announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on Irrigation Schemes, viz.: The Minister of Agriculture, Brig.-Gen. Byron, Messrs. Hugo, le Roux, J. J. Pienaar, Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius, Sir Thomas Smartt, Messrs. G. C. van Heerden and I. P. van Heerden

with leave, read and laid upon the Table—

I move—

Upon which the House divided.

Ayes—71.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Bergh, P. A.

Beyers, F. W.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown. G.

Christie, J

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conroy, E. A.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hay, G. A.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pearce, C.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. v. W.

Reyburn, G.

Rood, W. H.

Roos, T. J. de V.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Noes—39.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Blackwell, L.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Close, R. W.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Gilson, L. D.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige,. C. J.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Moffat, L.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oppenheimer, E.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz, D.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Smuts, J. C.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I do not think there can be any doubt as to the necessity for establishing a diamond cutting industry in this country. I must assume, judging from the criticisms that some hon. members opposite have made, and which have taken place from time to time during the last few years, that the desirability of establishing a diamond cutting industry in this country is common cause. The only question that may be in dispute is as to the methods employed. Our annual export of rough stones is about £12,000,000, and if these stones were cut and polished in the Union, their value would, of course, be very materially enhanced. It would pay us to bring out skilled labourers in order to train our own people in this country, to make consumers of them in our country, and to enable those already in the country, by earning good wages, to consume more of this country’s products. There are several small diamond cutting industries already; I think five in Johannesburg, two in Kimberley, and one in Pretoria, or eight altogether; and they have been making, so far as I understand, a fairly good profit; but in order to establish something of sufficient dimensions some positive inducement is necessary, and this is what has led to the Government entering into this provisional contract with Messrs. Rosenstrauch Brothers and Korbf. Hon. members will recollect that under Section 7 of the Diamond Cutting Act of 1919, it is provided that a contract like this shall, in its nature, be only provisionally entered into until it is ratified by resolution of both Houses of Parliament; and we now come to this hon. House for this ratification. Those hon. members who are interested in this matter—I suppose there is a general interest on the part of all, especially those who are more directly interested, will have had a sight of the contract. It is laid on the Table. This matter is one of a technical nature, and my experience is, with all due respect to hon. members opposite, and in fact, on both sides of the House, that when technical matters come before the House there are comparatively few who really do take the trouble to study them.

Give us a chance.

If it is the general desire to have this contract printed, I will give instructions to have it printed. The form of inducement to which I have referred, and which this contract assumes, is as follows: In Clause 10 it is stipulated that the manufacturers may export the remnants of stones when they have come to be polished, if these remnants are less than one carat in weight, at a reduced rate of duty. Under Clause 11 stones under one carat may be exported at a reduced rate of duty, but under Clause 12 there is a limit to this export—50 per cent., 40 per cent., 30 per cent., 20 per cent. and 10 per cent respectively for the five years. The contract is entered into for a total period of five years.

made an interjection.

It does not matter what the weight is; the percentage is fixed. In Clause 13 a subsidy of £15,000 is offered for the first year, £10,000 for the second year, and £5,000 for the third year. In Clause 9 the cutters under take that they will, in terms of the agreement, come to polish or partly polish diamonds in the rough state, of not less value than £100,000 for the first year, £200,000 for the second year, £300,000 for the third year, £400,000 for the fourth year, and £500,000 for the fifth year. During the first year 50 per cent., during the second year 60 per cent., the third year 70 per cent., the fourth year 80 per cent., and the fifth year 90 per cent. of the cutters’ aggregate output shall be completely cut and polished diamonds, that is, in the Union. It does not matter what the weight is. Clause 10 stipulates that pending the training of apprentices—at least 500 in number—and the development of the factory to a stage at which it is capable of performing all the operations necessary for completely cutting and polishing on a suitable scale but not exceeding five years, the cutters may export diamonds not exceeding one carat in weight in a partly manufactured state, provided, however, that such diamonds are the remnants of diamonds completely cut and polished by the cutter in his factory (which remnants cannot, in the opinion of the Minister, be completed economically within the Union of South Africa), on payment of a duty calculated at the rate of 2½ per cent. ad valorem for the first and second years, and 5 per cent. ad valorem for the third, fourth and fifth years, but the export duty thereon shall be increased correspondingly in the event of any increase above the present percentage rate in the export duty of rough and uncut diamonds found in the Union and exported therefrom. For the purpose of the agreement, remnants shall mean fragments comprising portions of diamonds separated from the main stone in the course of manufacture and of so irregular a shape and small a size as not to be suitable for sawing, cutting and polishing as separate stones. So hon. members will see under Clause 10 there are two conditions precedent, and there are three safeguards. Now we come to Clause 11, which states that subject to the due fulfilment of the terms of agreement and to the export of completely cut and polished diamonds on the scale indicated in paragraph 9, to the satisfaction of the Minister, the cutters may export from the Union of South Africa such diamonds as do not fall under the definition of rough, partly manufactured or unpolished diamonds, namely, diamonds under one carat in weight which have been subjected to one or more of the operations of cleaving or sawing or polishing, but which, in the opinion of the Minister of Mines, cannot economically be completed within the Union. The cutters shall pay to the Government on all such diamonds so exported by them (such diamonds not being remnants of stones completely cut and polished in the factory) an amount in lieu of duty calculated at the rate of 2½ per cent. ad valorem for the first, second and third years, and 5 per cent. ad valorem for the fourth and fifth years. Here, again, the Minister must be satisfied that these stones cannot economically be completed within the Union. It follows that at the very start you cannot expect all stones to be completed in every respect, as one of the main objects of the contract is that so many of the youths of our country shall be trained, and in training there must necessarily be a loss to a cutter, and there must be corresponding compensation. In Clause 12 it is stipulated that the cutters shall, with the written permission of the Minister, be entitled to export remnants and diamonds under one carat in weight, as set forth in paragraphs 10 and 11, to the following extent, inclusive of both classes, namely, for the first year to an extent of 50 per cent. of the whole weight of the cutter’s average output, for the second year 40 per cent., for the third year 30 per cent., for the fourth year 20 per cent., and for the fifth year 10 per cent. The subsidy of £30,000 to which I have referred is to compensate the cutters for the loss sustained through diamonds being spoiled by their apprentices during the first year of their apprenticeship, for the time lost by their employees (and made good by them) in training the apprentices, and generally for the commercial risk involved in an effort to establish a diamond cutting industry on an extensive scale in South Africa. I understand that in Holland and Belgium apprentices are required to pay a fee for being trained, but in this contract we make provision for the apprentices being paid wages from the very start, and they will pay no fee at all. In Clause 5 the cutters undertake to employ, and to continue to employ for not less than five years from the date of the engagement of apprentices or during the currency of this agreement, whichever period is the longer, 500 or more apprentices at the following scale of wages: For the first year from the date of apprenticeship £1 per week, for the second year £2 per week, for the third year £3 per week, for the fourth year £4 per week, and for the fifth year, namely, during the improver’s period, £5 per week. In Clause 15 we undertake to provide free second-class steamship accommodation from London or Southampton to a Union port; and free railway passage thence to the place where the factory is situated for such expert workmen, not exceeding 50 in all, as it may, in the opinion of the Minister, be necessary to import in the interests of the industry, or who in contemplation of the agreement had been imported prior to the date of the agreement, In Clause 16 the Government undertake to refund to the cutters the equivalent of any sums paid as import duty on all machinery and tools, the property of the cutters or their employees needed in the establishment of the industry, and the reasonable personal luggage of the cutters and their workmen. We give the cutters £30,000, and the result of a reduction in ad valorem duties, and also the facilities mentioned in paragraphs 15 and 16 which may be valued at, say, about £6,000. What do we expect to gain During the five years of the initial training of apprentices, the company will be spending £200,000 in wages, which will circulate in the country, and during the first five years of the contract about £1,150,000 worth of rough diamonds will be completely cut and polished in this country, producing so much more national wealth, as the cutting and polishing of the diamonds necessarily enhances their value. At the end of the four years we have to have 500 South African youths engaged in the diamond cutting industry, and at the end of this period we hope to have established a new and permanent industry in the country increasing our wealth-producing capacity and scope for employment. There are certain important points to notice, and one is that there would be no monopoly because the Act of 1919 prohibits a monopoly in specific terms, and for that reason we have to come to Parliament for sanction for the agreement. The object of the export tax is obviously to encourage local industry, and the 10 per cent. duty has only that object, and therefore the reduction of that 10 per cent. duty for five years falls within the policy of the Diamond Export Act. The export at reduced tax is only applied to well-defined percentages of the total export. We make provision for a guarantee to be given by these people, that is Messrs. Rosenstrauch Brothers and Korbf, and this is the guarantee—[guarantee read]. I may say we are in possession of a guarantee from oue of the big banks of the country for the first £5,000, and the further £5,000 will have to be guaranteed in the terms of this clause. The subsidy is only applicable when the necessary amount of completely cut and polished diamonds has been produced. I know, of course, my attention will be drawn to what occurred at Brighton, but I prefer dealing with such points by way of reply. It is argued the entering in to a contract of this nature will give rise to over-production. It is difficult for me to appreciate that argument. Then the argument is used by people who are cutters who say the diamond cutting industry is one which should be centralized as it is to-day centralized in the world practically in Holland and Belgium, and that our efforts here are doomed to failure. That is a sweeping assertion and an argument which ought not to deter us in the Union. It is said in Holland and Belgium that there is a certain amount of souplesse—they use a French word—in connection with the demand for diamonds, and that you must have the diamond cutting industry near where the demand is so that from time to time you can comply with the requirements of the purchaser. I don’t want it to be understood that we are relying on our own requirements in the Union. We shall have to rely upon the export of the hulk of our fully cut and polished stones. I do not see why we should assume that we are not going to succeed in the course of time, and that fairly early, in cutting and polishing stones here in a scientific and as expert a manner as is being done in Holland and Belgium, and, on a smaller scale, in New York. The argument is advanced that if you make provision for 500 apprentices you will require 500 cutters to come out because each apprentice would require one cutter. I am not convinced with regard to this. While diamond cutting has been in the air in this country for some years this argument has been advanced for the first time. The argument is raised that our South African youths have not the necessary adaptation for such work nor have they the necessary temperament. It is work not done under physically favourable circumstances and work which requires patience, and work done in Europe for generations by a certain class of people with whom a capacity for it is bred in the bone. We should have a poor opinion indeed of our South African youth if we were to assume they were going to prove unfit for this sort of work, and I do not think that should prevent us from giving them a chance to show what is in them. Generally speaking, our South African youths in every walk of life ought to be encouraged because their natural talent justifies such encouragement. It is argued there is no necessity for a special contract because we can place our youths with existing diamond cutters who will absorb them. It is singular that such an offer has never been forthcoming in the past, and the fact remains that the few diamond cutting factories in the country have worked hitherto on a very small scale. Take the Amending Act we passed this year to facilitate the purchase by cutters of certain stones in series and also the price at which they could purchase the stones. Not one of them complained to me that they are not getting the stones they require, yet they say now in argument they cannot get from De Beers and the Premier Mine the stones they desire. They have never lodged a complaint with me on that score. I don’t think that is a difficulty. The real thing some diamond cutters want is that they should be allowed to be diamond dealers as well. They want to be cutters and dealers at the same time. Well, I must say that hitherto I had been under the impression, in fact I have shared the conviction that they ought to choose between one and the other, that they must either be cutters and cutters only or they must be dealers and dealers only, and it is undesirable to allow a cutter to be a dealer at the same time. We went so far last March as to amend the Act of 1919 by allowing them to sell stones that they do not require, after having made their purchases, for cutting purposes, to sell those stones not only to fellow-cutters but to dealers in the country. Ot seems to me that what they are really aiming at to-day is that they should have under the law carte blanche to deal with any stones that they purchase in their own absolute judgment, just as they like. I do not want to say that the Government has made up its mind finally, but it certainly is the view that the Government has held up to now and unless we are convinced to the contrary by any representations that may be made, we do not see any reason for departing from that principle. That is the principle embodied in the Act of 1919 and it is the principle that has been observed right through. It has also been suggested that a better way of encouraging the industry would be to give bounties per carat of stones completely cut and polished. Some time ago the hon. Senate inquired into Diamond cutting in the Union and I want to point this out that at the time when they made the enquiry the export duty had not yet been imposed, and of course the imposition of that export duty altered the circumstances very materially. As far back as August, 1923, my predecessor was negotiating with one of the gentlemen who have entered into this provisional contract with the Government, Mr. Korbf, of Antwerp and I wish, of course, frankly to say that the files show that there was a material difference of opinion, but yet ultimately a provisional list of points was drawn up and these points were transmitted formally to Mr. Korbf on the 14th August, 1923, with the full knowledge of my predecessor. It is a matter, that, according to the records, had occupied the attention of the previous Government more than once, and had been fully discussed, and the proposed agreement under section 7 of the Diamond Cutting Act of 1919 made provision for most of the points that I have referred to. For instance, under heading No. 2 the Government would permit diamonds under one carat in weight, manufactured ready for the final stage of polishing, to be exported up to but not exceeding 50 per cent. of the output of the factory provided that the exportation of such diamonds shall not be continued after a period of five years from ratification of this agreement by Parliament, etc. The cutter undertook to train in his proposed factory one hundred apprentices of South African birth in the first year and two hundred and fifty in all in the two years. The Government undertook to pay to the cutter during the past two years after the establishment of the proposed factory a subsidy to compensate in some measure for losses sustained through diamonds spoiled by apprentices during the first year of their apprenticeship. I think this also contemplates an agreement for five years, or about five years, at £5,000 per annum. That would be about £25,000. A further provision was made under heading No. 8 that the Government undertook to pay to the cutter during the first two years after the establishment of the proposed factory a further sum of £2,000 per annum as part compensation for the time lost by his employees in training a disproportionate number of apprentices. So that this subsidy of £30,000 that we have in this provisional agreement does materially exceed what was contemplated from the very beginning. I do hope that hon. members will realise that we ought to do something in this direction. As the matter is to be discussed with a view to offering valuable criticism, the Government is, of course, quite anxious to consider any legitimate criticism that may be offered and to look at the thing after this debate from all points of view, but it is a matter that has been occupying us for a considerable time and what we propose doing now does not differ materially from what had really been in the minds of the previous Government before we assumed office.

seconded the motion.

I am not going to criticise this proposal for the simple reason that it has not been sufficiently long in our hands. I agree with the Minister that it is a matter that ought to receive adequate consideration, this proposal to pay out £30,000 of the tax payer’s money. This agreement was signed according to the papers laid on the Table on the 6th September last in Pretoria by Mr. Nixon and Mr. Joseph Rosenstrauch and Mr. J. Korbf. The Minister laid it on the Table on the 28th October and then he comes to this House and says he hopes that we will give it adequate consideration. Does my hon. friend know what fair play means in this matter? I should have thought, if he was thoroughly in earnest, that he would have taken good care to have had it on the Table of the House on the first day of the session. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, is it fair treatment to this House that this important agreement—highly technical which most of us, I suppose, do not understand and I do not pretend to understand it completely—that this agreement which was signed almost two months ago should be brought here on Friday last and we should be asked to discuss it within three days? I do not suppose there are more than about two men in this House who have bad time to look at it. I only saw it for the first time this morning. In the ordinary way and I think even now this proposal should go to a select committee. As was pointed out by the Minister, it is a highly technical proposal. The Minister will probably say that there is not time now to send this matter to a select committee. That is not our fault. It is absolutely and entirely the fault of the Minister himself? Why did he not lay this on the table earlier? From what I know of this matter it is absolutely essential that it should go to a select committee. I am certain that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence especially would say that this should go to a select committee. There is information in possession of members of this House that should be in the possession of Ministers.

The agreement will be printed by to-morrow, I hope.

All right, will you accept the adjournment now? I will not say anything more at present if you will accept the adjournment of the debate.

I think that under the circumstances it is not an unfair request.

On the motion of Mr. Jagger, the debate was adjourned

On the motion that the debate be resumed on Wednesday.

I would just like to ask when are we likely to have this printed copy?

I understand from the Clerk of the House, by to-morrow.

We should have the agreement before us before we are called upon to debate it. Is it not better to resume the debate on Thursday when we shall have nothing else to do?

I move—

This Bill has become necessary owing to an unfortunate state of affairs in the Free State. We have always looked up to the Free State, and we find that, unfortunately, a large number of its inhabitants have been living together there without being married to each other. I am afraid that our respect will not be so great in the future as it has been in the past, but at all events, to consolidate some of the remnants of that lost respect it has been necessary for us to introduce this legislation. We have not consulted all the parties who were married, or thought themselves married, as to whether they wish their marriages validated. We are assuming in favour of the Free State that all those couples wish to have their marriages solemnized. I only hope that none of the hon. members who represent the Free State constituencies will find their constituents are entirely dissatisfied with the course we are taking to-day. The position is unfortunately this. Section 15 of the marriage law of the Orange Free State, Law 26 of 1899, lays down that no marriage shall be regarded as lawful where both parties are dwelling within the Orange Free State, and where they go to any other state or land to be married there without special permission being granted by the State President. After 1902, of course, that special leave would have to be granted by the Administrator. That special leave has not been granted in numberless cases in the Free State. In a large number of these cases the persons involved are lawyers. There again it shows how little attachment we can give to that old legal maxim that everyone is assumed to know the law. I should have thought a Free State lawyer, at any rate, would have known the law, but it seems even that narrow presumption has failed in its purpose. An alteration of the law is absolutely essential for those married in these circumstances. There is one sub-section in Clause 2 of this Bill which seems rather insulting. It says—

As far as this House is concerned, where character is very high indeed, everyone in this House, without any division on party lines or provincial lines, will do their best to try and mend this matter as far as our friends in that small province are concerned. They can be certain that we are not going to leave the Natal members to be the only persons voting in their favour, but that all the other provinces will do their best to assist them. As far as Natal is concerned it has always stood high in such matters, and it will help the Free State out of its trouble. I am going to ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) to be gentle to-day.

What is the matter?

My hon. friend has not done anything wrong to-day, but I am going to invoke his assistance to allow us to put through all the stages of this Bill to-day. It is a very important matter, because just think what is the state in which these people in the Free State are living until this Act is passed. I am quite certain that my appeal to the hon. member will not fall on deaf ears. If it were not for the special circumstances in this case I would not venture, with that hon. gentleman in his seat, to make a request of this kind.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

Really, in the interests of hon. members, perhaps the Minister would now kindly explain to the Committee what this is all about. We seem to be in the dark.

The whole matter depends on Article 15 of the Free State Act, and is dependent on the point of people domiciled in the Free State going outside the Free State without permission either from the State President or the Administrator. In a recent decision of the Free State Court it was laid down that all marriages contracted in that way without that consent were invalid, and because of that it has been necessary to pass this legislation. The point is the repeal of that section coupled with the validation of marriages contracted before that repeal takes place.

But why did they make that law?

I have not the faintest idea. I understand from an hon. member from the Free State that it was a question of revenue. I do not like to go into that, because it is making it worse for the Free State.

I want to speak in support of the committee stage of this Bill. Thirty years ago I had to handle a difficulty of this sort. A highly respected burgher of the Free State, an Englishman by birth and a widower, got engaged to a widow of the same town. They went to the happy place, Durban, in two separate contingents, and the community of Bethlehem was shocked and horrified at the news that they had got married in Durban, which is quite outside the Free State. On their return, the Landdrost, a friend of mine, begged me to communicate with the newly married couple that under the Free State law they were not married at all. The permission of the President had not been obtained. They were married altogether three times. The link was firmly welded at last, but I rejoice in the prospect of future difficulties of that sort coming to an end by the passing of this measure.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I move—

It is unfortunate that it is I who have to introduce a Bill when one might expect the people concerned to look after their own interests. Unhappily that is not always done, and I am obliged to do it. As the House knows, our fruit farming is still in its infancy, and it is our edeavour to grow as good fruit as possible. It is supposed that this scale disease was imported in 1918, probably from California, where it was known for a considerable time. So far we have not taken strong measures. I notified the citrus growers to try to fight the disease, but it seems they practically disregarded the notification. This Bill aims at the advancement of the citrus industry, and I hope will meet with approval. We have already had the experience that the fighting of citrus cancer cost the country £134,000, and we want to avoid the repetition of such a great expenditure. There is no intention to take drastic steps, because the disease is not spreading fast, but it has already made its appearance in the Transvaal in the districts of Pretoria, Rustenberg and Marico, and in the districts of Bathurst, Grahamstown and Clanwilliam in the Cape Province. It is consequently necessary to take prompt measures.

I hope that the Minister will get this Bill through without very much trouble either in this or in another place. My hon. friend said the Bill was perhaps a little harsh. I do not think so. I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that the citrus groves will be inspected, because I can assure him that the disease has gone further than his official report shows. I am referring to a case in this portion of the Western Province in which Prof. Clarke-Powell found in one grove one of the trees infected with this disease. I feel convinced that it is more than likely that in other groves there may also be similar cases. No doubt there are very few. I have been informed by the same authority that the only way of dealing with the disease is to destroy the tree at once, and not to incur any danger of the disease spreading from the debris. I hope that a rigorous inspection of the citrus groves will take place, and if there are any cases of the disease that the infected trees will be instantaneously destroyed. In these cases, I see, the Minister does not propose to pay any compensation for the destruction of the trees, and there I am at one with him, as it is only in the interests of the orchards that these infected trees should be destroyed. By vigorous and rigorous action now we will save the owners of citrus groves and the State a large amount.

I would like to say a few words from these benches in support of this Bill, because I realise the great change that has come over hon. members on those benches [the Opposition] in supporting a Bill which a few months ago they would have said was out-and-out socialism. The interests of the agricultural population as a whole are being placed above those of the individual farmer, and it is recognised that under this Bill if individual farmers have infected trees, and the infection may spread, it is only in the interests of the farming population as a whole to come and destroy that private property without any compensation. I am glad, for once, to be in agreement with the deputy-leader of the South African party.

I would like the Minister to tell me why he is giving exemption in certain cases, as be is doing in Clause 1, subsection 3. I will add my support to that of the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) of this measure.

I am glad that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smarttt) welcomed the Bill. He asked if I would take steps to have the citrus orchards inspected. I will do my utmost to do that, and, where the disease is found, effective steps will be taken to eradicate it. The disease spreads slowly. It has been in the country eleven years, but recently it has spread in an alarming manner. If we wait any longer it may be that the damages caused in eradicating the disease will be so great that the State will have to compensate. Things are not bad yet, hence we want to pass this legislation in time. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) asked why an exception should he made in the sub-section. It is in case there is a farmer who has a small orchard infected. He makes his living out of it and wants to plant another orchard before he uproots the first. We do not wish to prevent his making a living. The exception will, of course, be permitted only when there is no danger of the disease spreading further. The object is not to allow the trees to remain and be a danger to other orchards. Mr. Webber, an expert on this disease, is in favour of this Bill. I can tell the hon. member that the exemption will not lightly be allowed.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

On motion that House go into Committee now,

I do not want to object, but, if I am in order, I would like to ask the Minister whether he should not see that a tree is dealt with at once when it is infected. I am alarmed at allowing any extension of time. If a tree is infected it should be blotted out.

I cannot allow any discussion at this stage on the Bill; the question before the House is that the House go into Committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

Is the Minister prepared to accept a proviso that in no case shall the exemption exceed a certain time. I want to make sure that these trees are eventually destroyed.

I can assure the hon. member that I will not give too long an extension. It is only, as I have explained, where a man’s livelihood depends on it that I shall not cut out his livelihood at once, and we should give an exemption for a short period.

The only way of preventing the disease from spreading is to destroy the tree at once. There are many citrus farmers who do not know of the disease, and their attention has not been called to it. If there is fruit on an infected tree the owner should not be allowed to dispose of that fruit. If he is allowed to dispose of it, it may be the means of spreading scaly bark in other directions. I want to impress on the Minister, you must use instantaneous haste in destroying an infected tree.

Scaly bark does not spread so quickly. We have had it since 1918, and it is only in certain districts that it has spread. Where a few trees are infected I will give instructions that they ought to be taken out at once and put into the fire; but in the case of a man with a small orchard, who depends upon it for a livelihood, and where proper precautions can be taken, surely I ought to be allowed to give a man like that an extension, so that he is in a position to plant another orchard. I shall be very careful in applying that exemption.

I know that the disease spreads slowly under certain conditions, but nobody knows under what changing conditions it may suddenly take a new lease of life. If a man has a small orchard and there are some trees infected, surely there is no reason why the disease should be allowed to spread over the country. I do believe the thing is serious, and that it ought to be dealt with now. It is a dangerous thing to allow infected tees to remain under any circumstances. The only raison d’etre for allowing an infected tree to remain is to allow of the disposal of its fruit, and in doing so you are setting up other foci for the spread of the disease.

If they are allowed to plant a new orchard it will take five years, so the Minister is giving a very protracted extension of time, I should think rather that he should either delete that sub-section or lay down a definite period of time.

I may point out to the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that when I introduced this Act last year strong representations were made by the farmers of Rustenburg, and they said that if we applied the section rigorously as it is framed, it would mean ruination to many of the fruit growers there. The department recommend that in special cases exemption should be given to these people, but I assure the committee that before exemption is given the department will go thoroughly into the whole position. If you can get the farmers to support you, you have much more chance of success in legislation of this nature than you have by forcing them at once to adopt stringent precautions. If we find that the exemptions are not beneficial I will refuse to continue them. However, it is only fair that we should not be too drastic at the start; but should ask the farmers to assist the Government in eradicating the disease. I hope the committee will pass the clause as it stands.

I would like to see the Minister carry the farmers with him, but I fear that if he gives exemptions he will defer the time when the country is free of the disease. Now, with a little drastic treatment and with but very little loss to the growers, the disease can be stamped out. There is no instance in which the whole of an orchard is infected. Rather than grant exemptions I would give compensation in cases of severe loss, for I am afraid that granting exemptions will tend to encourage the spreading of the disease, and thus make it impossible to eradicate it. I would like to delete the exemption clause

If I find that only trees here and there are infected exemption will not be given, but I am assured that in some cases, and in Rustenburg especially, the scaly bark is very bad on a few farms. If I find there is any danger of the disease spreading I will not give exemptions but will have the trees destroyed. I shall act in the best interests of the country and of the fruit growers generally, but I hope the committee will not press for the withdrawal of exemptions.

I shall not press my suggestion.

The marketing of the fruit will be under the supervision of the department, and if Dr. Pole Evans thinks that that should not be allowed it will not be permitted.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment; third reading to-morrow.

Are we not going to take the next order, second reading Women’s Enfranchisement Bill? I think the House should extend its kindness to the women. However, I will not stand in the way of the adjournment, but will express the hope that the House will be in a kind mood when my Bill comes up for second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.