is going into the matter.

The motion was agreed to and the Bill was read a third time, and ordered to be transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence.

I move as an unopposed motion—

Mr. BRINK seconded.

Within the last ten minutes we have had laid on the Table the report of the Board of Trade and Industries on reorganization, in which certain recommendations are made which do not accord with the Bill. In the first place, the Board recommend exactly the same provision as I suggested in regard to the composition of the Board. They urge that the Board should consist either of three whole-time members, or five members, of whom the majority shall be whole-time members. They recommend that the members should be appointed for a term of not less than five years. The Minister is in favour of three years, and I must say I agree with the Minister in that respect. Then they want security of office. Well, I do not think I could agree to that. There is another recommendation made by the Board about rotation. That is already provided for. The Board also recommend that legislative provision should be made for the appointment of assessor members if and when necessary. I would not appoint assessor members, but I would give the Board power to call in assistants. Take railway rates, they should have the power to call in a rates official from the railway department or any other official who might be necessary. I would ask the Minister whether that is provided for in the Bill. I do not know about calling in assessors, but I certainly think the Board should have power to call in officials of the different departments.

I hope the Minister will bear in mind when it comes to the appointment of the members of the new board that the growing of grain is the most important industry in the country. When the members of the present board were appointed, the Minister forgot that fact, with the result that the board did not show enough sympathy to the grain farmers. For instance, they refused to recommend that my motion to reduce the price of guano from £8 to £6 per ton, should be carried out. The reduction to £6 was made in spite of the attitude of the board and not as a result of it. In the past the grain farmers were satisfied with its constitution. I hope the grain industry will be represented on the new board.

I hope the Minister will give us a little explanation in regard to this question of assessors. I think it is unfortunate that this report was not on the Table, as I said on the second reading debate, before we had the Bill put before us for discussion, but it seems to me that the fact that the board does recommend the appointment in certain cases of assessors does lend some force to the point which I tried to make the other day, and which I think the Minister did not agree with, that if the Government so desire they could entrust to this board the investigation of practically any subject whatever connected with the development of the resources of the country. The point I tried to make was, if that power is used and there is no limitation to the subjects in regard to which the board may make enquiries, it is practically impossible for the Board to be composed of men who have sufficient knowledge and experience to deal with these matters. I hope the Minister will give us some explanation on that point and tell us whether he proposes as a, general rule to confine the operations of the board to matters connected with industries and tariffs or whether he thinks it is likely that the powers of the Board will be used to discuss subjects of much wider application.

I hope and trust that the Minister will not give too much information with regard to the limitation of the power of this Board, I believe as time goes on the responsibilities and working will extend. I believe that the appointment of this Board and the carrying out of its true functions will mean a great deal to this country. The Minister, I trust will not define the powers of the Board, but will agree to what I suggested the other day, namely that you should have representatives of all sections on the Board.

In regard to the comments of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) and the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin), I dealt with the question of assessor members on the record reading. It must be obvious to hon. gentlemen and I think they will agree with me at once, that, in spite of this report of the Board, we cannot adopt all those suggestions. The Board, for instance, suggests that they should be allowed to be members of Parliament at the same time. A more unsound suggestion I cannot conceive of. Unfortunately, a bad precedent has already been established and this Government, at all events, does not propose to follow that bad precedent. The Board has under the present Act, under certain sections which we are taking over in this Bill, full powers to get every bit of information that it wants and if it were to travel far afield, as the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) seems to apprehend it would get under those powers the technical and scientific and special information that it wants. I have emphasised previously that the Board should be a body of men of independent judgment who will act judicially. That is what we will endeavour to establish. I think the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) will recognise that it is not likely that this Government will through the Board of Trade and Industries, endeavour to effect reforms as regards the mining industry, for instance, which they would not have the courage to do directly. No, if the Government propose anything of that sort we will go straight for it, not in a round-about way by way of the Board of Trade and Industries.

*The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) asked that the grain farmers should be represented on the board In my second reading speech I explained that it is impossible to have all the different interests represented, because that would mean a board of 15 or 20 members. When the board is constituted the Government will as far as possible take all the different sections into consideration, but it is impracticable to have every one of them represented.

†The same applies to the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce). It is utterly impossible to give representation to every interest concerned. The whole thing will depend upon the personnel of the board. The board is to consist of four members. It may appear later on that our personnel should be enlarged, but we are at the point of small beginnings. Do not let us rush matters at this stage. That is why I was against appointing members for five years or longer. I think a period of three years and provision for retirement by rotation are sound. We are in the experimental stage, and the Government will endeavour by the composition or the constitution of a board to give satisfaction as far as possible. Of course, ideal satisfaction will never be obtained,

Motion agreed to; Bill read a third time.

I move—

1. 1. This Act shall apply to the Crown lands specified in the schedule and to such other land? suitable for closer settlement as may from time to time be added thereto by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

I do not wish to repudiate all the arguments we have advanced during the debate, but again, I wish to point out to the hon. Minister the necessity of limiting the scope of this Bill to certain defined areas for the reasons given. The Minister told us that the Bill should apply particularly to Hartebeestpoort, and as we wish to do everything we can to assist in the settlement of the land of the suitable men we have in mind, if this amendment be adopted, it will put the matter on a right footing. There are not many areas of Crown land left, and it ought to be with the concurrence of this Parliament if lands are used for the purposes of this Bill—the closer settlement of men, after probation. If the amendment is adopted, it will be necessary to provide for a schedule in which specified areas are from time to time noted. We want to deal to-day with Hartebeestpoort; that I believe, is the Minister’s special intention. Therefore enter on the schedule that area and Kopjes and other suitable areas, and at any time it may be considered necessary to extend this scheme of closer settlement to other areas, this House ought to be consulted. This amendment will remove a great deal of our objections to this Bill. I flatly deny that we are against closer settlement of the kind intended by this Bill, but we do see objections to some of these clauses and the uses they may be put to. I desire to point out that no suggestion was ever made that the Minister would use it for his own personal ends, but it has been pointed out that there are certain dangers, for which we desire to provide.

It is unnecessary to remind the Minister that there is no one on this side of the House who desires to wreck the Bill, but it does require amendment. Some of the clauses are drafted loosely, and some are in conflict with others, and there is one point we would like to have cleared up before we proceed, viz., are these plots reserved for settlers to be the training plots, or is the settler to be trained on the plots of which he becomes the owner? It is a very important point, of which the Bill gives no indication whatever. If the training is to be done on plots specially for the purpose, it is comparatively easy for the Minister in the case of a settler proving unsatisfactory to say “you must get off,” but if the man is put for training on the plot of which he ultimately becomes the owner, the matter is likely to prove very difficult.

I would like to stress this difficulty, too, because when I was dealing with the settlement of Hartebeestpoort the idea was that these probationers (whom we all, on this side of the House, wish to see established on the settlement) should be put on a probationary plot, and if and when he makes good, he would be shifted to some other plot. I am not sure whether the Minister is still envisaging that principle. It is not at all clear to me what the Minister’s intentions are, and as a preliminary he ought to tell us or consider this matter. There is no provision in this Bill for fixing the valuation of these plots, and it does not say whether or not the man has to pay for these plots. Is the Minister granting a probationer freehold, or making him a gift of it?

The discussion, so far, proves to my mind that the Minister should be given complete power. Whether or no a probationer shall be given possession of a plot must depend on the operations of the probationer himself. The Minister and his advisers will have these individuals under close observation. I take it that the guiding principle would be that a man would be trained on the plot he would ultimately possess, and in view of the possibility that a man would not be able to carry on that particular form of agriculture at that particular place, it would be necessary for the Minister to have the power to place him somewhere else. I would suggest that the Minister take no notice of this sort of thing, because I am inclined to think that it is just the beginning of a long system of obstruction. I will not accuse hon. members of trying to wreck the probationary system as applied to poor whites; but what is really in their minds is that they do not desire good land in this country being used for the purpose of training and settlement. The conclusion is forced upon me, as a result of the second reading debate, and what I see in the beginning of this discussion in committee, proves to my mind, most conclusively, that the whole object of the attack lies in the fear that certain land in this country will be used for this purpose. Yes, the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) asked, in introducing his amendment, “whether it would be applied to Hartebeestpoort or some other place.” If hon. members are really sincere, and I think within limits they are—narrow limits indeed—in their desire to have the poor whites given an opportunity of being uplifted by agricultural training with the ultimate result of their becoming owners of the ground—let them stop their opposition right now.

I would like to reply to one or two of those remarks of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). I certainly state quite openly that I do wish the Minister to specify the areas, but my reasons are not those the hon. member insinuates. My reason is that this closer settlement has been tried already and it is proved that you must have •supervision of the most minute nature to make it a success, and that only a relatively small percentage of the men so settled prove suitable. We are here responsible to the people of this country, and if we sat still and saw things going wrong and said nothing about it we should be failing in our duty. All we wish to do is to see that the chances of failure are as far as possible eliminated. We do not wish to lock up the best pieces of ground for the rich man as the hon. member insinuates, but we do wish to know what areas are proposed to be set aside so that this House can consider whether those areas are suitable for the purpose and whether the scheme is likely to be a success. The Minister knows that the objections raised on this side of the House are perfectly bona fide.

The speech made by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) is unworthy of him. If there is one circumstance demonstrated by this debate, it is that hon. members on this side of the House are concerned lest the Government, in their enthusiasm for the poor whites and probationers, should put them down in Zululand in an area where experience has shown that they could not make farmers but where they would lose their lives. The hon. member says that we on this side do not want the good lands of the country to be given to the poor whites and probationers. I think it is only fair to point out that our first concern was that the Government either through a want of knowledge, or some other reason, were going to put these people down in an area which would ultimately mean they must go to their deaths. The remarks of the hon. member were, I think, utterly uncalled for. We are not averse to the Minister having the widest possible powers for the settlement on the land of people who could possibly do well on the land with assistance and encouragement. What we do say is this, that experience in other parts of the world has shown that however anxious you may be to encourage schemes of this kind, there is always the risk of political jobbery. Therefore I do think the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) is a very essential provision.

The hon. member who just sat down was so taken up with the late Government’s attitude towards the poor whites that I should like to point out that the late Minister of Lands or his predecessor, gave out land in my constituency to beginners. That land had no water on it. What is the result to-day? The people have got no sheep and they have got no water. Then in 1916, Oakdale was bought. Has it ever been settled? No, it did not matter a tinker’s cuss to those people whether it was settled or not. The late Minister of Lands himself told me personally that if you give these people water you will make the Nationalists strong.

Are they all Nationalists, these poor whites?

They may be all Nationalists. That is why when I asked the late Minister to bring in a law to give these people improvement, he did not want to bring it in. What can you expect from the Government which put two attorneys in as Minister of Lands? What did they know about it? From the late Government we could expect nothing.

I just wish to point out that we are now discussing the following new clause: “This Act shall apply to the Crown lands specified in the schedule and to such other lands suitable for closer settlement as may from time to time be added thereto by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.” We cannot have a second reading discussion now. The subject i of discussion is just that clause.

On a point of order, I take it we are discussing the further amendment, too.

There is no further amendment to this. We shall come to the other clauses later on.

The present time is not opportune for a general discussion nor is it right and proper for any member to attribute unworthy motives. I have asked the hon. Minister a question which he has shown that he is anxious to answer if hon. members opposite will only allow him an opportunity. I ask is it the intention to train these men on plots which are reserved as training plots, or on plots of which they ultimately may become owners? The answer to this question must largely govern the attitude of those who are genuinely anxious to make this Bill a workably practical measure.

Does my hon. friend know that one of his colleagues has moved an amendment? The hon. member is bursting to have information himself but that does not mean that the committee desire it. I want to bring the committee back to the purpose of this amendment, and I want the Minister to have power to put these men wherever he thinks they would be most successful, whether it is in Zululand or anywhere else. I do not want him to be tied down to Olifants’ River. Hartebeestpoort or anywhere else. I want him to have power to put these people on any Crown lands in the country. All that the amendment really means, under cover of mentioning that blessed word Parliament, is that hon. members opposite desire to make it as difficult as possible to get these people settled on the land. Their idea is that the time taken in consulting Parliament will be so long that the scheme will be impracticable. Let the Minister have the fullest opportunity of himself deciding who shall be the people to be settled and where they shall go.

I think the amendment submitted to the committee is a very fair one, because it aims at making the Act effective. If these schemes which are outlined in the present Bill are to be extended to every area in South Africa in a haphazard fashion the necessary supervision will be rendered difficult and the scheme will not be workable. Whereas if the Minister concentrates his attention on specified schemes we shall know exactly how we stand, and instead of the various Crown lands being tied up in an indefinite manner, the country will be able to concentrate on the scheme set apart for development on this Act and the whole scheme will be rendered much more workable.

The Minister said he will help people who have capital and experience and also persons who have neither. They will be put in settlements. I would like to know, however, what will be done in the case of persons who have experience but no capital.

I appeal to members to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to the question.

I cannot accept the amendment, as it is impossible to draw up such a schedule. In the first place it may happen that the Government intends to establish a settlement in the Free State, where the Government has no land suitable for the purpose, and it will, therefore, have to be purchased. How can that be mentioned in the schedule? Secondly, it is unnecessary to come to Parliament for authority to establish a particular settlement. Parliament is a legislative body—not an executive body. The Bill makes provision for closer settlements, but Parliament keeps control over the actions of the Minister. Sub-clause 3 provides that the Minister shall come to Parliament for the necessary funds for the settlements. In that way Parliament will always know all about them and will be able to discuss the policy of the Government. Every time when the Minister comes to Parliament in connection with the settlements the sum will appear on the Loan Estimates. This year there is such a sum on the Estimates for Hartebeestpoort. In reply to certain questions I want to say that it is intended to train these people, and if they are suitable they will be allotted plots on the advice of the land board. It would be wrong to transfer them to Zoutpansberg. At the Hartebeestpoort dam people learn intensive farming, and they should be left there. It was never the intention to let them have a training there and then to send them away. It was the intention of the previous Government to utilize the area below the dam for poor white settlements.

Nothing that the Minister has said tends to allay our fears—I might almost say our suspicions—of this Bill. When the measure was introduced we were told that the Government was in a hurry to get it through, as it was designed to push on with Hartebeestpoort. We want to do everything in our power to expedite the measures the Minister has taken at Hartebeestpoort for they are the measures initiated by myself. As far as we are concerned we want to help the Government with certain settlements, as we believe a great and good work can be done at Kopjes, Hartebeestpoort, Olifants River and kindred settlements. We have been fighting, not to curtail the Minister’s powers of helping the poor man, but we have been fighting for a very important principle—the right of the public and Parliament to be consulted in regard to its own Crown lands. The Minister tells us that he wants to reserve the right to shift a man from a probationary area to any other lot in the same settlement. I concur that the Minister should have that right, but when I asked him if he were prepared to make that limitation in the Bill, he replied that he was not prepared to be tied hand and foot. But it is not for the Minister to say what he is prepared to do, but for this House and the public. Say the Minister takes a probationer who has made good at Hartebeestpoort there is nothing to prevent the Minister-giving him a farm anywhere in the Union, and thereby the Minister could undermine the whole fabric on which our Crown land system is built up. If a Minister takes a man from a probationary school and gives him a farm without going through the procedure which has been followed in the past, then the Minister infringes the inherent right of every member of the public to be consulted when a Crown farm is allotted. Parliament is entitled to indicate where these lands should be. Hartebeestpoort is a national asset, and will cost upwards of two millions by the time we have done with it, but we don’t find anywhere in the Bill that this measure is to be applied to Hartebeestpoort. We don’t know where the Minister intends to apply the provisions of the Bill. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) asked why the Minister should come to Parliament every time as he might be in a hurry, but I would point out that you can never be in a hurry with schemes of this kind, as they take years. We hold that the public of the Union, and this House in particular, are entitled to know when and where the Bill is to be applied. It is a very important principle, and I am very sorry to hear that the Minister will not accept the amendment. We all have the greatest personal regard for the Minister, and have no suspicion of his principles, but I do not think the House should give any Minister a blank cheque dealing with the millions of acres of land belonging to ourselves and to our descendants. It is too big a responsibility and especially where there is this tendency to make insinuations against members of the Government. The Minister himself would be the first to suffer if this Bill passes as it stands. I hope he will see daylight and accept the amendment.

The attitude adopted by the Opposition shows clearly that it is not the friend of the poor man. Help is urgently required in the country, and the Bill aims at giving that, but the Opposition wants to kill the Bill. The hon. member who has just spoken showed that it is only Zululand that concerns him. He wants to give the Minister full powers to use any land in the Union for settlement purposes as long as he does not touch Zululand. That territory he wants to reserve for Natal. That is evidently the purpose of this obstruction. I welcome the attitude of the Minister and the way he sticks to his guns. The object of the Bill is to help the poor man, but the Opposition is obstructing because it does not really want to do it.

The hon. member who has just sat down talked nonsense when he said we are not the poor man’s friends. It seems that the Bill is only applicable to settlements under irrigation. Will the small settlements, such as the one at Bethal, benefit by this Bill? That settlement is a very expensive one; the ground was purchased at a high price and the people cannot make a living there. The previous Minister visited the place with me and saw the conditions for himself, and he came to the conclusion that the people should be assisted. Now I would like to know what the new Minister will do. The people should be helped because they are on the farm and cannot make a living.

I cannot see how it is possible to provide that the lands set apart for settlements should first be sanctioned by Parliament. For instance, in the Free State land will have to be bought for the purpose, and what price will have to be paid for it if it has first to be sanctioned by Parliament? The Minister should have the power to carry out the provisions of the Act according to his own discretion and to buy land in any suitable part of the Union. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is struggling for all he is worth to find something by which this Bill can be thrown overboard. His argument that there is still plenty of time for the Bill proves that. But in the meanwhile thousands of people are going under. The hon. member wishes to keep the probationers in the area where they have had their training. It may prove, however, that the area is more suitable for training man it is for permanent farming operations. The Minister ought to have the power to send a settler who has finished his training to any settlement. If a man shows he is fit to become a big farmer, why should he not be granted a farm? The plots given to the probationers can only be land which falls under this Bill.

The Minister denies this.

The Minister does not deny this. I would like to see the Minister get wider powers. The S.A.P. also wishes to know to which areas the Bill will be applied. Must the Minister lay down in the schedule that he is going to buy a certain farm in the Free State for the purpose? That will result in the price going up, and is quite impracticable.

I am surprised at the attitude of the Opposition who were the best friends of the poor man—during the elections. This is one of the best Bills we have yet had for the poor man, and yet the Opposition tries to wreck it. That shows that the S.A.P. does not sympathize with the poor man. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has a very short memory. The previous Government bought the farm “Oakdale” in Riversdale, and never established a settlement there. The sheep of the wealthy S.A.P. leaders grazed on it, and in this connection the previous Minister of Lands asked me whether I thought the Government was going to buy land for the Nationalists. The present Government has only been in office for six weeks and already land at “Oakdale” has been allotted. The previous Government was at the head of affairs for fourteen years, and they did nothing to help the poor man. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) should not make so much fuss now that the present Government tries to do something solid.

I would like once more to make it clear that we are not obstructing this Bill. The obstruction is coming from the Minister, and if he does the right thing there will be no discussion at all. The more I hear from hon. members opposite, the less we know where we are. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) has just told us that the Minister having taken probationers to Hartebeestpoort has no right to put them on a farm elsewhere. The Minister says he has that right; and I want to know once more where we are. He says “Crown land,” but where does the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. van Hees) get his definition from? “Hoeven,” in Dutch, is “farms” or “holdings,” and there is no limit to this definition. If a probationer has made good, as we hope they all will, we hold that they should all be given a lot, but if he does not prove satisfactory, the Minister should have the right to give him another lot on the same settlement. But I do not think that a probationer should be given this preferential treatment over every other settler in the Union. If a probationer has made good and wants to go further afield, he should take the same chances as any other citizen of the Union. I do not see why a probationer should get a farm without having to apply for it like any other citizen. We are fighting for what we think is a very great principle, and it is our duty to fight for it. The Minister, in his heart of hearts, must agree that it is not right that he should be given these vast powers and carte blanche to deal with the Crown lands of the Union.

There is the Land Board.

I have tried to explain that all control is taken away from the Land Board. The probationer, I assume, will be given some document to the effect that if he makes good he will be given that plot, which is a contract with the State. The Land Board has no option, so that there is no control vested in the land board under the Act. Sub-section 2, although proposing to leave control in the hands of the land board, does not in effect do so. Another matter the Minister referred to was that he said: “You cannot multiply these settlements without Parliament.” If the Bill passes as it stands, there is nothing, supposing any Minister to bring into play sub-section 2 of the Bill, to prevent the Minister setting aside any district of the country—the whole of the Waterberg Crown lands—without spending a farthing on them for roads, trees and the like. The more we hear this section expounded, the less we like it; and the more we have to insist on the limitation of the application of this Bill

I do not quite understand the argument of the hon. member, because the Government of which he was a member laid down the principle embodied in this Bill—if a probationer served his time and proved satisfactory he will be assisted afterwards.

No, he has to take his chance afterwards.

What he urged was getting these men trained as probationers and then sending them into the open market to obtain land, when they will not be able to obtain any, or will be at the mercy of the land companies. Give them preference over anybody else. They are our own people, and they have a right to do so. We are taking them right up out of the mud and leading them up higher. If these men know that they are not going to get land in future you will be breaking their spirits. The last Government laid down the practice; you trained people on the condition that they got jobs. I am not grumbling at it. What is behind the whole argument of hon. members opposite is this—they are not worrying about probationers—they are worrying about Zululand; that is the whole thing. The ex-Minister and his friends behind him are afraid that Zululand, which to-day is an English-speaking province—

Oh, Oh.

Yes, the truth in unpalatable. You are not worrying about Bethal or Hartebeestpoort; you are afraid that the Pact Government is going to put Dutch-speaking men into Zululand. That is the old, old story; try to divide and rule. All these words are in chronicle—“what right have these people to go to Zululand?” My hon. friend would have been off on his joy-ride long before this, but he is afraid for Zululand. It will be a good thing for Zululand if the Minister does send these young men there.

Speeches such as the one we have just heard will not expedite the passage of the Bill. Zululand does not concern, me, but the principle of the Bill does. Supposing the Government wishes to grant land to one of its favourites and the land board is not favourable, the Minister can give him a farm, in Ermelo, for instance, as a probationer for three years.

Read the Bill.

Yes, that is what stands in the Bill. I can read as well as the Minister, and it states quite plainly that the Minister can grant land to probation settlers.

I personally?

No, in conjunction with the supervisory board. If the Minister affirms that he will only act in conjunction with the land board, many of my objections drop. But he appoints the members of the board, and they will not be able to withstand his wishes. He will be able to grant land to settlers anywhere and not necessarily on a settlement. To revert to the farm to which I have referred, suppose the Minister puts a man on a farm in Ermelo, he will get advances for labour, implements, etc. He will work there for three years and then apply for the property, and the land board will not be in the position to refuse him. That is the thing I object to, and hon. members opposite have no right to hurl all kinds of accusations at members of the S.A.P. Our party also has at heart the interests of the poor man, and the Nationalist party does not possess a monopoly in that respect. I have no more interests in Zululand than in the Transvaal, but I would like the Minister to embody in the Bill what areas it will apply to. He ought to have other powers too, for instance, to enable him to take action where people rear stock on a good mealie farm, and where extraordinary powers are granted, the area to which it will apply should be defined.

I am surprised at the attitude taken up by the Opposition, especially by the late Minister of Lands, who I suppose, is disappointed with the progress of the Bill. Obviously he is envious. I have always interested myself in settlements and have had a great deal to do with them. We should try to make the poor people independent, and that is what this Bill aims at. The objection to the Bill is Zululand. The late Minister of Lands knows that he is the great authority on settlements, but under his administration very little was done for poor whites. The solution of the problem was delayed, but this Bill will expedite it. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not accept suggestions from the Opposition. The S.A.P. have made a failure of all their settlement schemes, and it is absurd that they should now pose as experts.

I strongly resent the view which has been expressed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North (Mr. Barlow) to the effect that members on this side of the House have no sympathy with the poor whites. That is an entire misconstruction of the view we have endeavoured to present to this House, and it is an entirely unfair interpretation of our attitude on this debate. I do appeal to the Minister to recognize the very strong feeling there is against the whole principle of land settlement being altered and applied to the remaining assets of the State in respect of Crown lands in a way which will undermine public confidence. That is the point we desire to make, and it is on that point we wish to put up the strongest possible opposition. The whole scheme of this Act is to introduce several new methods of expenditure which are absolutely indeterminate in their •effect. It is surely wise for us to place some recognizable limitation on this expenditure and we can only do so by limiting the area to that which the Minister said he had in mind when he introduced the Bill. He came before the House and said quite frankly it was his intention to deal with Hartebeestpoort. We accept that statement and we welcome it. We are willing to assist him in every possible manner to develop Hartebeestpoort, but we are not willing to put the whole of the assets of the State in respect of Crown lands under an Act of this nature. The Act would allow of probationary lessees being spread over the whole of the Crown lands of the Union. This might be applied to very large areas of the Union and without the land board exercising their free discretion in the matter, they will be obliged to finally settle these people on the holdings. I do appeal to the Minister to meet us in this matter and to agree to the limitation of the areas so that we can go to the public and say that this Act does not extend to the whole of the Crown land of the Union. In Canada and New Zealand the same principle is observed and some of the land settlement Acts of those countries go so far as to specify the area which may be settled in any particular year. Nobody will accuse New Zealand or Canada of being unsympathetic to the settlement of the poor man on the land. They have made a marvellous success of their settlements and I see no reason why the Minister should not make a success of Hartebeestpoort. This feeling is not confined to this side of the House. It is a feeling that the whole country would have against the assets of the Union in respect of Crown lands being placed at the mercy of an Act which has not been framed in such a way as to distinguish between the various problems we are trying to solve. The poor white problem is entirely different from the other problem. I think we should endeavour to make this Act as definite and clear as possible in its terms.

I would like to have very clearly what it is that the hon. member who has just sat down really wants. As I understood him it is this, and I would like him to say whether that is so, that in the Bill provision should be made that the total area of ground to be allotted in any particular year shall not exceed a definite number of morgen. Is that so?

We are speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) that the areas shall be scheduled to which this Act should apply. That is to say if the Minister proposes to apply the Act to Hartebeestpoort that area should be placed on the schedule and that the Minister should have the right to come and get the consent of Parliament to extend the area from time to time. Of course there might be included in the schedule Olifants River, or other closer settlement areas which are within measurable reach of being developed. We do not want this Act to be applicable to the whole of the Crown land in the Union. I was quoting the examples of Canada and New Zealand, where areas are specified from year to year.

I understand now that the idea of the hon. member is that the areas to be allotted to fall under this Act should be scheduled from time to time. He backed that by the argument that it is provided in the laws in Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, that the areas to be allotted from time to time shall not exceed so and so. Of course for that purpose I do not see why the ground should be scheduled. Now, as far as the scheduling is concerned, I must say I think hon. members will see this, that it is almost next to impossible to go and schedule in this Act what grounds will be available for the Minister in order to avail himself of those grounds as the places for his settlement. He is to be advised by men who take into consideration the ground for the particular purpose. They will have to enquire as to all the factors which will be necessary to ensure the success of a settlement. I am sure that he is not in a position to do so to-day. He will have to go and get these men to institute the necessary enquiries. Those enquiries will have to be directed with an eye to all the circumstances of the country. For instance, in regard to cotton or sugar beet or anything of that kind, enquiries will have to be made as to the suitability of the ground for settlement purposes. That will depend also on the quality and nature of the ground. As far as scheduling is concerned, I do not think that is wise or that it can be done. If hon. members say that what should be done is to lay down that not more than a certain extent of land from year to year should be at the disposal of the Minister, then I could see some reason in that. It might be necessary to say that the extent put at the disposal of the Minister for the purposes of this law should be 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 morgen, whatever it may be, but for that purpose scheduling is not necessary, and I do not think hon. members should insist on it. There is something else, which I do not say it is advisable should be done but which could be done to meet the fears that I have heard expressed here this morning indirectly and that is that the extent of the ground to be allotted to any one individual shall be limited, for instance, that no plot allotted to any probationer shall exceed 100 morgen or so, but I do not think, if that is the intention of hon. members, that the Minister should be restricted in the choice as to where any settlement should be laid out. I do not think that that would be wise. I am afraid there are members who want him to be restricted in that sense. For instance, the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) spoke about Hartebeestpoort. If you go and do that the first question that arises is what is the necessity for it, why restrict to any locality? Surely the Minister ought for the purposes of settlement in this country to be able to lay his hand upon any fit and proper locality and say that that is suitable for development. I do not think you will get any law in any country where a Minister has been restricted to any particular locality. Where grounds have been purchased or acquired by the State for particular purposes of settlement, naturally it would be said “take this ground and use it for settlement in such and such a way,” but here we have the position that the State owns ground all over the Union and in places quite far apart, for example, Zululand on the one hand and Waterberg on the other, where you have ground which is said to be suitable for cotton growing. Now, if the Minister wants to have a settlement in Waterberg and at the same time down in Natal, I do not see why he should be restricted, because practically now he is going to try and open up the country both in Waterberg and in Natal by the measures which are going to be taken under this law with a view of ensuring success. If success cannot be attained then we shall know, but at any rate he is going to try and make it a success by adopting the measures which are contemplated under this Bill.

I welcome the remarks which have just fallen from the Prime Minister, which show that at any rate he realizes there is considerable force in the difficulties we have raised and that he is making an honest endeavour to meet us in the matter. Those remarks show that our objections have been well founded and have been sincere and not, as has been suggested, that we have been merely trying to obstruct. As to the Prime Minister’s suggestion that a certain limited area should be put at the disposal of the Minister every year, I do not think that that is practicable. If in order to settle probationers or poor people in this country the requirements are a million acres per annum, I would say give them all the land that is wanted, but that is not the point. The point is that we want to adhere to the basic principles of our Crown land laws, that if and when Crown lands are given out they should be given out by gazettal and the public should have the right to apply. That is the principle which is going by the board in this Bill, but we are prepared to encroach upon that principle to this extent that in regard to certain small holdings and settlements at Hartebeestpoort and other places the principle should be waived, but we are not prepared to give the Minister a blank cheque in regard to all Crown lands in the Union. That is what this Bill amounts to. I see what the Prime Minister is driving at when he objects to the schedule. I am going to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), but I would put it to the Minister whether during the luncheon hour he would not consider an amendment in this direction which I believe would meet the Prime Minister’s view: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (6) and (e) of section 19 or any other provision of the principal Act, the Minister may, in respect of any definitely described areas of land which have been cut into small holdings for closer settlement in accordance with subsections 1 and 2 of section 15 of the principal Act, by notice in the Gazette and in one or more newspapers, called for applications for the grant of a right to temporary occupation of a holding, and any such notice shall state that the Minister may, on the recommendation of the land board regard a successful applicant under the section as likely to be suitable when trained to become a lessee of a holding under the principal Act, and the Minister may then grant to such successful applicant a temporary occupation of any lot situated on the land cut into holdings as afore-said for such periods not exceeding three years and on such conditions, whether as to produce sharing or otherwise, as the Minister may in each case determine, which conditions may be varied or curtailed from time to time by the Minister, regard being had to the suitability of the particular allottee. Any person to whom any such right of occupation is granted is hereinafter described as a ‘probationary lessee.’” That gives the land board and Minister the power to say, without coming to Parliament, that this and that area is fit for closer settlement. I will commend this to the Minister in the hope that during the adjournment he will look into it and tell us whether he may not be prepared to accept it in place of the amendment we are now discussing. The great principle we are fighting for is that the public should know what is happening to their Crown lands. I do hold that the essential principle of gazettal, of notice to the population of the Union, should be adhered to. Potential probationers right throughout the Union should be given the opportunity of getting into touch and being taken on as probationers. I would ask the Minister whether he will not have a look, at any rate, at this proposed amendment, because it is an earnest of the fact that we on this side of the House do want to help the passage of this Bill, but we do not want to waive that basic principle that I have been talking of.

Business was suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.24 p.m.

I moved a little amendment before lunch which I hope will meet with the approval of the Minister. I am not suggesting that it is perfect in all detail, but it meets all the objections on this side of the House and gives the Minister all the powers he wants in dealing with these probationers. The tail end of the amendment is practically the same as the Minister’s own clause, so that he has full power to run these probationer settlements as he wants to. We agree that when a probationer settlement has been created Parliament cannot hope to exercise control and that the Minister and some local committee must have some control. There are no objections to the wide powers of control that the Minister wishes to retain, and we are not objecting to the principle of a local committee in order to run their own local affairs, but we do object to the local committee having the right to select candidates for probation. You can take a poor man either in Durban, Port Elizabeth or Cape Town who wishes to settle his son on the land and I ask, how is he going to get in touch with a small committee of control? These committees will only come into contact with people in the immediate neighbourhood, with the result that these probationer settlements will be filled up by people coming from close by. I would like to hear whether the hon. Minister is prepared to meet us on this amendment which I suggested to him.

I really cannot understand why there should be such a number of objections to this Bill. My hon. friend comes back to his old argument of advertising. I have already pointed out that this clause of mine, a clause to which he so strongly objects, is practically indentical with the clause which he drew up himself and which he was going to introduce if there were no dissolution. This is the clause of my predecessor and which I wish hon. members to compare with my clause. It says the Minister may on recommendation of the land board allot land under the principal. Act to any probationer or lessee who has satisfactorily completed a course of training, notwithstanding any such holding not having been offered under the principles contained in the Act. Therefore I do not see why objection is taken to it. You can take the argument of the hon. member for Ermelo (Col.-Cdt. Collins) that I might take a probationer and put him on a farm at Ermelo. But how can I do so. I have to consult the local committee. How can I put a man on a farm at Ermelo, buy all his machinery, erect his buildings and do all these things for his sole benefit? I cannot do it. But when he has made good the Land Board can put him on the land. Perhaps it is suggested that the land board is in league with me, and will say: “Here is a friend of the Minister, we will have to put him on the land.” This Bill simply makes provision for people who have no experience and no capital. The land will be advertised and allotted as hitherto except in this case. Special areas will be set aside from time to time, but there must be a sufficient number of probationers for me to do so. It will not do to have only 30 or 40 people comings forward because the area taken will have to be considerable. I maintain this fills a hiatus in the Land Settlement Act for a class of people for whom no provision has been made. The suspicion that I am going to allot land to particular friends of mine is without foundation. I am not going to do anything of the kind, the Land Board will put these people on the allotments. I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

What the Minister has said convinces me more than ever that it is necessary to have the amendment. What can the Minister’s objection be to specifying the areas to which the Act is to be applied? I must rather insist on the amendment. We do not think that the Minister of Lands intends to abuse this Act for his own purposes, but it is a matter of principle; whether certain areas of Crown land should be allowed to be alienated with the very slight check provided in the Bill. I think it was the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) who said that we wanted to keep the large areas for wealthy men. There is a grain of truth in that remark, for large farms are not suitable for poor men and are not closer settlement. Stock farms have to be of a very large area, while irrigation holdings are of small area, therefore the suggestion of the hon. the Prime Minister that it might be stipulated that only a certain area of land should be dealt with annually, would be impracticable in this country, although done in New Zealand. By specifying closer settlement areas from time to time as they are required the Minister would have the full support of the House, provided we though those areas were suitable for the purpose. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said that we were trying to exclude Zululand. I have not an iota of interest in Zululand or in any other-area, and fight for the principle involved. Hartebeestpoort, Olifants River and Kopjes are suitable for closer settlement. Where money, time and thought have been spent on the development of irrigation schemes, why not be satisfied with making a success of them, so that the State can reap a return for the money it has spent on them before the State seeks to develop fresh areas. I would like to see Hartebeestpoort put on its feet as soon as possible, instead of looking like becoming a white elephant. We are not obstructing the Minister. There has been some criticism, but if hon. members opposite expect us to sit still and say nothing to correct mistakes, they are making a mistake.

I hope the Minister will reply to my question.

The settlements in Bethal do not fall under this Bill. The settlements which fall under it will cost a lot of money, and it cannot be made to apply to small settlements of only 20 or 30 persons. Regarding revaluation of the lands, I admit that the previous Minister of Lands promised to do It, but I have not had an opportunity yet of going into the matter. I think a revaluation is necessary in some cases, and the matter will have my attention.

We all realize that the Bill is in the nature of a tremendous experiment. The Minister asks for practically unlimited powers to enable him to deal with Crown lands in almost any way in which he may desire. He has pointed out that under the Bill it is possible to do very strange things, things never contemplated in any previous legislation. Under the circumstances the Minister should really show himself willing to agree to some reasonable compromise as to the limitation of his powers. It has been said that the Natal members are interested only in the land in Zululand, insofar as the application of this Act is concerned. As a matter of fact, we have no anxiety in respect of that land whatever for the Minister has already plainly stated that he did not intend to apply the terms of this Bill to Zululand, it being reserved for closer settlement schemes. All the same, it will be a dangerous precedent to give the Minister such unlimited powers. We are really most anxious to help the Minister; I am not an obstructionist in my opposition, and do not wish to be, as every member of the House by now has realized it is only constructive criticism that we desire to offer.

In the few remarks I made the other day I stated that in this Bill I saw a real and earnest desire on the part of the Minister to do something towards the solution of the poor white problem, and I said this Bill must be approached in a sympathetic spirit and the criticism should be of a constructive character. It is solely with that object I would like to appeal to him now. I want the Minister to take the country with him on this matter. I am sorry a Bill was not introduced which would do away with all differences, as I think a Bill of that kind could have been introduced. I say to the Minister that the safeguarding of public interest lies with this House. Why not let the country know that in respect of certain specified areas this great experiment is to be attempted? If that experiment is a success the Minister can come to this House for further powers. Do not let a section of the people feel that they have been done out of their legitimate rights in the matter of application for Crown lands.

I am sorry the hon. Minister has spoken about suspicion. We have no suspicion against him whatsoever. I am sure his motives in this matter are purely altruistic. He is out to help those who can only be helped by a probationary system. But he harks back to the gazettal. What I suggested was not a gazettal of the land, but of the candidate. My great objection, which the Minister does not seem able to grasp, is not so much the allottal of the ground, because once Parliament or the land board has decided that a particular closer settlement shall be used for a probationary scheme, then we are not insisting that lots shall be allotted by gazette, but we do say that no Minister—we are not talking of any particular Minister—should have the right to turn Hartebeestpoort or any similar settlement into a close preserve of his own, because that is what the Bill amounts to. As the law stands the Minister has the sole discretion to select candidates. Let me point out to the Minister that originally he specially excluded from the powers of the committees of control, the right to have a say in the selection of settlers.

No.

Sub-section 1 gives the Minister the sole right to decide.

Read subsection 2.

No, sub-section 4 says the Minister may make regulations as to the principle and methods by which persons shall be selected. In section 1 the same thing holds. The Minister is the sole judge as to whom and why and how any particular probationer shall be selected.

Read subsection 2.

Sub-section (a) says the committee may advise the Minister, but it takes powers away from the committee.

“Shall be to advise the Minister”.

It says provided it shall not be competent to exercise the following functions, that one of those functions is the right to select candidates.

Oh, no.

Now the Minister has come back to the idea that the committee shall help him to decide. We are up against this objection: how is a little local committee to get into touch with potential probationers? How is a man in Durban, for instance, to get into touch with some little hole and corner committee? I said in my amendment that the Minister shall call for applications from people in the Union. Then any poor man could apply. It is especially the poor man’s son who will get ousted under this.

Nonsense.

Yes; how is a poor man in Durban to get his son into touch with a little hole and corner committee sitting in Hartebeestpoort? The effect of this clause is to make Hartebeestpoort or any similar national asset a close preserve of any Minister who happens to be in office at the time. We are fighting for an important principle, and for the poor man.

How many poor men got land in the past?

90 per cent. of them were poor men. The entire working and administration of the Land Settlement Act under our control was wholly or almost wholly to help the poor man. I would challenge the hon. member opposite to give me the name of a single rich man whom we settled. A few lots in Zoutpansberg were given out by me to men with capital. In Zululand I hold a man must have adequate capital, but more than 90 per cent. of the people settled on the land in the last few years were poor men. Do not let us run away with the idea which some hon. gentlemen on the other side are trying to create, that we on this side of the House, and myself in particular, are enemies of the poor white.

Quite right, you are.

I especially have been attacked in most melodramatic terms by the Minister of Railways. As the Bill stands the poor man is completely without protection. The majority of the poor men in this country will never know of the working of this little local committee. In the interests of the poor men themselves it is essential that the gazettal I have mentioned shall take place. If the Minister is not going to accept this compromise I shall only move this amendment later. It is a comprehensive amendment. It gives him practically dictatorial power on any settlement which has been definitely set aside as a probationary settlement. If the Minister was really sincere about helping on Hartebeestpoort. I cannot think he would take up the attitude he is taking up now.

I really have come to the conclusion that my hon. friend is deliberately trying to obscure and create confusion. As far as the selection of candidates is concerned, if hon. members will look at Clause 4, it says, “The Minister may make regulations as to all or any of the following matters.” Nothing in the world prevents me putting a notice in the newspapers saying that the committee is prepared to receive applications. Why I come to the conclusion is because the hon. member said I am the sole person to select whomsoever I like. I repeatedly asked him to read Clause 3 sub-section 2. This says, “The Committee shall advise the Minister as to selection and training.” My hon. friend went on to say that I had excluded selection. That is not so. I have already said I excluded certain functions which I did not want the committee to exercise, because I wanted the land boards to exercise them. Those functions are set out in this sub-section. The land board shall recommend to the Minister the applicants to whom allotments shall be allotted. The committee is excluded. The second provides that the land board shall advise as to any advances to be made to lessees. The third provides that permanent improvements shall be recommended by the land board. The next provides that bore-holes shall be recommended by the land board. Then recommendations are to be made as to purchasing of stock, and so on. If my hon. friend will look at section 3, he will see that I said the committee of control shall take the place of the land board under the principal Act, provided that it shall not be competent for any such committee to exercise the functions entrusted to a land board under certain sections of certain existing Acts. All the important functions are left to the land board.

Left to the Minister.

It is impossible to say that. It is perfectly clear here. Those functions are left to the land boards. They have to recommend, but of course, I have to approve of their recommendation. I have carefully excluded all the important functions from the committee of control and given them to the land board. I have already said, at the second reading stage, that the committee of control shall consist of the superintendent of the settlement, and one member of the land board, and one local farmer. I do not know what further I can do. I do not know with what purpose these objections are being raised. In certain respects my Bill is precisely that left by the hon. member in his office, except of course, that my Bill is more elaborate.

I am sorry that the Minister should accuse us of obstructing this Bill. I should have thought that the action of the Opposition side of the House on this question is sufficient protection against any such accusation being brought against us, because instead of asking that this Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, our desire to see it through has been such that we have refrained from that course. We are endeavouring to put forward suggestions that are supported by sound reasons, and to refrain from vexatious opposition. There is the strongest objection against the whole of the Crown lands being brought under this Bill in its present state. It is desirable from the point of view of the spending potentialities of this Bill. They are very great indeed, and as it at present stands it is only wholly indeterminate in its extensibility to the Crown lands of the Union.

I am afraid the Minister is not quite clear on the purport of section 3 of this Bill. He states that he has excluded from the Committees of Control certain functions, and that these functions will remain vested in the land boards. With all due submission, he is wrong there. The effect of exclusions in section 3 is not to take away functions from the Committees of Control and leave them vested in the land boards, but to give the Minister further powers, so that the powers he has taken away from the Committees of Control under section 3, he is arrogating to himself and not giving back to the land board. If the Minister looks at section 16 of the principal Act he will see that the whole of chapter 3 only refers to lands which have been allotted after due gazettal by the land board. The Minister has no tyet told us why he personally should have this vast right to select settlers to fill up settlements which have cost millions and millions of the tax-payers’ money. When the Minister arrogates to himself all these rights it makes one wonder whether there is not some ulterior motive behind it. I have already indicated the compromise which I suggest might be accepted by the Minister. The second clause that I would suggest reads: “The Minister may on the recommendation of the Land Board allot a holding under the principal Act on the particular area of land cut up into small holdings aforesaid to any probationary lessee who has completed to his satisfaction a course of training and is otherwise suitable as an allottee, notwithstanding that such holding has not been offered for allotment as prescribed by the Act.’ I do not think we have shown an unreasonable spirit in all this. If this very reasonable compromise is not accepted it will be my duty and the duty of hon. members on this side to fight this matter.

If the Committee is under the impression that the hon. member who has just taken his seat intends purposely to mislead us, it is his own fault. He repeated again that the Minister can grant land without consulting the Land Board. That is obviously contrary to the provisions of the Bill. He also asserts that the Minister is curtailing the powers of the Land Board, whilst the contrary is the case. The previous Minister had been appointing land boards at all the settlements, and they would have had wide powers and would consequently have encroached on the powers of the provincial land boards. The object of this Bill is to protect the land boards against such a thing, and to give these boards all their previous powers. The hon. member also attempts to create the erroneous impression that the Minister will grant properties to probationary settlers without consulting the Land Board. The Bill provides that the granting of land will take place in consultation with the Board.

At the risk of being accused of damnable reiteration, I have to repeat certain phases of this Bill because the Minister simply will not understand the point I am driving at. He has taken away rights of the Committees of Control and vested them, not in the Land Board, but in himself. These powers which he has excluded from the Committees of Control do not revert to the Land Board, but remain vested in himself. Why should these powers be vested in him and why should he have sole discretionary powers and why should he nominate his probationary lessees? I repeat that sup-section 2 is a fallacy, it is a blind. Once the settler is on the land, once money has been spent on him, once he is armed with documents, and he is bound to have something of that sort, the Land Board has no further say in the matter. If the Minister is going to force us to divide the House on the amendment of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben), I will put my further amendment and I will see that it is afforded the fullest discussion in this House.

If the Minister studied the amendment on the notice paper he will find that it is an impossible position. It does not provide any safeguard whatever. He maintains that he will place in office a committee of control that will advise him as to the selection of the probationers. I understand that one member of the committee of control is to be the nominee of the settlers, one the nominee of the Government, and one a member of the land board, but this is not clear. However, there can’t be any settlers until they are placed on the land. If we are wrong in our surmise, will he tell us how this committee of control is to be composed? The chief point we are trying to drive home is that control of the Crown lands shall remain in the hands of the land board as at present constituted.

Where are they taken away?

The hon. member opposite cannot have read the Bill. Let him read Clause 1. Another point we want the Minister to concede is to recognize the reasonable proposition that the areas on which he intends to put settlers shall be pre-defined as regards their geographical position, and it should also be clearly indicated as to the policy to be adopted for their development. We are given to understand in a general way that these lands are to be used for closer settlement, but there is nothing in the Bill to show it. Also everybody in poor circumstances must be given an opportunity of applying for these lands, but there is no machinery to inform the people as to whether these lands are open for application or not. If that is to remain so how are the general public going to get an opportunity of knowing when land is available so that they can apply?

After the touching appeal of the last speaker I must say a few words about these unfortunate people about whom he is so concerned. I cannot imagine all these poor people buying the Gazette every week on the chance of seeing that there is land available for which they can apply, at Hartebeestpoort, Olifants River or the cotton lands in Zululand. He weakens his case by getting down to this class who will never have an opportunity of making application. I suggest that from what any member knows of the Minister that some method of advertising will be employed. You are not going to tell me that what is contemplated by the Minister is that he shall sit down in his office and have applicants passed in review before him, and that is what underlies his suggestions and innuendoes—he is going to pick out the names of good supporters of the Nationalist party and this Government.

And the Labour party.

Yes, and the Labour party. Is that what is suggested—to sort the sheep from the goats—the S.A.P. being the goats, and that the Minister is going to proceed to put the sheep on pieces of land he has already selected. I do not think that will wash, Mr. Chairman. Nobody of any intelligence can be expected to swallow that. It is a little beside the mark. I have a good deal of sympathy with the attitude of members on this side of the House, and I deprecate the hurling of charges of obstruction against them. There are two kinds of obstruction. There is obstruction for the sake of obstruction itself and there is that obstruction which arises out of an intense desire to oppose something with which they do not agree. I am inclined to think that is the reason of their obstruction, that the hon. members on this side hold very strongly that the powers which the Minister proposes to confer on himself are powers which he should not have, and they have a right to fight it tooth and nail. If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) were Minister of Lands I would be fighting just as bitterly. I know his policy from past experience and in no circumstances would I give him or his party the least control.

What is going to happen when we get back next year?

This country is going to progress and not retrogress, and you are not going to get within measurable distance of the Minister of Lands again. I know the policy of the present Minister of Lands is to settle the people of South Africa on the land of South Africa, and you have been preventing that all the time. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and his friends said they were concerned about the position of the poor man under the Land Board system of control, and the only poor man we are concerned with is in connection with closer settlement. We have to remember, and we are right in our promises, that it is the question of poverty and riches and it is rather comparative. I want to put it to the Minister, although he is correct in saying that there are no really rich settlers, yet discrimination has been made between the man who has no money and the man who has. The very forms of application contain a query to this effect: “How much money do you possess?” If money is possessed by the applicant the bank certificates have to be produced. That being so, it is clear proof that you are prepared to take into consideration what a man possesses as against the claims of the man who does not possess anything. I personally know of cases where discrimination has been made between two applicants and the successful man has been the man who possessed more money than the other. I believe this is one of the things which the present Minister of Lands proposes to get rid of. The Opposition here have enunciated the principle and they want an amendment passed, and with which to some extent I agree, that there shall be a schedule attached and shall be put before Parliament that certain lands shall be set aside for settlement. The hon. member is so concerned about that, will he be prepared for cotton land to be included?

Yes.

Yes. Then perhaps it will be better for him to reconsider the matter. They are satisfied with Hartebeestpoort, Olifants River, and now they are prepared to give Zululand. Say no more about it, take the otter.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) in the attitude he has taken. His attitude as a member of the committee on Crown lands for several years past was one of uncompromising condemnation of any attempt to deprive Parliament of its absolute rights alone to deal with Crown lands. He is one of the strongest opponents of anything being left to the Government in the way of land settlement. The principle which he has always attacked and in which I often supported him that Parliament should have all the say in the disposal of Crown lands—we mutually supported each other often to the annoyance of other members of the committee—is the principle I had hoped he would adhere to. Now he gets up and says that the Minister is taking powers which no Minister should have and in the same breath promises to support the Bill. All this in spite of what has happened in the past. I am surprised; but I am more surprised at the Minister of Lands, whom I always looked upon as a reasonable man and whom I now find to be determined to use his majority and listen to no argument. We are asking for nothing more than that publicity should be given in regard to this matter, so that every man in South Africa should have an equal opportunity to apply for land. I appeal to the Minister to consider the suggestion made this morning by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Lands must get away from the narrow idea that he, and he alone, is to deal with Crown land. If the Minister is going to force us to oppose the Bill then he alone will be to blame.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), who has absolved this side of the House of any intention to obstruct the measure, asked if we are agreeable to Zululand being placed on the schedule. I say most emphatically, “Yes,” provided that the Government or any responsible body of men such as a land board is satisfied that that particular area is suitable for settlement of this description, but we must be careful that we do not settle people under the land, instead of on the land. I want to appeal to the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Boydell), and I can see him if that Bill had been brought forward by the late Government. We have in Durban probably one of the best managed unemployment undertakings in South Africa, and we have by local contributions and effort looked after our own unemployed. Amongst the unemployed are a large number of people who are eminently suited for placing on the land. But how are they going to know when the Minister decides that certain localities are to be given out for poor whites unless the fact is advertised?

We will let them know.

Drop them a post card!

Although these people do not read the “Government Gazette,” members of the committee do. If the men knew about an allotment I am certain they would apply for land. What can be the Minister’s objection to the proposal, for we ask that equal opportunity be given to all sections of the community to apply for this land. I would like the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to say a few words for the people in his own neighbourhood, for he knows that these people in Durban will have no opportunity of finding out that land is to be allotted unless the fact is advertised. What earthly objection can there be to publicity?

There is no objection.

Perhaps the Minister would accept the motion to report progress? There is no desire to obstruct the passage of the Bill.

You are doing so all the time.

That is entirely owing to the attitude taken up by the Minister; we are not to blame for that.

You refuse the Prime Minister’s suggestion.

He did not lay down any particular plan, but he seemed to appreciate the difficulty we felt. The Minister of Labour knows that if the Bill goes through as it is, men who have been working at Umgeni will never have an opportunity of applying for an allotment.

You are quite right.

In reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) I pointed out that in the Bill I may make recommendations regarding “the principles and methods under which persons may be consulted”. I will accept at once an amendment to add the words “after publication in the Government Gazette and other newspapers.” I have already stated so, but I will not advertise the details of the holdings but the fact that a certain area is to be allotted.

That is the effect of my amendment; it does not insist on the gazettal of the land but of the fact that Government intends calling for probationary settlers. Why the Minister has up to now refused the request to advertise the fact I do not know. I have been trying for days and days to get the Minister to tell the House why he insists on the sole right to select these probationary settlers.

But I don’t.

I think the debate might be adjourned to enable us to draft an amendment on the lines of what the Minister has said.

An adjournment is unnecessary. The amendment is simple.

We are not obstructing, but are really fighting for an important principle to which at last the Minister is going to agree. I hope he will give us a little breathing space in which to draft a clause in accordance with what he has stated. I am glad that the Minister agrees that the point we have been arguing about is soundly taken.

My hon. friend starts off again with a lot of amendments. I am not going to accept any of his further amendment. That I told him before. In an area like this the committee of control will advise me. It is not necessary to provide any elaborate amendment. If the hon. member will look at Clause 4 (a) again he will find what I stated before. All that is required is that the amendment shall provide for the announcement to be made in the Gazette and the newspapers. As far as Hartebeestpoort is concerned, the late Minister of Agriculture made a promise that those people who worked at Hartebeestpoort would be considered first. There are already more people than I have got land for. Therefore, although I have no objection to put this announcement in the newspapers, it will have no practical effect because there is not sufficient land now for those people who the late Minister of Agriculture promised should have preference. I already have a list of these people and am sending it on to Pretoria.

What about the people in Durban; they will be discarded.

No, they will also get their turn after we have dealt with Hartebeestpoort. I hope now that I have accepted the hon. member’s amendments that we shall be able to go on.

It is quite evident that if the Bill is passed as at present constituted the effect might be that no more Crown land in South Africa will be allotted except by the methods which are suggested here, of probationary lessees. The land board, it is possible, would be an entirely dead letter. Section 2 is merely a blind. Under section 1 the Minister of Lands has got the power to place a probationary lessee on the land, and once he has got a probationary lessee on the land the land board would be bound to allot that land to that probationary lessee. Therefore, under the provisions of this Bill, you are taking away the functions of the land board. Another point under this clause is, that there is nothing to stop land being allotted to a land-owner or a man of wealth. The Act does not restrict itself to any particular class of person. If the Act had said that no land shall be granted to any probationary lessee except to a man who was landless, there might have been something in it, but as the Bill stands the Minister has the power to take on any persons he wishes. In the New Zealand Land Settlement Acts which have been passed to grant relief to their indigent, it is specially provided that no land shall be allotted to any person who is the owner of land. We have been told from the outset that this Bill is intended to assist the poor people in this country. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has told us he agrees with our argument, but he is prepared to trust the Minister to carry out the Bill as it stands. The Act as it stands is very autocratic in its provisions. The idea of democracy is done away with entirely.

I really do not think that the hon. members of the opposition should carry on the fight when the Minister in charge of the Bill has already indicated that he is prepared to accept an amendment to give effect to the very thing the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is asking for. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Robinson) says that there is a large number of men on the Durban Unemployment Committee, who would like an opportunity to be placed as probationary settlers on these lands. He wanted to know how was it possible for these men to know that the lands were available, because, he said the Minister did not intend to advertise in the newspapers. Now, the Minister has got up and said he is prepared to accept the amendment by which he will be bound to advertise in the newspapers.

What about the selection?

That is another matter. The Minister is going to reserve the right afterwards to settle the men on various Lands which he considers satisfactory and suitable for settling. The Minister has already said that he is not going to allow the land board to have that power. He is going to keep it in his own hands. The whole point made by the hon. member opposite was that these proposed allotments should be notified in the public press, so that everybody shall have an opportunity of applying. Was it not the hon. member’s own phrase that everybody should have equality of opportunity? If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) and his friends, are going to carry on the fight after this amendment has been granted, it only comes to this, that they are doing all they possibly can to try to make it impossible for us to get this measure through. The Minister having met the hon. members’ objections, I think they should be reasonable. At first the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) Col. D. Reitz) seemed very pleased with the concession the Minister made, but after a little caucus talk with his friends behind him, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) decided that he must keep the fight going. It would show the right spirit if, seeing that the Minister is prepared to meet them, hon. members opposite would say we will accept that and let us get on with the other business on the Order Paper.

Do you agree to the autocratic powers which the Bill confers on the Minister?

I welcome the considerable concession the Minister made on that subject, but that was only one point we were fighting for, and where does this concession lead us? The Minister no longer claims arbitrary powers of selection.

Was not that concession one to be accepted?

We are very grateful for that concession, and we would have been more grateful for it if it had been made two days ago, when all this discussion could have been saved. The Minister will now advertise in the Gazette, but it still says he “may” appoint a Committee of Control. It does not say he shall.” It leaves him the choice. How is he going to come in touch with all these applicants? Is he going to meet them personally? He cannot. Take Hartebeestpoort. What sort of a look-in will anyone at Durban get at the hands of a committee whose vision is limited to their own petty horizon at Hartebeestpoort? What we are going to propose is this: The law provides for five land boards. I appointed a special land board for Hartebeestpoort. I have no faith in a small local committee appointed from an area like that, doing justice to the whole of the Union. I would throw out this suggestion to the Minister. There are four Land Boards at present—Natal, Cape, Free State and Transvaal. Let him appoint a fifth Land Board, not only for Hartebeestpoort, but for all areas coming under this Bill. That is one of the reasons why we wanted this schedule. I think hon. members must see that this Committee of Control is going to have a very limited vision. They know no one outside their own particular surroundings, and I do not think the mere calling for advertisements is enough. I do not think the man living far away is adequately safeguarded.

The hon. member is now raising a new point, and I think I ought to withdraw what I undertook to do.

The Minister cannot do that. He has conceded a very important principle, and he cannot treat us like children. I would ask the Minister to think of this suggestion of mine to have a fifth Land Board dealing with all probationary settlers in the Union.

I do not quite know which point is before the House. The amendment that I moved was not brought forward with the intention of obtaining gazettal merely, but with the intention of stating what areas would be used for closer settlement, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) is a compromise on which we thought, before lunch, the Prime Minister was going to have something done which would meet the case.

The point I desire to emphasize is, that, although we appreciate and recognize the Minister’s willingness to meet us on the point of the advertisement of the vacancies for probationary lessees, the selection of the lessee is an important matter, and one that should be left to the Land Board. I should like the Minister to give us some statement which will tend to alleviate any misgiving there may be on this point.

I think the Minister might give us some assurance that he will amend this clause as to the gazettal. Will he agree when we get to the next clause to accept an amendment?

At first the objection was that the properties are not being advertised. I met that objection, and now there is a whole series of other objections. It is clear that members are obstructing, and under these circumstances I am going to put the Bill through in its present form.

Really, this is treating the House like a kindergarten.

You are a past master at that.

The Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, has told him that this is a very reasonable suggestion, and we are prepared to accept it as a reasonable suggestion.

What?

We are prepared to accept this amendment. The Minister wants to bargain now, and says: “I have given you this concession and you must withdraw your objections to the rest of the Bill.” Surely this is not a market-place; we are not here to buy and sell principles. We are not going to be treated like a kindergarten. The Minister of Lands has been advised by his colleague, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, that it is a well-taken point, and he advised the Minister Lands to accept it. The Minister of Lands gets up and says: “I will do so.” Now he is trying to use this like a loaded pistol. It is a mild species of Parliamentary blackmail. The Minister is not dealing with us now; he is dealing with the whole country, he is dealing with important principles which are not to be bought and sold in this House in the way he thinks. Let me point out to the Minister that in sub-section 3 of the Bill there is no limit to the amount which he can lend any probationary settler, while in section 44 of the principal Act, a limit is placed to the maximum which may be allowed by way of advance to any settler.

I will not vote for the Bill if the allocation of farms is not advertised.

That is not the case.

I understood the Minister to say that if the Opposition does not stop the discussion now, the properties will not be advertised.

I am simply amazed to hear the Minister say that he is prepared to grant a concession, a most reasonable concession and a concession which is in the interests of the public as a whole, but really granted on such conditions and with such mental reservations that it is going to be of very little value and that it is only granted in the nature of a bribe. That in return for this flimsy concession we on this side of the House are to withdraw all our very reasonable criticisms of the rest of the Bill. I cannot believe that any member of this House would be a party to any such proposition.

I can well remember the sort of demonstration that used to take place when any suggestion was made by us that discussion on the part of the late opposition might well be brought to a close towards the end of a session. I think where it is a matter of this sort which affects the whole country we are entitled to point out the bad effect of the Bill as it stands, and bring home to the Minister the desirability of meeting us on this question. We certainly are entitled to press for a perfectly reasonable amendment to this Bill. We are asking for an amendment—the Minister himself indicated at the outset that he should be enabled to deal with very important land settlement in the Transvaal under this Bill. It was recognized that this Bill was drafted before the Minister came into office, that it was for the development of Hartebeestpoort and it is only reasonable where that was in the mind of the late Government and the present Government is disposed to agree to it that the Bill should be applied to the object for which it was intended. It seems unreasonable to endeavour to make conditions with us and ask us to withdraw our opposition by a concession which is not regarded as sufficient by this side of the House and, when the Minister indicated that it would still be a condition that the choice should be made by a small committee of control of the applicants within its knowledge. That seems to me to neutralize the whole effect of advertising, which the Minister agreed to allow. This matter should be allowed to stand over until there is a further opportunity of going into it and bringing forward a Bill in an atmosphere in which we shall be prepared to meet each other reasonably. I am sorry to appear in any way hostile, but the attitude taken up by the Minister is the wrong attitude in saying that we must with-draw all opposition to the Bill, because he is prepared to allow a concession which is of no great benefit to the people on whose behalf we are speaking.

The proposed new clause was put and Mr. Struben called for a division; the Committee thereupon divided:

Ayes—31.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw. J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Collins, W. R.; Robinson, C. P.

Noes—60.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Roshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

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.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay. G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw. E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, B. J.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Rood, W. H.

Boos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smit, J. S.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Te Water, C. T.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Sampson, H. W.; Vermooten, O. S.

Proposed new clause accordingly negatived.

On Clause 1,

I move—

1. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 19 or in any other provision of the principal Act, the Minister may, on the recommendation of the committee of control, referred to in section 3, grant a right of temporary occupation, not exceeding three years, in respect of holdings on Crown land to any person who is regarded by him as likely to be suitable, when trained, to become a lessee of a holding under the principal Act. Any such right of temporary occupation shall be on such conditions (whether as to produce sharing or otherwise) as the Minister may, in each case, determine. Any person to whom any such right of occupation is granted is hereinafter described as a ‘probationary lessee”. A statement showing the names and addresses of the probationary lessees to whom rights of temporary occupation have been granted under this sub-section, and the holdings in respect of which such rights have been granted, shall, within one month after the commencement of each ordinary session of Parliament, be laid upon the Tables of both Houses.

Is the Minister going to alter his amendment in terms of what he has told us now? The whole thing will require overhauling and his amendment is “Notwithstanding anything contained in section 19 or any other provision of the principal Act the Minister may on the recommendation of the Committee of Control referred to in section 3 grant a right of temporary occupation …” That is the other great point upon which we have been fighting, and I would like to know if he is going to amend this in terms of the fifth land board or does he persist in relegating these important matters to tiny committees of control? We hold that probationers must be gazetted, for after two days the Minister has agreed, but I do not know whether he is going to withdraw it again. Look at his amendment; it amounts to this: as the Bill said originally, the Minister has the right to select probationers and now I am prepared to take into consideration the small committee of control to help me select them.

I always said that.

No, it was actually said that the board might make recommendations to the Minister. As a matter of fact, the selection was in the hands of the Minister. Now as I read this it amounts to nothing, and we still say it is not sufficient. What does it amount to? A man living in Cape Town, Durban or Bloemfontein, what chance does he get if the matter is left purely to the Minister? I am not accusing the Minister, I am not casting any reflections on him, but how is he going to select these applicants? There may be some hundreds coming in and say at Hartebeestpoort there will be only two members of the committee to select them. What chance has a poor man living in the districts I have mentioned got in a case like that? They are living in different parts of the Union altogether. We must have something larger than that. The average poor man will not get a fair look in. There should be equality of knowledge amongst the citizens of the Union, and there should also be approximate equality of opportunity to apply. If people do apply they should be dealt with by a committee—not a small local committee—but a larger and more responsible body. I will move as an amendment to this amendment:

I move, as a further amendment—

The effect of the amendment will be that land can only be granted to a probationary lessee, who is not already the owner of land, or who is not the lessee of any land under a lease jointly with any other person.

What size land?

Any land.

A man might have a plot in a graveyard.

If my amendment is not accepted you may have a landowner becoming a probationary lessee, and I take it the object of the Bill is to help people who have no land at all. I am surprised at the remarks made by the hon. members on the cross benches, as I certainly thought they would agree with me.

The existing law provides that a person who owns property is not entitled to Crown land. This Bill contains no such provision, and I hope he will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel).

The Bill provides that people who fall under Clause 19 of the original Act do not come within the scope of this Bill. There is not the least intention to allot land under this Bill to people who already have land. Clause 19 of the original Act provides that Crown lands can only be allotted to persons, 18 years and over, who are suitable and who also have a certain amount of capital.

I do not quite appreciate the subtle argument of the Minister. It is of the very essence of this Bill that we should make it a condition that in any land which is going to be allotted to a probationary lessee, that lessee shall not be the owner or the lessee of any other land.

That is so.

Why not accept my amendment then? If the Minister will not accept my amendment I must come to the conclusion that there is some subterfuge. I want the Bill to state definitely that a probationary lessee must not be the owner of land or the lessee of land in South Africa. The Bill provides for all sorts of assistance to be given to these probationary lessees, and I have no objections to this assistance being granted to a man who is not an owner or lessee of land, but I do object to the powers under the Bill being used to help land-owners. I am surprised that the Minister is not prepared to accept my amendment. This is a very simple amendment and framed to carry out the object for which this Bill was introduced.

It is unnecessary, for the hon. member to get so excited as this Bill only aims at helping poor people as the hon. member can see. If it is not clear I will consult the Parliamentary draftsman. I only want to help the poor man. The man who has land can be helped in other ways.

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) wants to know why we are opposing this amendment. It is quite simple. His amendment would debar a man who is leasing a piece of ground at £6 a year. Is that what he wants to do? That is why we are opposing it.

The amendment of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) refers to the man who owns land, not to one who rents it.

I move—

1. (i) the situation, description and extent of all areas in respect of which moneys have been expended by the Minister under the provisions of this sub-section;
2. (ii) the amount of moneys expended by the Minister under each paragraph of this sub-section in respect of each such area;
3. (iii) the amount of moneys expended by the Minister in respect of each probationary lessee together with the name and address of each probationary lessee, specifying in detail the purposes for which such moneys were expended and the amount expended for each purpose; and
4. (iv) the names and addresses of all persons employed under paragraph (f) of this subsection, the period for which each such person is employed, and his rate of pay shall, within one month after the commencement of each ordinary session of Parliament, be laid upon the Table of both Houses”.

That the following be a new sub-section to follow sub-section:

1. (4) A statement showing the names and addresses of
   1. (a) all persons who have unsuccessfully applied to become probationary lessees under sub-section (1); and
   2. (b) all probationary lessees who were refused an allotment of a holding under sub-section (2)

shall, within one month after the commencement of each ordinary session of Parliament, be laid upon the Tables of both Houses.

These principles have already been agreed to by the Minister in one of his amendments, and I feel sure he will not refuse to accept my amendments.

The Question: That sub-section (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, was negatived, and the sub-section was accordingly omitted.

Now that a blank has been made in this clause, I move an amendment I have already mentioned, as follows: I move—

1. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (b) and (e) of section 19, or in any other provision of the principal Act, the Minister may in respect of any definitely described area of land which has been cut into small holdings for closer settlement in accordance with sub-section (1) and (2) of section 15 of the principal Act, by notice in the Gazette and in one of more newspapers, call for applications for the grant of a right to temporary occupation of a holding, and any such notice shall state that the Minister may, on the recommendation of the Land Board, regard a successful applicant under this section as likely to be suitable when trained to become a lessee of a holding under the principal Act, and the Minister may then grant to such successful applicant a temporary occupation of any lot situated on the land cut into holdings as aforesaid for such period not exceeding three years and on such conditions whether as to produce sharing or otherwise as the Minister may in each case determine, which conditions may be varied or curtailed from time to time by the Minister, regard being had to the suitability of the particular allottee. Any person to whom any such right of occupation is granted is hereinafter described as a “probationary lessee”.

If this amendment is scrutinized you will see that it amounts practically to the original clause in the Act, excepting that it does not give the Minister the sole right to say that this land or that land shall be cut off or any farm may be given away by merely calling it a probationary settlement. It allows the Minister and the Land Board to decide which land shall be cut up. My amendment amounts to this, that it says that before the Minister can create a probationary settlement the existing machinery of the principal Act must be followed, that is, that sub-sections (1) and (2) of sections 15 of the principal Act must come into operation. We concede the principle that in these circumstances there is no need to gazette that land because it has already been decided to set it apart for one special type of probationary settler. The Minister has already told us that he now agrees that application must first be called for by advertisement in the “Gazette.” The Minister should now go one step further. If he agrees that these small committees are not sufficient but that there must be something wider than these committees, we shall have no further objections to the Bill. We may have suggestions for the improvement of the Bill, but we shall have no further objections to it. I think the Minister ought to meet us on this subject by allowing a land board or something more important than a local committee to function. I would draw attention to my amendment as to section 19. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has inveigled against the S.A.P. Government that we only granted land to men with capital. Section 19 of the principal Act lays down that only the man with capital is entitled to get land under that Act. We agree that that should be whittled down. You cannot call for a probationer and expect him to have capital. I do not think, however, that the whole of section 19 should be thrown away. A man should be made to occupy.

Question put: That the words “Committee of Control, referred to in section 3”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the amendment,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—60.

Alexander, M.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler. P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, H.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. 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, C. A.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Pienaar, B. J.; Sampson, H. W.

Noes—30.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Brown, D. M.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Heatlie, C. B.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Snow, W. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Nathan, Emile; Robinson, C. P.

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Col. D. Reitz dropped.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Nel was negatived.

I think we should know from the Minister what his views are about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). In form his amendment replaces the whole sub-section moved by the hon. Minister but in fact it does not do so but introduces one or two amendments into the Minister’s amendment and is not merely a replacing clause. It introduces the principle of having a definite closer settlement area set apart on the advice of the Land Board on the principles detailed in the Land Settlement Act. The amendment provides the principle that certain definite areas should be set apart by the Minister in which the principles of this Act shall apply. It has been reiterated that the principles of this measure are not really applicable to the whole of the Crown lands in the Union. The amendment suggests that definite areas should be set apart as closer settlement areas in accordance with the principles of the Land Settlement Act, and that then the scheme should be advertised, and the Minister should select probationary settlers with the help of the land board. These are the two real points contained in the amendment.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

The amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) emphasises the necessity for having these lands fully advertised, and leaving the selection of the settlers in the hands of the land board. The Minister has been unwilling to accept the suggestion that these areas should be scheduled, but the effect of the amendment would be to limit the application of the Bill to closer settlement areas that are under the administration of the Minister. The effect of the Minister’s amendment would be to retain the selection of provisional lessees in the hands of the Minister, without any obligation to advertise these allotments. It will mean, in other words, that permanent tenure of this land will be obtained without the proper safeguards enjoined by the Land Settlement Act, which was introduced in 19Í2 by the late right hon. Abraham Fischer, who indicated the whole tenure of the Act was to prevent anything in the nature of political patronage, and to put at arms length the possibility of any favouritism being shown. However, the very antithesis of that principle is being embodied in this Bill. The late Mr. Fischer emphasised that it was necessary that people should know that these lands were available for allotment, and that the land board should be unrestricted in its choice of settlers. Unfortunately, these principles are being departed from. We agree to the desirability of setting a man on the land who is unprovided with capital, but who has shown his fitness to be placed on the land, but we want every one of them to have an equal opportunity not only to apply for land but of being selected as one of the successful applicants.

We on this side of the House are not obstructing, but merely pointing out that there are two main things to which we object. The first is the tremendous power given to the Minister, and I cannot understand why the Minister is so anxious to have this power. After all, it is the vital point of the afternoon, and I sincerely hope the Minister will come to a compromise and meet us on this very important point, and further that he will agree to the advertisements which should be given in all papers. After all, the Minister cannot interview every applicant, and I feel that the amendment moved by the hon. member of Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) would meet the difficulty.

I should like to point out the classes of people who ought to be assisted under this Act. I will quote from a speech which was made by the late the right hon. Prime Minister (Gen. Botha) in 1912. He said “Then comes the question as to what people had to be assisted. In the first place there were the poor whites. … There were many other people who could be assisted. … The second class was that which was in a little better position he was referring to the by wonder class. …” We must all agree as to the class of the people who ought to be assisted, and could be assisted, if an Act of the nature of this Act with the amendment were introduced. He went on to say: “There was a third class who had a little money and could make excellent agriculturists if the Government only came along and gave assistance. …” I think we must be satisfied that speculation has not been rendered possible under the present Act, because in reply to a question the Minister of Lands said that no lands had been allotted for speculation. The question we are bound to consider is the acceptance of the principle that these lands must be duly advertised, and that the Land Board is the authority proper for the allotment of the holdings under the principal Act. If we recognize, as is proposed by the Minister’s amendment, the Committee of Control, then we deny to the large class of people in the Union who are waiting to be assisted, the classes of people described by the late Prime Minister, we deny to those people the rights which belong to them. For my part I think the whole administration of this Bill will be hindered by the whole tendency of sections 1 and 2. We have not only to consider the question of people who are to be placed on the land, but as representatives of the country we have to consider the various methods of spending introduced by this Act. Unless the Land Board is placed in control of these matters—

I would point out to the hon. member that an amendment has already been put in regard to putting the Land Board in control, ánd has already been negatived.

The amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) proposes that the Land Board be the authority for the allotment. I am referring only incidentally to the position of the Land Board.

The new sub-section (1), proposed by the Minister of Lands, as printed, was then put, and Col. D. Reitz called for a division. Thereupon the committee divided:

Ayes—54.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bergh, P. A.

Boshoff, L. J.

Boydell, T.

Brink, G. F.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Fourie, A. P. J.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Hugo. D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Louw, E. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Mostert, J. P.

Muller, C. H.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Smit, J. S.

Stals, A. J.

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.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

Wessels, J. H. B.

Tellers: Alexander, M.; Pienaar, B. J.

Noes—30.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti. C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Heatlie, C. B.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw. J. P.

Marwick, J. S.

Nel, O. R.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford. R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Tellers: Nathan, Emile; Robinson, C. P.

New sub-section (1) accordingly agreed to and the second amendment proposed by Col. D. Reitz dropped.

At the end of sub-section (2), to add: “A statement showing the names and addresses of probationary lessees to whom holdings have been allotted under the provisions of this sub-section and the situation of such holdings shall, within one month after the commencement of each ordinary session of Parliament, be laid upon the Tables of both Houses”.

I am not quite clear on the proceeding. If we accept the Minister’s amendment on sub-section (2), does it mean that we accept the whole of sub-section (2) as it stands?

No

We have no objection to the Minister’s addition to sub-section (2), but before we deal with that I have an amendment to that sub-section. I move—

The Minister ought to have the power to remove a probationary lessee from the particular plot on which he was trained to some other one, but, as was shown this morning, there seems to be some confusion of thought on the subject. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Van Hees) says that as this Bill stands the Minister has no right to take a probationer settler after he has made good, and give him, for instance, a farm in Zoutpansberg, but as the law stands the Minister may take a probationer lessee who has made good and give him a farm anywhere in the Union. Then you come back to the old principle that you would have the Minister giving the man a farm without consulting the rest of the public, without giving the rest of the public a chance to apply for that farm. I hold that a probationer lessee, having been trained on a small holding settlement, should be given a chance on that settlement or any similar settlement. It is not a question of what his intentions are; to my mind they are above reproach. It is not a question of what he is likely to do, it is a question of taking the Bill as it stands. We are legislating for all time, we are legislating on a principle, and no Minister should have the right to interfere with the basic principles in matters connected with Crown lands. The lands should be thrown open by advertisement and in that way competition obtained. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, which is a reasonable one. The Minister smiles.

Are all your amendments reasonable ones?

If he does not, we must look with suspicion on this Bill. I have explained section 2 ad nauseam, but not one member across the way seems to understand the position. Even the Minister does not seem to grasp the effect of sub-section 2, and that seemingly invests authority in the Land Board but it does not do so. The Minister might take a probationer, spend a lot of money on him on which there is no limit, originally limited to £750, but it is removed in this Bill. If you take a probationer and put him on the land the moral obligation is that if he makes good he must get that land. The Land Board is bound hand and foot. It has got no control. The object of the Bill is to help the lame dog over the stile, and we want to restrict the Minister’s rights to give land away and protect the inherent rights of the people. Every member of the public has a right to know what is happening to the Crown lands, and if the Minister has the right to give that land without consulting the public, that whole principle goes by the board. I hope the Minister will accept this eminently reasonable proposal.

The Bill applies to closer settlement. A man who has been trained at one of these settlements would not receive a farm. If that is the object of the amendment, then I am prepared to accept it. Of course, a probationary tenant can be transferred from one plot or settlement to another, but if he wants a farm he has to apply in the usual way and will have no preference.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.10 p.m.

I move—

With leave of the committee, the amendment proposed by Col. D. Reitz was withdrawn.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Lands, in lines 18 and 22, were then put and agreed to.

Will the Minister accept my amendment?

No.

We are giving the Minister great powers under sub-section 3 of Clause 1 of the Bill. He may clear, level, plough and plant Crown land, make roads and carry out any other improvements he may deem necessary. He may purchase and maintain stock, implements, equipment, seeds and any other things whatsoever which he may deem necessary. He may pay maintenance allowances, etc., either by way of wages or as loans, and make advances to any for the purpose of paying labour. He may erect and equip any buildings he thinks fit for storage, handling, grading, manufacturing. He may incur any expenditure on buildings, equipment or otherwise which he may think expedient, and so on. These are great and extremely wide powers. All that I ask in my amendment is that the Minister should give Parliament full information regarding the expenditure of public money. This, however, will not stop him from proceeding as he thinks fit under the Bill. Surely, the public are entitled to know how their money is being spent on land settlement. I think it is only right that the Minister should be prepared to give the House every information. We should have the information laid before the House every year, and I beg to move this one amendment first.

I would like to appeal to the Minister on this point that the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has put before him and the committee. We must remember that the Minister has got the widest powers, the Bill invests him with absolute power so far as the settlement of these people on the land, the selection of the land itself, the probationers and the allottees. Surely it is not too much to ask the Minister that Parliament should have the right to have all information with regard to settlements and those who are actually allotted the land. I have seen the hon. member’s amendment and it is true that it calls for all the information that it is possible to put into one amendment, but I thoroughly agree with him that Parliament is entitled to that information. It does not prevent the Minister from doing any single thing, he has all the powers he wants, powers which I helped him to get, and the Minister, I think, will acquit me of any carping spirit. I am supporting wholeheartedly this Bill, but I do say this is a most reasonable request and ought to be granted. I hope he will not force us into the position of voting against him on this point.

This amendment was not tabled and would it be asking too much for you to read it to us again?

read the amendment as requested.

read his amendment to add a new sub-section (4) to Clause 1.

Might I add my appeal to that of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). The principle has already been fully embodied in section 23 of the principal Act and this is an early asking to have this principle embodied in this Bill. As we have had a lot of sweet reasonableness to-day, and as we have met the hon. Minister on every point. I think he should agree to the suggestion of the hon. member. As I have already said it is only conforming with the principle laid down in section 23 of the principal Act.

I, too, would appeal to the Minister. We have practically made him a free gift of the Crown lands of South Africa, we have given them away with less than a pound of tea. He can distribute them as he will, and it is not unreasonable that the people of South Africa should be supplied with the information asked for. If he grants this information as a right he will prevent the necessity of dividing this House and will also save us the task of going to the country and informing the people, whose trustees we are as the owners of the land, that when we asked how the land was distributed and how the money was expended the Minister refused to give the information.

There are now three amendments before the Committee. The Minister moved one to the effect that a list of names of successful candidates be laid on the Table. The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) urges that the Minister make a detailed list of all the expenditure on settlements. The Minister has in any case to show the costs of settlements on the Estimates. Then it can be discussed and members can get information by means of questions, unless, of course, they assume that the Minister does not want to give the information. I deprecate the tendency to add little bits to the amendment.

If the Minister does refuse I hope he will give some better reason than the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Van Hees), who said if the Minister came forward with the Estimates, we would be able to obtain full details. Just imagine the situation. It will be utterly impossible for him to give the details if he wanted to. The Minister comes here at the beginning of the year and says he wants £100,000 which will be required during the coming year for these people who come under subsection 3. He does not know to whom the money is going to be paid. He cannot tell how it is going to be expended.

You can wait for the next year.

You said he would be able to give full and exact details. Personally, I cannot see any reason why this amendment should not be put into the law. It is a law giving the Minister wider powers than I have ever seen.

What about the Act of 1903.

I am glad to see the hon. member accept that as a precedent. If it is open to the criticism that he has always been urging against it, why perpetuate it? The hon. member can have it either way; either he accepts the precedent of 1903 and wishes to perpetuate it, or he wishes to depart from it. We recognize that in the circumstances it is desirable to give these wide powers to the Minister, and he cannot reasonably object to lay before the House at the beginning of each session how he used this power, how the money has been expended, and so on.

I have listened in silence to the debate waged to-day in connection with this matter, but break silence now, because I recognize the importance of the principle at stake. I have the impression that the Minister of Lands is an eminently reasonable and strong man. It is the obstinate man who always refuses to budge. The strong man is open to impressions. I support the pleas wholeheartedly made, on account of the principles involved.

I am surprised at the obstruction by the Opposition, which is nothing but hair-splitting. The S.A.P. made a mess of the settlements, and now that measures are being taken to help the poor, they come up with this obstruction and hair-splitting. The S.A.P. gave land only to people who had money and in Zululand only to people with a capital of £20,000. The poor, however, were forgotten. We have heard of S.A.P. transactions, and if I were on the Opposition benches I would be too ashamed to say anything. Ten years ago this country was prosperous, and everybody made a living, but what is the position now? The people are poor and that is a result of the administration of the S.A.P. Government. Now that the present Government wants to help the people, the Opposition has all kinds of objections, and the whole day work has been obstructed by means of pettifogging objections. The country, however, will note that the Opposition is against the poor man.

It has been said that a Legislative Assembly likes to be informed, but not to be lectured. The hon. member who last spoke might with advantage remember this. There is an amendment before the committee which has not been touched upon. The Minister’s amendment is under sub-section (2); may I point out to the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Van Hees)—that is in regard to holdings given after the probationary period. There is no allotment during the probationary period; the allotment comes afterwards. There is in the Bill, nothing of the required information to be given with regard to the probationary lessees. The section the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Van Hees) referred to refers to lessees after the probationary period.

Read sub-section (1).

Sub-section (2) is what you have to read, because the amendment of the Minister is in regard to sub-section (2).

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) says that in the Budget you cannot get information, but even the amendment of my hon. friend there won’t give you the information, and you will have to wait a year before you know how you have spent it.

I have not spoken on this Bill so far, and so far in the divisions I have supported the Minister. I feel, however, that any desire for any information showing how the Act is carried out, ought to be reasonably granted. The Minister’s amendment is certainly an improvement, but nothing is provided for as to the information asked for regarding expense. The Minister will have to give this information in any case to the Auditor-General, and he can get an extra copy of the statement and lay it on the table of the House and we will have the information that is asked for. It is very much better that Parliament should have the information. I think it is entitled to it, and I shall support the amendment.

May I point out that this amendment in no way curtails the rights of the Minister?—and simply asks for information after the deed has been done. I join in the appeal which has been made. We do not restrict the Minister’s power in any way. We are affirming a principle laid down in section 23 of the principal Act.

One is really astounded at the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. E. Pretorius), and one cannot but come to the conclusion that the obstruction is from the other side of the House, and not this side. Surely it is a reasonable request to make, that these particulars should be laid before Parliament. What objection can the hon. member have, unless he wants something kept back? I think it is right and proper that the House should be informed who the unsuccessful, and who the successful, applicants are, and how the money which Parliament has voted has been spent.

I have to take this opportunity, before it is too late, of moving an amendment. I find that the rules insist upon my doing so. I move

I do that for what appeals to me for two very sound reasons; firstly for the reason for the State on one hand and secondly, for the allottee on the other hand. Our Crown lands have become more and more restricted, and now we find we have still less. I take it the allotments will be made under the Land Settlement Act which will make them freehold. We are therefore losing our grip on this land which belongs to the State. Under what circumstances? We are now endeavouring to institute a system which shall in the first place raise the poor whites and in the second place put back a large number of men who have been driven off the land and place others on the land who are suitable for it and will, we hope, make a success of it. But what will be the position if we turn them off again and find ourselves faced with exactly the same problem and yet with our land lost for ever. These men will have to depend year by year on successful seasons. If they get three unsuccessful seasons where will the settlers be? They will get into the hands of storekeepers and others and ultimately the land may pass from the settlers once again. We find ourselves in the position of having once again to start our building-up scheme with still less land. In the interests of the State I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. It may be argued that a man who has land under lease will feel unsafe but he will not if the Government is the landlord. He could be made to feel quite secure if you gave him a perpetual lease conditional upon beneficial holding. We have a right to say that the land shall still belong to us and if you do not work it beneficially and are not playing the game by us there are others who are prepared to do so and we shall take the land from you and transfer it.

The hon. member who spoke last has raised quite a new point. How can he move such a thing? The Bill aims at helping the poor man to get a property which he can call his own. And now the hon. member wants to take away that chance from him and wants the Government only to hire the land to him so that it will never become his property. That is not the way to help the poor man, and I hope this committee will not accept the amendment. I am glad the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. J. S. F. Pretorius) has spoken, because he was excited and he attacked the Opposition because it moved a reasonable amendment. The Bill gives the Minister the power to spend large sums of money—the taxpayers’ money—and this House ought to know how it was spent. I have confidence in the Minister. I have known him for years, and know that his intentions are good, but that does not take away anything from the reasonableness of the amendment.

I move that progress be reported with leave to sit again. The amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. Van Zyl) is not unreasonable, but it may entail extra expenditure and it is very long, and therefore I would like to have an opportunity of submitting it to the legal advisers. It will, however, not improve the Bill, because the auditor-general investigates all the details.

Agreed to.

House Resumed.

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

as Chairman, with leave, brought up the Third Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, as follows:

1. (1) The substitution of the word “Maart” for “April” in item 32 of the Dutch version of Act No. 39 of 1922.
2. (2) The award to Philip F. Blaauw, Christian P. Carstens, Sarel J. J. du Plessis, John H. Flanagan, Carl Gielnik, Johannes Louw, Gert C. Olivier, Adriana C. Steyn and Dirk J. van den Berg of such compensation as would have been awarded to them had the provisions of Chapter VI of Act No. 42 of 1919 been applicable to their cases.
3. (3) The pensions on retirement of John W. Dibben, Harry B. Harris, Evan Mac-Andrew and John J. Dibben, formerly members of the Natal Police Force, to be computed as if the whole of their service had fallen under the provisions governing members of the Natal Police Superannuation Fund.
4. (4) The refund, on resignation, to the following members of the Union Services Pension Fund of the contributions paid by them to the fund, as specified against their names:

1. (5) The case of Probationary Nurse H. K. Lambart to be regarded as complying with the provisions of the War Special Pensions Act.
2. (6) The cancellation of item No. 55 of the Schedule to Act No. 33 of 1923 and the substitution therefor of the following item.
   The award to Thomas Hay of a gratuity of £177 3s. 10d. representing the cash value of six months’ vacation leave standing to his credit at the time of his retirement, payment to be made to his wife in view of his mental condition.
3. (7) The addition of five years to the actual pensionable service of S. J. H. Brink, formerly chief detective inspector.
4. (8) The substitution of the words “Cape Mounted Riflemen” for “Natal Police” in item No. 50 of the Schedule to Act No. 39 of 1922.

II. That it recommends

1. (1) The award to J. H. White, formerly a detective head constable, South African Police, of a pension of £200 per annum, with effect from 1st September, 1924.
2. (2) The award to Margaret Nesbitt, widow of Captain N. Nesbitt, of a pension of £56 5s. per annum, with effect from 28th August. 1923; such pension to cease on re-marriage.
3. (3) The award to M. Mabaso, formerly a native messenger. Department of Justice, of a pension of 20s. per annum for each year of continuous service, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
4. (4) The award to J. McLaren, formerly a teacher, of a pension of £49 per annum, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
5. (5) The award to H. B. Otzen, formerly a teacher, of a pension of £24 per annum, with effect from. 1st April, 1924.
6. (6) The award to Sophia D. le Roux, formerly a teacher, Cape Education Department, of a pension of £80 10s. 11d. per annum, with effect from date of retirement and chargeable against the Cape Teachers’ Pension Fund.
7. (7) Subject to the payment of all contributions required under Ordinance No. 23 of 1917 (Cape), or any amendment thereof, Florence M. Every, a teacher, Cape Education Department, to be paid the pension to which she would have been entitled had she elected to contribute as required by law, with effect from date of retirement.
8. (8) The award to J. E. Douwes, formerly a constable, South African Police, of an additional pension of £60 per annum, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
9. (9) The award to Anna S. Hanekom, widow of P. A. Hanekom, of a pension of £90 per annum, with effect from 1st April, 1924; such pension to cease on remarriage, whereupon an award of £30 per annum shall be paid for and on behalf of each of her two children and her adopted child who are then under the age of 16 years until they respectively attain the age of 16 years.
10. (10) The pension of J. Connolly, formerly a member of the South African Mounted Rifles, on final retirement, to be computed as if the whole of his service had fallen under the provisions governing members of the Natal Police Superannuation Fund.
11. (11) The award to M. L. J. van Rensburg, who was wounded during the Anglo-Boer war, of such compensation as would have been awarded to him had the provisions of Chapter VI of Act No. 42 of 1919 been applicable to his case.
12. (12) The award to Annie Corrigan, whose brother was killed during the industrial disturbances on the Witwatersrand in 1922, of a gratuity of £136 15s. 0d.
13. (13) The award to Mary L. Norris, widow of A. J. Norris, formerly of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs of a gratuity of £583 3s. 4d.
14. (14) The award to T. W. Ross, formerly a draughtsman, Department of Irrigation, of a gratuity of £78 5s. 7d.
15. (15) The award to T. W. Stainthorpe, formerly of the Department of Irrigation, of a gratuity of £172 7s. 11d.
16. (16) The award to W. Pennel, formerly in the service of the South African Railways, of a gratuity of £147 5s. 2d.
17. (17) The award to A. A. Davis, formerly in the service of the South African Railways, of a gratuity of £50.
18. (18) The award to R. F. Rattray, formerly a teacher, of a gratuity of £25; such gratuity to be paid to the magistrate of Potchef stroom and to be expended by him on behalf of Mr. Rattray in such manner as he deems fit.
19. (19) The award to R. E. Hardwich, formerly a sheep inspector, Department of Agriculture, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the Pension Fund.
20. (20) The award to A. Patience, formerly a postman, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the Pension Fund.
21. (21) The award to J. Acton, formerly a gaoler, Department of Prisons, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the Cape Civil Service Pension Fund.
22. (22) The award to Susannah Brown of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by her former husband, H. G. Atkinson, to the Public Service Pension Fund; such gratuity to be paid to the Master of the Supreme Court, Pretoria, and to be expended by him for the education and support of her daughter by the first marriage in such manner as he may deem fit.
23. (23) The award to J. Price, formerly a warder Department of Prisons, of a gratuity equivalent to the amount contributed by him to the Union Defence, Police and Prisons Pension Fund; such gratuity to be paid to the Magistrate of Johannesburg and to be expended by him on behalf of Mrs. Price and her children in such manner as he may deem fit and at the rate of £5 per month, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
24. (24) The award to T. G. Macfie, formerly Chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, of a gratuity of £500, and that he be permitted to commute one-third of his pension.
25. (25) The award to M. Adelaar, formerly a constable, South African Police, of a gratuity equal to the cash value of the 96 days’ leave standing to his credit at the time of retirement.
26. (26) The grant to Helen Seton-Tait, formerly a typiste, Department of Mines and Industries, of an award under Act No. 29 of 1912 as if her membership of the Fund established thereunder conformed to the requirements of section 21 of the said Act.
27. (27) Subject to the payment of all contributions due to the proper pension fund, Katharine F. M. Kisch, Jessie F. Field and Zenobia Buchanan to be granted, on retirement, such retirement benefits as would have been payable had they been eligible to contribute under section 21 of Act No. 29 of 1912.
28. (28) The award to May E. E. Evans, widow of L. Evans, formerly a military pensioner for and on behalf of her two minor children, of £24 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1923.
29. (29) The award to Jessie S. Goddard, widow of J. Goddard, formerly a machinist, South African Railways, for arid on behalf of her three children, of £24 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
30. (30) The award to Wilhelmina F. Nicholas, widow of F. Nicholas, formerly a constable, South African Police, for and on behalf of her five minor children, of £12 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April 1924.
31. (31) The award to A. M. de Kock, formerly a constable, South African Police, now a leper on Robben Island, for and on behalf of his two children, of £12 per annum in respect of each child until they respectively attain the age of 16 years, with effect from 1st April, 1924.
32. (32) I. Ayres, clerk, Department of Finance, to be permitted to contribute to the Transvaal Administrative and Clerical Division Pension Fund in respect of his service prior to 1st January, 1909.
33. (33) Hilda Turner, a teacher, Cape Education Department, to be permitted to contribute to the Cape Teachers’ Pension Fund as if election had been made within the time stipulated an section 228 (iv) of Ordinance No. 5 of 1921 (Cape).
34. (34) The break in the service of C. F. A. Oberlander, medical inspector of schools, Orange Free State Education Department, from 1st April, 1919, to 28th July, 1920, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes: Provided all contributions are duly paid and the gratuity already paid is refunded by him.
35. (35) The break in the service of E. G. Polden, constable, South African Police, from 1st April, 1912, to 2nd April, 1912, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes: Provided the gratuity of £100 paid to him on retrenchment is refunded.
36. (36) The break in the service of F. G. W. Taylor, clerk, Department of Posts and Telegraphs, from 1st October, 1899, to 19th December, 1899, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes.
37. (37) The break in the service of J. Leneapa a native constable, South African Police, from 31st August, 1908, to 12th December, 1910, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes.
38. (38) The break in the service of Maggie J Heath, a matron. Department of Prisons, from 11th March, 1916, to 31st August, 1917, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to her the benefit of her previous service for pension purposes.
39. (39) The break in the service of J. C. Barnard, a detective, Criminal Investigation Department, from 15th August, 1922, to 31st October, 1923, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to him the benefit of his previous service for pension purposes: The pension on final retirement to be computed under the provisions of Act No. 27 of 1923.
40. (40) The Break in the service of Jessie J. G. McLaggan, a teacher, Cape Education Department, from 1st December, 1900. to 31st March, 1916, to be condoned, being regarded as leave without pay, not counting as service, but preserving to her the benefit of five years of her previous service for pension purposes.
41. (41) That the petition of N. Mills be referred to the Government for consideration.
42. (42) That the petition of W. Dufton be referred to the Cape Provincial Administration with a view to his being assisted with board and lodging.

II. That:

1. (1) With reference to the petition of H. H. Birch your committee is unable to make any recommendation as it understands that his case is still under consideration by the Military Pensions Appeal Board.
2. (2) With reference to the petitions of W. Price and H. Hamel, your committee is unable to make any recommendation as, since presenting their petitions petitioners have died.

IV. That it is unable to recommend that the prayers of the following petitions be entertained:

1. (1) Atherstone, W. H.; (2) Bain, J. R.; (3) Barlow, M. H.; (4) Batty, R.; (5) Botha, W. J.; (6) Boyes, Avice B.; (7) Brent, C. H.; (8) Buchanan, W. H.; (9) Buckerfield, W. H.; (10) Burnell, L. A.; (11) Combrink, Gertruida S. K.; (12) Danielson, C. K.; (13) Davisworth, D. H.; (14) Delport, M.: (15) Dobson, E. H.; (16) Dorfling, N. J.; (17) Erdis, F. S.; (18) Griesbach, F. T. R.; (19) Haar, G.; (20) Hatton, F. A.; (21) Heyneke, J. J.; (22) Hignett, W.; (23) Hirschman, H.; (24) Holliday, Florence I.; (25) Housiaux, E. A. J.; (26) Hunt, G.; (27) Hutton, C.; (28) Jansen, H.; (291 Kass, R.; (30) Keast, J.; (31) King, C.; (32) Kroon, T.; (33) Linder, T. J. B.; (34) Luxton, W. J. H.; (35) Malan, Catherina E.; (36) McIntyre, D.; (37) Morris, R. G.; (38) Muscott, W.; (39) Neale, H. L.; (40) Parker, W. J. T.; (41) Peringuey, Bertha; (42) Pietersen, F. W.; (43) Rauch, C. D. J.; (44) Roodman, F. G. F.; (45) Sanders, J.; (46) Sephton, T. E.; (47) Stapelberg, B. R.; (48) Swart, Catharina F.; (49) Timme, J. H.; (50) Tomory, D. M.; (51) Truter, A. B. du T.; (52) van der Spuy, R. A.; (53) van Niekerk, P. J.; (54) Venter, P. J.; (55) Viljoen, Susanna E.; (56) von Below, C. L. G.; (57) Wells, J.

V. With reference to the petitions of Maria Abbott, A. C. Ackerman, J. B. Adams, A. S. Airth, L. H. G. Albertyn, H. A. Allen, J. W. Allen, R. J. Anderson, K. J. Anstensen, Beatrice W. Antoncich, A. Arnesen, R. H. Arnold, A. C. Ashford, J. E. Bailey, Mrs. E. Bailey. L. J. Baker, A. Ballantyne, C. A. Bangley, T. H. Barbour, Roslin C. Barry, S. R. Barter, A. E. Basden, G. F. A. Baynes, J. H. Beard, V. H. Begley, Anna G. Bekker, W. R. Belcher, Alexandrina Bell, J. H. Bellis (2 petitions), H. F. Belter, W. Berry, A. J. Bester, F. R. Bezuidenhout, B. J. S. Bishop, C. J. Boezaart, F. C. Booth, D. Borsch, J. W. Bosman, R. C. Botcher, H. P. Botha, J. J. Botha, C. E. Bouwer, P. F. Bouwer, A. O. E. Bradshaw, E. J. Brown, J. Brown, W. Brown, Lady Browne, J. H. O. Bruwer, A. M. Bucha nan, G. D. C. Buckley, W. J. Budd, A. H. Budden, J. H. Burton, Kathleen A. M. Butler, T. J. Byren, T. J. Byrne, J. V. Cantlay, P. F. Carolan, F. J. Carter, G. M. Celliers, S. J. Chandler, P. Claude, P. E. Clay, W. G. Cocks, Mathilde M. Collard, S. J. Combrinck, K. Coomer, C. H. Cooper, Johanna D, J. Corbett, C. H. G. Cornelius. J. Corry, Cornelia D. F. Craig, Alice E. Crosby, F. H. Damant, A. J. Daniels, S. T. Davie, T. S. Davies, W E. Dawes, Marijna A. M. de Bruin, B. J. de Klerk, A. M. de la Rey, H. J. de la Rey (2 petitions), B. Delport and 9 others, Elizabeth L. Dempers. A. J. H. de Swardt, A. F. de Villiers, R. Dick, J. Doyle, D. Drummond, J. W. Duminy, G. A. Dunkley, G. E. Dunn, H. J. Dunn. Geraldine du Plessis, S. C. du Plessis, P. J. Durieux, J. Duvenage, Rosa Dyer, G. W. Dyzon, Margaret Eldridge, A. Elsworth, G. J. Engelbrecht, Maria M. Enslin, Emily E. Farrant. A. Ferguson, J. A. Ferguson, W. D. G. Ferguson, I. Ferreira (with supporting petition of J. Kruger and 24 others). J. A. Feucht, E. Fitzgerald. J. Fleming, R. W. Foley, J. Forsyth, S. Frazer H B. French. F. M. Fulton, J. J. Furlong, C. W. Gay. J. W. Gibbons, V. E. Goodman. A. A. Gould. S. C. Gouws, A. E. Gower. R. J. Green E. W. Greenslade, A. M. B. Gregg, M. G. Grogan. R. E. Hager, G. W. Hall. H. A. E. Hall, R. E. Hall, A. Hanslo. T. B. Hanslo. R. F. Hare-Bowers, T. H. Hartley, G. Hatch, C. P. Hattingh, D. W. Hattingh, J. Haughton, H. F. Hawthorne, G. Haythornthwaite, P. G. Helfrich. F. W. Henley, J. E. Hennessy, D. Henry, W. M. Herd, H. Hindle, E. J. Hittersay, E. W. Hudson, A. J. Humphreys, J. W. Ingle, W. Irving, C. G. C. Jensen, J. Johnson, Caroline F. Jones, S. Jones, A. Karlson, M. Kavanagh, T. F. J. Keane, Marie M. Kingston, R. Kirkel, J. J Kitchener, M. A. Koch, J. H. Kock, F. H. Kruger, G. H. J. Kruger, J. P. Kruger, C. Kuyper, Ellen M. Lambe, M. K. Lamprecht, A. J. Larpent, R. J. Latham, A. G. Lawrence, Frances C. Leary, A. B. Lees-Smith, J. S. F. Lemmer, F. B. C. Le Roux, E. T. Lewin, F. E. Lewis, A. J. Liebenberg, F. G. Ling, C. O. Linscott (2 petitions), T. W. Lister, G. D. Lockwood, M. L. Lotter, J. A. Louw, G. F. R. Luckhoff, Christina J. W. Luden, T. J. Lureman, H. MacPherson, H. F. Maguire, H. F. C. Makkink, E. E. Mankazana (with supporting petition of J. S. Thaele and 5 others), S. J. Marais, H. C. Marcus, A. J. Mason, S. P. Mathlala, C. Mayer, A. McArthur, C. McCarthy, J. McConnachie, H. J. McDonald, Emily A. McLean, W. B. McLean, G. F. McLewee, J. J. McMenamin, Susanna S. Meerholz, C. A. Meyer, E. L. de R. Meyer, J. Milne and 9 others, G. Mitrovitch (with supporting petition of A. Wilson and 31 others), B. M. Mlamleli, Dora E. Moore, Johanna C. Moore, A. R. Murray, T. W. Neath, D. R. Nel, S. J. D. Nell, H. Nelson, Mary A. Newton, F. J. Nicholson, J. J. Noone, W. A. North, Cornelia S. Nortje, J. J. Nortje, Mrs. A. J. Nuttall, Mary O’Brien, J. O’Connell, M. O’Mally, A. D. Oosthuizen, P. Oranje, Jenny O’Reilly, A. Ormond, A. A. Orsmond, G. Palma, G. P. Pardy, E. B. H. Parkes, T. R. Parsons, F. T. Patterson, O. Paulsen, L. J. Peacock, J. E. Perks, J. S. Petersen, J. J. Pettit, P. J. Pienaar, W. G. Pearce, C. F. Pieterson, T. A. J. Place, H. P. J. Pretorius, Mrs. P. L. Pritchard, D. A. Purcell. Lilian G. Puttick, C. J. Rabie, H. J. Rattray, C. H. S. Reid, W. L. Reid, C. H. Ricketts, D. A. Roberts, R J. G. Rodgers, H. Rogers, J. T. Roscoe, P. Rosenstein, M. E. Ross, W. A. Royffe, D. A. Salmond, L. Samson, W. Samwell, W. C. Savage, J. W. Sayles, A. W. Schegger, A. L. E. Scholtz, W. J. C. Schultze, Anna S. Seaward. J. Senello, J. D. Shannon. J. Sharp. G. M. Sheridan, N. Sinuka, F. Smale, E. G. Smart, J. H. Smit, J. J. Smit, C. Smith, Elsie J. M. Smith, H. Sobey. J. Sommerville, C. J. Spies. J. Stanley, C. F. Stegman, L. M. Stella. P. P. Stephenson. F. S. Steyn, J. J. H. Steyn, S. J. Steyn. H. E. Stuart, J. N. Susan, W. Syrett, J. H. R. Taylor. W. B. Taylor, W. A. Terry, L. Thomas, B. R. Tomkins, L. A. Townes, R. Tracey, A. D. Tudhope, F. G. Tytherleigh and five others, C. J. van Blerk, R. J. van den Berg, J. P. van der Berg, H. F. P. van der Merwe (2 petitions), J. C. van der Merwe, P. J. van der Merwe, M. B. P. van Dijk. S. J. van Dijk, T. W. van Gend, T. van Noort, W. L. D. M. J. van Rensburg, A. M. van Rooyen, D. J. B. van Schalkwijk, P. M. S. van Schalkwijk, A. P. van Straten, J. H. van Wijk, J. T. Venables, A. Venter, J. J. Venter, H. P. Viljoen, Johanna C. Visser, F. Viveiros, E. C. P. von Brandis, W. von Hirschberg, H. G. Vosloo, J. J. Walker, R. E. N. Walker, H. Watkins, J. H. Weaver, H. D. Wedlake, W. I. Weitz, W. J. Wessels, T. C. Wilhelm, H. T. Wilkinson, E. G. H. F. Winkler, J. C. Wood, Lady Woolls-Sampson, H. C. Yeates and H. J. Zeelie, your committee regrets that as it has been unable to complete its investigations into the respective cases, it is unable to report thereon.

J. J. McMenamin, Chairman.

Report to be considered in Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

I move—

This is a short Bill to amend Clause 6 of the Electricity Act. The present position is that Clause 6 (1) provides that the Electricity Commission has to call for tenders for generating power. Practice has shown this to be a roundabout and expensive way of doing things. It is also provided that tenders be called for every five years. Now it is proposed that tenders shall be called for only when two-thirds of the consumers apply for it. That is what is aimed at in this Bill, the second reading of which I now move. Clause 6 is more or less an isolated clause not really relative to the rest of the Act and was probably originally inserted as a protection to consumers. The Government now finds that the Durban Council refuses to enter into an agreement with the Electricity Commission because there is a possibility that after five years another contractor may take the place of that commission. That causes trouble and uncertainty.

I have not been able to gather from what the Minister said the exact reasons for the introduction of the Bill at this moment. As far as I can see the effect of the Bill will be that it will be impossible for any private undertaking to start any new electrical works of any magnitude. The Electricity Commission will have the entire control and will be responsible for starting any new undertaking, and the public which will have to supply the money will be deprived of a certain amount of the safeguard which they have at present inasmuch as if before a new undertaking is established by the commission, the commission has to invite tenders for the erection of such an undertaking it is obvious that we have a check on the expenditure of the commission. As far as I can gather from what the Minister has said and from the wording of the Bill, there is no question of providing that check, or of private enterprise coming in at all and the whole of the authority will be in the hands of the commission. There is a further point, that under sub-section 2 as the law stands at present at the expiration of five years after the commission has commenced the supply of electricity, or if the Minister at the expiration of such period decides that in his opinion the undertaking might be more advantageously worked, the commission may call for tenders for the acquisition of the undertaking. In the Bill that power is reduced, because it is said that the only ground on which the commission can call for tenders to take over an undertaking already in existence is on the petition of two-thirds of the consumers of the power of any such undertaking. That renders it more difficult for any one other than the commission to take over any such undertaking. Therefore, as I read it, the result will be to make it more difficult for private enterprise either to commence an undertaking, or if an undertaking has been commenced by the Electricity Commission, for private enterprise to take over such an undertaking. It may be, or it may not be, that private enterprise could do the work better than the Electricity Commission, but it does appear to me that the fact that under the law as it stands the commission is bound to call for tenders does set a check on the expenditure of the commission of public money. It would be a help if the Minister could give us some more explicit reason why it is proposed to shut out opportunities to private enterprise, and to put the whole power into the hands of the commission.

The Bill will practically confine the whole of the carrying out of large electrical undertakings to the Electricity Commission. Certainly there will be no check on whatever they may choose to charge. Take the case of the big station at Witbank. Under the law it was necessary to call for tenders, and the Victoria Falls Power Company were prepared to tender, but I think terms have been come to with the commission. As a result of that the consumers have gained something, but now that will be done away with altogether, and no reason has been given for the change. Take Durban. Why should not the Durban Corporation tender for the erection of a power station there?

It is exactly the Durban Corporation that raises the difficulty.

Under the existing law it is compulsory that tenders should be called for and the commission had to tender like any other body.

It is said that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repented than over 99 just men. I would like to welcome the repentance of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I was Chairman last year of the Electrical Committee of the Durban Corporation, and when we met the Electricity Commission the one stumbling block to the Durban Corporation taking over the station was the attitude of the railway administration. We were told by Sir William Hoy that under no consideration would the railway administration allow the Corporation to take over the station.

That does not do away with the principle.

Under the circumstances the Durban town council agreed to the present arrangement. It agreed that it would be in the interest of the community to have one big station instead of two smaller ones. Both municipality and railway administration were of opinion that it was impossible to allow the supply of electricity to fall into the hands of private enterprise. Under no circumstances would they agree to that, and the whole of the negotiations were carried out on that basis. It is laid down in black and white by the railways administration under the leadership of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that they could not hand over this to private enterprise. The Bill is brought in to enable the electricity commission to have one power station in that area instead of two, so as to get cheaper electricity and cater for the needs of the community. I have a telegram from the Durban corporation which is interesting in that it shows how a body of men who have to deal with these utility schemes view this matter. They passed a resolution last week saying they were prepared to agree to this particular Act, and they are a body opposed to private enterprise, so far as the ownership and operation of public utilities are concerned. The people have a right to say that they will not, under any circumstances, allow their public enterprises to be handed over to public enterprise. The present Act is a reasonable one, and one which should be passed. We have been held up for over a year in Durban, and we want power for extension and for the electrification of the new railway line in a short time.

The real points at issue are in sub-sections 1 and 2 of section 6 of the present Act. As I said in Dutch, section 6 of the Act is an isolated section, and there is no connection with that section and the rest of the Bill. I presume it was introduced to protect the consumer. It was a novel departure after contracting with one party—and I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. dagger) would object—to be turned over to-morrow to another party. I think it is a novel section, because it imposes an obligation to accept another party in place of the party with whom you have originally chosen to contract. The attitude of the Durban corporation, an attitude which others are likely to follow, is this: “to-day we contract with the electricity commission, to-morrow tenders are called and we are turned over to private enterprise. We contract with ‘A’ and in a few years time ‘B’ is forced upon us.” That is why I say it is novel. It departs from all principles of contract. I can only conceive that it is so to protect the consumer. This practice of calling for tenders is a roundabout procedure, and it works out infinitely more expensively and causes considerable delay. As a matter of fact, none of the lenders called for under sub-section 1 have resulted in any competition, no tenders having been received. I think that deals sufficiently with sub-section 1. We now come to sub-section 2, and in the Bill I have drafted you will find it is provided that if at any time after the expiration of five years after the commission has commenced to supply electricity, the consumers of that undertaking to the extent of two-thirds, make representations to the Minister that that undertaking might be worked more efficiently and better by someone else, the Minister shall cause such representation to be transmitted to the commission, and shall publish in the Gazette a notice calling for tenders. That is a fair way of meeting the public demand, any demand for cheaper prices, and the whole difficulty is met in that provision. The electricity commission is a public body, and the public are entitled to criticise its actions and comment on its doings. So there you have a sufficient safeguard for all parties in the new sub-section 1. These are the reasons which have actuated the Government in bringing in this Bill. Up to now the old Act has been practically unworkable, and has caused a good deal of expense, there has been no response to applications for tenders, and considerable delay has been occasioned to an important corporation who declined to enter into a contract when in a few years time they might be handed over to somebody else. I ask my hon. friend (Mr. Jagger) if he, as Minister of Railways, would have consented to enter into a contract if, within a few years, another party could have been forced on the railway administration. I think there are sound reasons for this emendation of section 6 of the Act, and I hope there will be no further opposition to it.

Motion agreed to; Bill read a second time.

As the Bill consists of only one section, I hope there will be no objection, and I move—

I object.

House to go into committee on the Bill 2nd September.

I move—

This Bill looks more formidable than it really is. In appearance it is lengthy, but in substance it is very simple for this reason, that the various clauses in the Bill have been repeatedly discussed in the past. Perhaps if I gave a brief outline of miners’ phthisis legislation the hon. members will follow me more readily on what I have to say further on. The various Acts dealing with miners’ phthisis run from 1911 to 1918. In 1911 there was what was called the Van Hulsteyn Commission, and the result of that commission was a divided report. No less than two Bills were drawn up by members of the commission and three reports resulted. In 1920 there was another commission known as the Judge de Villiers Commission; nothing was done pursuant to that. In 1921, after this commission had reported, nothing was done. In 1922 a short Bill was drawn up, but again nothing further was done. In 1923 a Bill was drawn up and introduced to the House, but nothing further was done. In 1924 a new Bill was framed, and a Parliamentary Select Committee appointed by the House, but again nothing further was done. The majority of the clauses in the present Bill were in the previous Bills of 1923 and 1924. I want to say at the outset if this Bill is passed into law I intend, during the recess, to go into the whole matter of miners phthisis legislation, review all the existing Acts and bring in a consolidating measure. The reason why I introduced this particular Bill is because I see no prospect, if I come before this House next session with a consolidating measure, of its being carried before August of next year—a delay of about twelve months. The amount that has been expended in respect of compensation from the 1st August, 1912, to 31st March, 1924, is £2,700,000, and the total amount paid to the 31st March, 1924, under various Acts is £6,600,000. If we estimate the present value of the outstanding liability in connection with the Phthisis Act it amounts to about £5,000,000, and the gross liability is something like £9,000,000. The fund that the Phthisis Board disposes over to-day is about £1,460,000, thus falling very far short of the present value of the outstanding liability of £9,000,000. The amount levied by the Board on the mines per quarter is £200,000. There are at present 40 mines on the scheduled list, but, of course, this may be reduced considerably at any time. Now the feature of this Bill is that there are practically no contentious clauses in it. I understand that Mr. Barry who represents the Chamber of Mines—a gentleman from the Rand—has come down in connection with the Bill, and I am given to understand that with the exception of section 11, sub-section 2, the Chamber of Mines offers no objection to the present Bill. I hope that that will prove to be the case. The Bill, in other words, is made up of non-contentious provisions which have been incorporated in past Bills, with the consent, so to say, of both sides—the Chamber of Mines representing the mining industry on the one side, and the workers or miners or their representatives on the other side. Now the first clause deals with the establishment, creation and maintenance of the outstanding liability fund which is a matter which cannot be precisely, accurately or mathematically calculated in the nature of things. An attempt will be made in calculating this, by adding to the already existing sections of the Act. Then we come to section 10 of the existing Act which is section 3 of the present Bill. That deals with actuarial calculations, and the object of this clause is to alter the percentage established. The altered percentage is what is known as the silicosis rate which was formerly 35 per cent. and which is now being raised to 50 per cent. The percentage in connection with earnings was 45 per cent. and that is now being reduced to 30 per cent., and you have 20 per cent. normal income tax, making 100 per cent. In connection with the 50 per cent. silicosis rate, the De Villiers Commission recommended that there should be only one rate raised on the silicosis rate.

After 1924.

Now I do not want hon. members to labour under a misapprehension. By introducing the 50 per cent. at this stage, the Government does not wish to intimate that that will be final, and the Government will have to consider whether it will raise the figure higher, or up to 100 per cent. on the silicosis rate. Clause 4 provides for the manner in which the outstanding liabilities fund shall be treated and to what it shall be applied. The whole Bill, of course, is of a technical nature, and I can understand that reading it in the ordinary way, hon. members will not be au courant with its whole import. Clause 5 sets up the machinery if employers should become insolvent. At present the power of the Phthisis Board to make investments is restricted. Clause 6 expands this, and enables the Board to get from the bank a temporary overdraft for the purpose of taking advantage of opportunities favourable for investment. Clause 7 deals with the additional benefit to a small group of 40 beneficiary miners who were debarred by an obvious technicality from receiving further benefits. They could apply within a certain time, but there was a general misapprehension as to that time. Clause 8 deals with a group of 20 miners who were apparently wrongly diagnosed by the panel doctors, and after receiving their reward, were, by the subsequent medical bureau certified as having no silicosis at all. The result was that when they ultimately resumed work, and really contracted silicosis, they were debarred from any further compensation. Clause 8 is intended to remedy this state of things. Many of the clauses are due to the fact that the existing Act was passed at the fag end of the session in 1919, and was much hurried through. It was a very lengthy, voluminous measure, and quite a considerable number of mistakes were made, as experience has proved.

What about this Bill?

These clauses nave been carefully gone into, and there is no serious dispute. Clause 9 will enable the Board to go into the case of 60 beneficiary miners who were detained overseas by circumstances arising out of the Great War. Clause 10 deals with disabled miners who went on active service, and have not received benefits from the Phthisis Board or the Military Pensions Board. It is proposed to set up a joint medical board which has to determine whether these miners are to be compensated under the Pensions Act, or should be compensated under the fund of the Miners’ Phthisis Board. Clause 11 deals with this sort of case—a miner has contracted silicosis and he walks in the streets of Johannesburg and is run over and killed by a motor-car. His dependents get no compensation at all, and this clause is intended to remedy that sort of thing. Under Clause 12 there was an obvious flaw under the present Act. Clause 29 of the present Act has a proviso “provided the applicant made application within one year of the commencement of the present Act and satisfied the board. …” There was a palpable clerical error in the drafting of the Bill and it passed through the House. It has been common cause between the Chamber of Mines and the Phthisis Board that this should be rectified, and the treasury has paid out £80,000 or £90,000 which must be refunded out of the board’s fund to the public treasury. Clause 13 deals with the actual reimbursement of the sum of £85, to the treasury. Clause 14 deals with the remarriage of widows of miners—widows who are pensioners under the provisions of the Act. Many of these widows wish to remarry, and they are not allowed to do so, because they lose the benefits, and this results in a very undesirable state of affairs. Now it is proposed to pay them a lump sum of £120—which means a saving ultimately of £1,500. Clause 15 will enable the board to consider applications from South African born widows who have returned to South Africa after their husbands—beneficiary miners—died. Clause 16 is a provision to enable the board to credit the compensations fund with £2,000. The parties entitled to this sum cannot be traced, and the Auditor-General has suggested this legislation. In the meantime the board will be entitled to write it off. The same with Clause 17. Then we come to Clause 18. This is a provision to repeal section 37 of the present Act. That section is to this effect, that an amount is deducted off the pension of a widow. That pension may be only £4 a month, the average, I understand, is about £4 3s. 4d. a month, and the amount to be deducted may be £50. It is common cause that these deductions should not take place in the future, and that any deductions made in the past shall be refunded. Clause 19 deals with step-children. There seems to be some conflict in the Act as to the provisions for step-children, and it is intended to rectify that. These clauses are all non-contentious, and with the exception of sub-Clause 2 of Clause 11 there is no objection. I understand some objection will be raised in regard to that sub-section, and I will deal with that afterwards.

I should like to second the motion. I do not intend to-night to deal with the whole question of miners’ phthisis because the time is not opportune. We have here a small relief measure of provisions practically all provided for in the 1923 Bill. There were a certain number of other matters mixed up with them when that Bill was before the House, but these were of a highly controversial nature and the Bill did not pass, and consequently miners and their dependents, who for years have been looking forward to relief from this House, were not granted it because controversial matters were mixed up with the others. I am glad the Minister has brought forward this relief measure, because it will bring a little sunshine into houses where darkness has prevailed for a number of years, due to various anomalies and onerous conditions imposed under the old Act. I submit to the Minister, however, that the proviso to Clause 8 should come out. He is going to allow men who returned to work with a clean bill of health and who have now contracted the disease to receive the benefits under the 1919 Act subject to deductions of the amounts they received under the prior law. Most of these men received £96 originally, this in place of their former wages of £30 or £40 a month. These men, because they received the sum of £96, were prevented from going back to work until the 1917 Act was passed, in some cases for five or six years. When the 1917 Act was passed it permitted men, where the previous medical diagnosis had been proved to be wrong, to return to underground work again, but they were not permitted to receive further benefits if they afterwards contracted the disease. This clause provides that they may now receive the benefit, but it is proposed to deduct the amount they have previously received. I put it to you that they have not received any benefit under previous Acts. The payment of £96 at the rate of £8 per month under previous Acts has proved to be rather an injury than a benefit to the man. There are only 25 of these men, and no great sum is involved. But it means an unwarranted loss to the men concerned. Then I want to say a word on Clause 10. I have from time to time seen some 11 or 12 drafts of this particular clause, and apparently we are no nearer a solution of the problem than we were in the beginning. I do not know why. I have on several occasions pointed out to officers of the board and to this House what I think are the necessary provisions to meet these cases. The case we are providing for here is that of a man who returned from active service with tuberculosis and who applied to the Military Pension Board in the first place. That board refused him a military pension on the ground that tuberculosis was not due to war service but to his previous underground work. He then turned to the Miners’ Phthisis Board. They did not dispute that the condition of the man was due to his underground work but there was no benefit provided in the Act to give him. The position under the present Miners’ Phthisis Act is that a man suffering from uncomplicated tuberculosis is awarded benefits only if he worked within the last 12 months at underground work. There is no provision for the returned soldier suffering in the stage of tuberculosis we are considering. Under Clause 26, sub-section (b) of the 1919 Act, read together with the proviso, a man who returned from war service with silicosis and tuberculosis was entitled to the allowance. In all these cases the man had reached a definite stage of silicosis as defined in the principal Act. The type of man who this clause seeks to benefit is the man who had progressed eight or nine-tenths towards a definite stage of silicosis at the time he enlisted and of whom the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau was able to say that the disease was due to underground work or the military board to say it was due to active service. That is the type of man for whom this provision is necessary. The flaw in the clause as drafted is this. It provides who shall be the competent authority. It sets up a joint board of Military and Miners Phthisis representatives and it lays down that they have to say whether the man’s condition is due to active service or underground work. If the joint board find that the man’s condition is due to underground work there is no provision in the existing laws to cover his case, no compensation laid down, we shall have to prescribe in this clause what those benefits shall be. I submit that the condition of this man is on all fours, tuberculosis being the predominant disease, with that of the man who has a definite stage of silicosis complicated by tuberculosis. In the case of the soldier, I think the stages of the Act should be stretched a little bit in his favour and you should give him the same benefit as a secondary stage case. This appears to be rather a long Bill, but as the Minister has pointed out, half a dozen of the earlier clauses deal with financial matters mainly for the benefit of the mine-owners; the next three clauses are an attempt to straighten up what I conceive to be a misinterpretation of the 1919 Miners’ Phthisis Act. I think the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) will confirm what I am going to say. The intention of the 1919 Act was that the widows of men who had died prior to that Act coming into force were to be provided for under Clause 29. In regard to those who died afterwards they were to be provided for under Clause 27. This has been misinterpreted. The board has been proceeding for many years on the assumption that the dependents of section 28 men fall under Clause 29 of that Act. I think hon. members of the legal profession will be able to follow me, and agree that perhaps the mistake was excusable. The opening clause of Clause 27 reads as follows: “Subject to the provisions of this Act there shall be paid to the dependents of a deceased miner who had not received benefits under the prior law,” etc. The Miners’ Phthisis Board thought that meant the miner had not received benefits under the prior law, but it is clear that it meant the dependents, the dependents of the deceased miner were not to receive benefits under that clause if they had received benefits under the prior law, but the board interpreted it that the miner was meant. This Bill is an attempt to put this mistake right. As to the sub-section in that clause the Minister referred to as one which is in dispute, the position as I understand it is that up to 1919 in the case of the dependents of a man who had received the primary award and died without further benefit and who was found to have died from miners’ phthisis or from a disease of which miners’ phthisis was a contributory or predisposing cause, his dependents were treated in the same way as a second stage man. That was the position up to 1919. The position without sub-section (2) would be that where men suffering in the primary stage have come out of the mines and died without receiving a secondary stage award and the board’s certificate states that they have died from miners phthisis or from a disease of which miners’ phthisis was a contributory or predisposing cause, the only sum due to the dependents would be the difference between what he has already received and that for the stage of silicosis from which he was suffering at the time of his death, which in many cases would mean nothing. It was intended under the 1919 Act that if a man died of miners’ phthisis, or a disease of which miners’ phthisis was a contributory cause, then his dependents should be provided for. That point is disputed, but, I think the House should step in and ask if the Act does not provide for these particular dependents who is going to provide for them? As a matter of fact we now have men coming out in the ante-primary stage. After death they are found to be in the primary stage, and all that it is desired to give their dependents is the difference between primary and ante-primary compensation, although the bureau has certified that they died of a disease of which silicosis was a contributory or predisposing cause. The onus of providing for the dependents of these people should fall on those who were responsible for their original disability. If the 1919 Act had been interpreted in the way in which the Committee intended it should be interpreted, the treasury would not have been rifled to the extent of £89,000, which ought to be repaid by the miners’ phthisis fund to consolidated revenue fund. I hope we are not going to regard this as the last word in miners’ phthisis legislation, as we do not even touch the fringe of the problems in this Bill; certainly, we do not remedy the grievances of many thousands of people who are looking to Parliament, and I hope the Minister will undertake to give the matter further consideration in the recess, and bring forward early next session a Bill which will remedy the main grievances that exist on the Rand regarding this matter.

In view of the highly technical nature of this Bill, and of the fact that it was only circulated to-day, I appeal to the Minister to adjourn the debate. We have no desire to delay the passage of the Bill, but it is only right that members should have an opportunity in which to consider the measure.

I would suggest to the hon. member that there is nothing contentious in the contents of the Bill. I entirely recognize the reasonableness of the hon. member’s request, but I wish to point out that this Bill is confined to matters which are non-contentious.

I don’t think you have read it.

Oh, yes, I have. At first sight all these long clauses sound very technical. The real discussion must take place in committee, and I do not think there is any advantage to be gained in delaying the second reading. It is not as if any new principle is concerned. I suggest that the Bill be now read a second time, and contentious matters might be discussed in committee.

Does the hon. member wish to move the adjournment?

No. I do not want to delay the passing of the measure, but it is desirable that the House and the country and the people interested on both sides should have an opportunity of seeing the provisions of the Bill.

I quite see the point that the Minister of Labour has put forward, that this is not really a Bill which we can properly debate on the second reading, but at the same time it is a measure which is highly technical and requires a great deal of study and consideration, and as far as I am concerned I have only seen it this morning. What the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) is afraid of is that if the second reading is agreed to now we shall be in committee to-morrow morning, and it is desirable before going into committee that an effort should be made to arrive at an agreement on all the points in dispute.

I do not consider that the appeal (of Mr. O’Brien) is at all unreasonable, but I would point out that the Bill consists of a number of clauses and one has nothing to do with the other. Therefore, if we take the second reading now, I hope hon. members will find it convenient to proceed with the committee stage on Wednesday.

I think that is quite reasonable.

I hope the Minister will declare that the present measure is to be followed by a codifying Bill.

I sympathize with the Minister over the difficulty of getting through a measure like this. It is really due to the hurried measures adopted in 1919 that we have got into this mess with our miners’ phthisis legislation. The whole question of miners’ phthisis is not only due, but is past due, to that section of the community so interested in it. There has been so much said on this matter in the House in the way of Select Committee reports, evidence and draft Bills, that there is very little to be added so far as the Government is concerned. There is a clear issue before the Government, it is to consider questions of policy in regard to compensation and matters which might be of a highly controversial nature. We have the Bill drawn up by the De Villiers Commission of 1921, and last year we went into the Government Bill. The whole question of miners’ phthisis has been a case of “Pull devil, pull baker,” between the Chamber of Mines and these people. This question should be tackled, and tackled early next session, so that a consolidated measure may be brought in and put on the Statute Book. In such a measure the Government should bear in mind the fact that the consolidated measure which they are passing then should deal with the past and the new Bill should deal with the future, and such new Bill should carry the following characteristics. It should be as simple as possible with final compensation purposely fixed higher, so as to meet with any fundamental complications that might arise. Such a Bill would meet with the approval of the whole country. It would meet the anomalies of past legislation, and the Minister’s Bill placed before us to-night is an excellent one. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) will see that the clauses aimed at here are really to remove anomalies and are of a non-controversial character. We have just had a voluminous report from the Miners’ Phthisis Board and the Bureau dealing with this subject, and we should do what we can to establish confidence in the area where that board functions. From which arises the whole question of reorganization of the board and bureau. The evidence is all before the House, there are innumerable Select Committee reports, there are draft measures, and the question now is what policy the Government is going to pursue in the consolidated measure, which I hope will be brought forward next year as early as possible. We have made promises on this question of miners’ phthisis, we have fought two elections on it, and it is up to us to deliver the goods.

Motion put and agreed to; Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on the Bill on Wednesday.

When the committee rose I put certain questions to the Minister which he answered, to my mind, in an unsatisfactory way. He did not exactly answer the questions put to him. Instead he attacked me in a rather personal way. Attacks of that kind I do not understand. I put certain questions and I think the House is entitled to hear the policy of the Minister in regard to this question. The question I put to him is this. It is stated that the Minister was going to abolish the sheep division for the purpose of economy, and now these men whom he has intimated are going to be dismissed—Gen. Enslin, Col. Jordaan—they are young men who have to go on pension, I take it, as civil servants. I would like to know from the Minister exactly what the saving is that is going to be effected by that. Further, be said that the department is going to be handed over to the Veterinary Department. Surely this means that this department must be a sub-head of the Veterinary Department, and who is going to be the head of this sub-department? We must have competent men there to advise the head of the Veterinary Division as to the inner workings of the Scab Division. We find that the Minister is going to get the police to assist him, according to what the papers stated. What I want to know is, what is going to take place in the intermediary space of time before this new control is going to take place? The police do not know what scab is, and a man requires a certain amount of training before he is able to detect and effectively control scab. I also maintain—I do not wish to insinuate—that you do require a certain amount of practical knowledge in treating the Scab Division. We cannot at all tackle this matter from the theoretical point of view. I think that the Minister has made a rather uncalled-for reflection upon Gen. Enslin by referring to the wool scheme and the amount be received from the Imperial Government; as it were, a gift or gratuity for the service rendered. I think this country ought to be most thankful to Gen. Enslin for the service he rendered during that time. I maintain that he assisted very much by propaganda work in improving the type of wool that we in South Africa produced during the last few years.

That is all nonsense; the wool farmers did it themselves.

I can assure the hon. member that that is not the case. I am indeed sorry to hear such unprogressive views from that part of the House, by the hon. Minister saying that the sheep experts have not assisted in improving our type of wool. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Roux) seems to be quite conversant with all this, and I wonder how many bales of wool he has exported?

Perhaps you are wool gathering?

There is no doubt that the propaganda started by Gen. Enslin has had the result that South Africa can boast that it has as good wool probably as Australia. Gen. Enslin, sent by the late Government, went to Europe and America to find out certain things, and assisted us very much in regard to the name of South African wool in other countries.

What did he find out?

I am sorry the hon. member displays such ignorance by asking that question. He found out that South African wools did not enjoy the good name and good reputation in the European markets that they should, and he encouraged the late Government to exhibit the best wool at the Wembley Exhibition, which was vehemently opposed by hon. members on the other side.

Are you talking on the wool scheme?

Yes, and if they had not been so foolish as to oppose it we would have been in a far better position to-day.

What became of your wool?

My wool was sold under the Government scheme, and I was sorry it was not possible to continue it. After the Government scheme the price of wool was inflated, and farmers paid enormous prices. I do not think the attitude of hon. members opposite has served South Africa at all.

The opposition is not concerned about scab. Theirs are only cries of disappointment because their number is so small in this House. The Minister of Agriculture has shown himself to be a strong man; he is re-organising his department and economising, and I hope some of the other Ministers will follow his example. I know both Gen. Enslin and Col. Jordaan. They know nothing about sheep, except that when they eat it they may be able to distinguish mutton from beef. Gen. Botha created the sheep division to give them a livelihood but the division has proved to be a total failure. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central (Col. D. Reitz) complained of the appointment of certain locust officers because they had been rebels, but I want to tell him that those people have done much for the country. They are trustworthy men and have done more for the country than the hon. member. Ever since he entered politics his one aim has been to create dissension. He acted in a disgraceful manner, and now wants to vent his feelings of disappointment. He has given us his views regarding rebels. He went out to hunt and shot at people who were unarmed. Members of the Opposition are not so much concerned about scab as about the dismissal of their election agents. I know the sheep division very well. The people who fought against as got promotion, and the first step was their appointment as sheep inspectors. The Minister will retain those inspectors who did not take an active part in politics and who did good work. We all know how these sheep inspectors have been appointed. There are people in my constituency who made a living by making small gardens. During the elections they were very active against me and shortly afterwards became sheep inspectors, colonels and lieutenant-colonels. They all got appointments, but the day will come when we shall settle with them. The D.S.O.’s and all those things became sheep inspectors or land inspectors. If the Government wants to carry out the will of the people it will settle with them once and for all, for if they get a chance they will scheme in the dark.

According to the agricultural census of 1923 there are 61,000 farms in the Union where people are engaged in farming with mixed stock. There are 2,000 farms on which Shorthorns are kept, 5,000 farms where Afrikanders are bred and about 8,000 farms where people farm with Friesland cattle. We have made such progress with the rearing of Friesland cattle that we can send them to England where they fetch good prices. We should take care, however, that we do not weaken their constitution by protecting them too much. We ought to see that new blood is continually imported from Holland, but the importation of cattle from that country is very much hampered. The executive of the Netherlands Pure Bred Stock Society has written a letter in which he says that the regulations regarding the importation of cattle into South Africa are unreasonable. By making these regulations applicable only to cattle from the Netherlands it creates the impression that we want to boycott Dutch cattle. That is what the letter says, but I would not go quite so far. I know that cattle have to be quarantined for four to six weeks and inoculated three times and if they are re-shipped it costs at least £20. Is it not possible to relax some of the provisions so as to enable us to get new blood from Holland? In 1908 I attended the first scab conference, and was then of the opinion that scab would soon be eradicated. That hope, however, was not realised although it cannot be denied that there has been a great improvement. Whereas 15 or 20 years ago there was hardly a clean flock, to-day one has to look for a dirty one. The Minister said that the police should take charge of the eradication of the disease. Sheep farmers would like to know what the intentions of the Minister are. I would like to know whether it is the intention to tax the sheep farmers in order to cover the expenditure in connection with the eradication of this disease. I shall oppose such a measure with all my power, as expenditure for the eradication of scab should be borne by the Treasury.

The hon. member for Pretoria South (Gen. Muller) evidently meant that the officers of the sheep division should be dismissed because they pursued the rebels, and the sheep inspectors must go because they worked against the hon. member at the late elections. That only shows that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) in stating that the new officers were appointed because they had been rebels had very good ground for attacking the Government. If we accept the principle that officials are to be dis missed on account of their political views, it will be a sad day indeed for this country. The same gentleman also said that those people served the country at the time of the rebellion. His estimate of value of service to the State differs very much from my own. General Enslin and Colonel Jordaan know more about sheep farming than the hon. member for Pretoria South (Gen. Muller) thinks. They both know their work, and I am afraid it will be a blow to sheep farming when those gentlemen are no longer at the head of the sheep division. I should like to know the position with regard to scab at the time of Union and at the present time, it will be useful to have the comparative statistics. The Minister ridiculed the Transvaal Agricultural Union, but it should not be our aim to drag the agricultural unions into politics. He took exception to the resolution of that union to the effect that farmers should be represented by farmers. Why is he so much against that principle? Is it because there are so few farmers on the Government benches?

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed.

Progress reported; to resume in Committee, 2nd September.