read a letter from the Secretary to the Prime Minister, dated 27th February, 1928, reporting the election of Frank Gibaud, Esq., for the electoral division of Three Rivers, in the room of D. M. Brown, Esq., deceased.

What was the majority?

Was he elected by his peers?

I move—

I want to protest against the principle underlying this Bill for two reasons. I am not much concerned with the objection from this side of the House to legislation already passed in other parts of the Union being applied by proclamation, although I don’t think it a very desirable method. What I am afraid of is that the law in the Transvaal will be applied in regard to trapping. The Labour party has always been opposed to anything in the nature of the trapping system. If this is applied to Natal it will mean that instead of the trapping system being curtailed or entirely abolished it will be extended to another part of the Union. I do feel the Minister should give us some assurance that as far as that aspect of the matter is concerned it will not be applied to the public of Natal, and that the trapping system will be curtailed in other parts of the Union. There is another vicious principle which is being applied in this Bill. Under Clause 1 of the Diamond Trading Ordinance of 1903 the onus is placed on the person found in possession of uncut stones. The Labour party have always been opposed to the principle that a person should have to prove his innocence. If anyone commits murder or assault the onus of proof is placed on the prosecution, but here, the onus is placed upon the possessor and not the prosecutor. I think that is a vicious principle, and it imposes a restriction in favour of property as against the rights of individuals and the rights of persons. For these reasons I am opposed to the third reading of this Bill.

I would like to ask the Minister if he would not give the assurance that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has asked for. The trapping system is a bad system, and I think the Minister might give us that assurance.

I hope members from Natal are going to make quite sure of what is going to be done under this Bill in regard to police practice there. I may congratulate the Minister upon going all out for the big diamond interests. There is nothing like doing a thing thoroughly. Our Natal friends probably do not quite understand what is really the nature of our trapping system. It has been eloquently defended in this House by the Minister of Justice and some of us were amazed when he did so, as it was opposed to assurances given at the general election. During 50 years of trapping have the C.I.D. ever caught a big man? Yes, they did catch a big one, but he was let go and never punished, and is living in luxury in London to-day as an example of successful evasion. They also caught another big man, even bigger than the first, but he was too big and much too heavy to hold, and so that big man also escaped. How is it that after these fifty years those at the back of their unfortunate dupes—who provide the capital—are never caught, and why then persist in a rotten system so opposed to the first principles of justice—namely, that a man is held innocent until he is proved to be guilty? Here is a report in to-day’s newspapers of an unfortunate who was arrested after having bought a parcel of £2,000 worth of uncut diamonds through a trap, surely a great temptation to resist. The other day we had information published where a man was trapped with a £700 diamond. The extraordinary thing is that £1,800 worth of diamonds were lost in one year by the traps—they were missing, and when the matter was pursued by inquiries the information we got from the police authorities was—

You have criminals trapping criminals; and it has been found that the trap and his victim had stolen the diamonds and shared the spoil. It is a dark department and no member of Parliament is supposed to ask any inconvenient questions about its operations—big interests don’t like it! One trap who was far too successful trapped one of the C.I.D., and it was a genuine, good case, but was hushed up and nothing allowed to leak out. We are committed to this wretched trapping system, and pay £20,000 a year for it. It were better paid for some more legitimate object. Why do we not see to it that people get unadulterated food, that storekeepers are not foisting poisonous food on the purchasers? We cannot find money even for the Minister of Agriculture to completely stamp out scab, or for all sorts of essential purposes, but we can find every penny asked for by the big producers to trap poor people. It may have been useful once, but I challenge the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), as an authority on the subject, to say how many diamonds can possibly escape since the introduction of grease tables. The process catches 95 to 98 per cent. of the output. Only two men are employed now on these tables, the one to watch the other. All this loud shouting about diamond stealing is absolute rubbish, but the C.I.D. have to keep it up. If the department is successful, their job perishes. So criminal traps do a “frame up” to prove that they are busy. Ministers must defend the departmental heads in every way and do so. This wretched system is expensive; and absolutely indefensible as far as dealing with the liberties of the common people is concerned. The system leads to carelessness in that men who have to look after their own gold and diamonds throw their responsibility on a department; they rely upon this expensive system and trust to it, instead of looking after their property themselves. Every now and then some unfairly and sorely tempted man or woman is sent to gaol and a family ruined. A State system by which one criminal is paid to get another criminal; the greater criminal often being the official trap, may fill our gaols with convicts for hire to mining companies, but it is an iniquitous anomaly in this century and in this country. If the Minister of Justice also thinks it fair and right he could add to his gaol captures burglars and bank clerks. Indeed there is no end to the great possibilities of general trapping. The system is unknown in any other civilized nation.

I want to lodge my protest against this Bill, not for the reasons given by my hon. friends on my left. The Government is applying a system against which everyone ought to protest. The Minister is asking for authority to pass a measure which enables him to adapt any clauses of the Transvaal Act, and apply them to Natal, on very short notice, and by way of proclamation. This is a form of government which is only applied to native territories, and should never be applied to a province like Natal. He is also as much in the dark as we are, and has not the foggiest idea what part of the law he is going to adopt for Natal. When he has made up his mind what clauses he is going to take, he should schedule these as part of the Bill and we would then know whether we could agree or otherwise—I personally am not satisfied, and I do not know that the House is—I would also like to hear from him whether there has been anything in the nature of illicit diamond buying in Natal, and where is the urgent necessity for this, and has he found himself unable to deal with this illicit diamond buying, if there has been any? If he has had that experience there should be no difficulty in making it perfectly clear to us what clauses of the Transvaal Act he wishes to apply. I am certainly going to vote against this.

There seems to be a total misapprehension. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) have appealed to me to stop the trapping system, or, at any rate, not to introduce it in Natal under the proposed legislation. There is not a single Act which mentions the trapping system which is not a question of legislation, but of criminal procedure. Hon. members should address themselves on the subject to the Minister of Justice. If this Bill becomes law any prosecutions under it would fall under the department of the Minister of Justice. I am not prepared at this stage to discuss the pros and eons of the trapping system. It may be that one day the House may be called upon to review the whole situation, and if necessary to pass legislation prohibiting the application of the trapping system, but it is not a question of law but practice. However, I am not expressing any opinion either for or against the system. As regards the onus of proof, I cannot do better than refer to the apposite remarks of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) when the question was raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay). There remain the points raised by the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards). I made clear in my second reading speech the reasons for the urgency of this measure. I also pointed out on a previous occasion that there had actually been a prosecution in Natal since November 16, and the court was bound to discharge the accused because there was no legislation in Natal making the possession of uncut diamonds illegal. Directly this fact becomes known, Natal will become—as the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) very rightly said—an Alsatia for these people.

Why was that not so before?

Because they did not know the position. I wonder if the hon. member was here on the second reading of the Bill. What is the good of my repeating that two and two make four and the hon. member keeping on stating that they do not? Does he not attach any value to the argument I advance? I explained on another occasion that in the original Natal Act there was a defect which had not become known until recently. I have had occasion in the last few years to direct my attention to the Natal Act, and I discovered that it was not a crime in Natal to be in possession of uncut diamonds. The hon. member raises a point and then runs away from it when I answer him. I have already said frankly and candidly that this is a very undesirable form of legislation, but if I had introduced the sections from the Transvaal Ordinance or had framed an entirely new Bill there would have been such a discussion—as appears this afternoon—that the matter would have been delayed indefinitely. It is a most urgent matter, and I therefore appeal to the good sense of the House, but if Parliament is prepared to say there is no reason for the Bill I will be satisfied and we will not legislate at all. Let us run the risk of every illicit dealer smuggling diamonds into Natal and being immune. The hon. member says I leave the House in the dark. That, however, is the very essence of the Bill, for we have to decide afterwards what sections shall be made applicable to Natal. If I have to say now the sections in advance which are to be made applicable I might as well introduce a detailed Bill and I have pointed out the risk of delay if I bring in a measure containing the actual wording.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The most important amendment in this Bill is the alteration in connection with water lights. Then we have further cleared up doubtful points in the existing law, and we have chiefly in that connection followed the procedure laid down by the court. There are also other new provisions included in this Bill. Before I deal with the most important point in the Bill I want to deal with the laws which have from time to time been in force in the Union, or in its various provinces, and I do so because through the courtesy of an hon. member of this House, a pamphlet has been handed me which sets out the Bill in an entirely neutral manner. Therefore I think it is necessary to know what the law of the Union was from time to time. The first law was of course that of our ancestors, the Common Law. That divided our waters into two groups, namely public streams and private streams. The owner’s rights over the stream differed considerably from each other. The public streams were navigable, but there was so much water that it could be used by a number of riparian owners who had the joint use of the water. Private waters were the dry streams and small fountains, which flower occasionally, but were not actually sufficient for joint use. Those were the provisions of our ancestors, but the rights to the streams differed considerably. Dry streams or private streams belonged entirely to farm owners, and they could use the water for any purpose, for irrigation, sale or otherwise. No one had the right of interfering with them. With regard to public streams, on the contrary, every man who was entitled to access to the river had the right to make use of it both for himself and his cattle. The riparian owners had the right to use the water for household purposes, and also for irrigation, but in that case subject to the other riparian owners. So that in times of drought they had to stop using the water for irrigation and also for cattle, because they had to allow sufficient water to run for primary purposes for the people lower down the river. The first amendment in the law was made in 1876 when the Cape Government, on the top of Table Mountain, made alterations and encroached to a certain extent on the rights of owners. Formerly he had the right to private streams, but in the Act of 1876 this right was taken away, and it was laid down that if a man wanted to lead a furrow and did not have sufficient opportunity of taking it out of the stream on his own ground, he might trespass on the land of another and lead his water from there. I do not say that is wrong, because I feel that the law-makers were anxious to encourage irrigation as much as possible, but I quote it because it is said that we are encroaching on certain owners’ rights, and I am therefore pointing out that as far back as 1876 a similar encroachment took place in the general interest to get as much ground as possible under irrigation. In 1906 another encroachment took place by permitting the building of dams in dry rivers. The Bill was then so amended that the streams were divided into running streams and dry streams. In dry streams, therefore, that is the private streams under the old Act, dams could also be constructed. The right of using all the water of a private stream was then restricted, and it was provided that only so much might be used by the dams that were built, that anyone who built such a dam might use the legitimate amount that he required, and no more. I think that the lawmakers did not take account then of the circumstances that if a surplus of a dry or running river was not conserved it ran into the sea, and the mistake was made that only a certain part of the water could be used. This mistake was rectified in 1907, and it was then laid down that dams might also be made in running rivers, and that the riparian owners only could use a just portion of the water there. In the Free State and Natal before the Union, they did not have any separate water statutes, but the matter was regulated by common law. There were only certain Acts with reference to water for railways. In 1908 an Irrigation Act was passed in the Transvaal which was specially intended to make provision with reference to surplus water, and which laid down what the normal stream of the waters shall be. At the commencement of Union the various Acts were co-ordinated into the Irrigation Act for the Union. It is possibly a pity that it was not called the Act on Water Rights of the Union of South Africa, because other Acts so often encroach upon the irrigation legislation, as I shall make clear presently. I feel, when dealing with such an important subject as irrigation, it is necessary to enquire into the requirements of the people, what the people want in the way of irrigation, and to gauge this with our experience during the last 16 years in irrigation legislation, and then to try to pass an Act which will as much as possible comply with the wishes of the population of the country. We must always bear in mind what is best for the population in general, and that was the view which I and my department took in drafting the Bill. Various things are dealt with in the Bill, and let me now, before I speak on the principle of the Bill, briefly touch on a few points which induced me to introduce it as soon as possible. In the first place it is very clear that when the Irrigation Act was drafted in 1912, the circumstances were very conflicting. The hypographic conditions in one place differed very much from those in another. It could, therefore, be expected that after 16 years’ experience there would be certain grievances to be removed and points in the Act requiring improvement. I have merely to call to mind the strong agitation in past years against the Irrigation Act. There are e.g. people who protest against the protection clause. Feelings ran so high that the former Government in 1923 appointed a commission of enquiry to ascertain where the Act was causing difficulties, and where there were hitches to make recommendations to the Government about amending the law. The commission consisted of well-known persons, namely Justices van Zyl, Louwrens and Jeppe, and the present Director of Irrigation, who has had long experience in irrigation matters. They travelled about the country and took evidence everywhere. A valuable report was issued by them in 1924 or 1925 with reference to the Irrigation Act, and I may say that a number of the recommendations have been incorporated in this Bill. The thief difficulty that we have always had in irrigation against the 1912 Act, is that the right is taken away in the protection clauses that a man could never build irrigation works for his family or posterity without paying compensation to all the people situated below the irrigation works. If protection is given to a certain area, then notice thereof is of course given, and the people who did not state that they intended to build irrigation works within ten years are thereafter excluded from building even the smallest dam for their cattle to drink at unless they pay compensation to all the people in the district. The result was dissatisfaction, and the people want this to be amended, and that the owners’ rights which were taken away from them in the 1912 Act should to a certain extent be restored to them. Although the commission was not entirely in agreement with this, I am glad to say that the irrigation congresses have discussed the matter from year to year, and they came to agreement last year at Port Elizabeth with regard to protection, and this was repeated in Cape Town this year. Some people ask what urgency there is for this Bill, and if it cannot go to a select committee before the second reading. The urgency is shewn by the experience of my department. The commission’s report shows that it was even impossible for judges to give a decision in connection with certain points which were not clear in the 1912 Act. Another point is that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) appealed to me in the House last year to put through the Bill, especially Clauses 15 and 16, and I then said that it was impossible to do it piecemeal, and that we would tackle the whole thing this year. The first difficulty, therefore, arose in connection with the protection clause in the old Act. In the new Bill we are trying as much as possible to meet objections and there are legitimate ones. There are cases of inequity. Take e.g. a man who has minor children surviving him. The children did not ask for permission to build dams under the old Act. There is a neighbour who is not very progressive and did not think of applying for permission to build dams, and his children who are possibly progressive, cannot build dams to-day. In other cases good farmers have bought farms, and according to the old Act they cannot even build a small dam. We have therefore started from the principle that we must meet those people in certain respects. We have therefore provided that in future three classes of dams can be built. The first kind is that of free water. In protected areas just as many dams can be built as the landowners require. The object is to entitle people who want smaller works to construct them. The only thing the Water Court will enquire into in such a case, is the proposed size of the works. The second kind of dam will hold up to 150,000,000 gallons of water. The dams also may be built, and the Water Court will only investigate whether they are sound economically. If so, they may be built. They are called “smaller works.” The third sort is larger works above 150,000,000 gallons of water. I may here possibly be accused of a little socialism because it is laid down that the court shall not grant all the dams applied for, but they shall view the matter from a broad national standpoint. They will only be allowed to be built when they will benefit the nation, and be payable dams. The Water Court will e.g. see that where there is merely an opportunity for one large dam in a river, four or five shall not be allowed to be built. That will prevent them all being failures and causing Parliament subsequently to have to write off amounts spent on the dams. The Water Court will only permit such dams to be built on a sound basis. Ninety-nine out of a hundred dams of that kind will of course be built from monies voted by Parliament, and I think it is not fair to build dams which are not economically sound. With reference to surplus water in connection with the building of dams, we have departed from the idea of proportional division of the water. In the past it was found impossible to divide the water proportionally. This may prevent there being five or six dams in a catchment area. If we could control the clouds and the rainfall equally in all the dams, then such a proportional division would Be possible, but because we have not got that power it is impossible even for a court to fix the proportional division, and it appeared in the past that it was impossible and the department is convinced of it. We are therefore abandoning it because it is practically impossible. I now come to the second important point in the Bill, namely, the provisions on “normal streams.” This is a very difficult and complicated matter, and it will possibly be best for me to read out what the commission says on the point. We have more or less followed their recommendations in this connection. I do not say that these provisions are perfect, but we have taken what, in our experience, has been the most practicable. Let me say that it appeared to be absolutely impossible to divide the normal streams proportionally. We never knew how much water A or B had used; the normal streams in times of drought often contain absolutely no water, but at other times they have plenty. They change, therefore, from time to time, and with regard to court cases no individual case was decided excepting a few small ones where it was possible, but all were settled by agreement out of court or by arbitrators. As we know what the position is, we just try to keep people out of court as much as possible, and to make a different division so that we do not rush people into costs. I therefore want to quote what the commission said at that time—

I move, pursuant to notice—

seconded.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) has an amendment to the instruction, but I regret I shall not be able to put it, as it would involve extra expenditure and therefore requires the Governor-General’s approval.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

stated the instruction to the committee.

On Clause 1,

I move—

I do it for the purpose, at a later stage, of moving that the Bill be recommitted to the select committee for the purpose of inserting a provision similar to that contained in the amendment. I want to bring before the committee the position in this Bill. There is a clause dealing with the condonation of breaks of service for pension purposes of men who went on strike in 1914. I want to bring before the attention of the committee the Railways and Harbours Service Act of 1925. Clause 28, wherein it is laid down by this House and has become the law that a railway servant who was discharged from the service on account of the rebellion in 1914 and who has been re-admitted to the service since the rebellion, is entitled to get his service before the rebellion taken into account for all purposes. I would submit to the committee that it is no greater sin, no greater crime on the part of a railway servant to go on strike with his fellows at a time of industrial disturbance than it is for a railway servant to go into rebellion against the Government of the country. The position is now that a railway servant who went into rebellion against the Government of the country, who took up arms against the constitution of the country, has had his break of service condoned for all purposes, long service increment, promotion, etc., whereas the man who in 1914 took his place with his fellows in an industrial disturbance and went on strike cannot have his break of service condoned for any purpose except pension purposes. I think if the Minister took the Bill back to the select committee and then asked for the Governor-General’s permission to incur this expenditure, which would not be great, he would be doing a thing which is only fair, just and right. I do not think it would take long for the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours to put that provision in. I understand that in committee it was proposed that it should go in, and the committee was not unfavourable, but the Governor-General’s warrant had not been obtained.

I rise to support the motion of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), and I do so because I do not think that this proposal will involve any appreciable delay in the passage of this Bill. We are anxious to see the Bill passed, but we want it passed in such a way that no unfair differentiation will be made between railwaymen who have gone on strike and railwaymen who have gone into rebellion. If the Minister is in favour of having no such differentiation, if he is in favour of railwaymen who went on strike securing the same rights as railwaymen who went into rebellion, then there is no reason why he should not accept the proposal of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo). Probably in a few days the Bill could again be brought before this committee and its passage would be facilitated. If, on the other hand, the Minister desires to continue this differentiation, then he will oppose the proposal of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo), but I believe that is the only method by which we can deal with the matter at the present stage. When the original Bill of 1925 was passed, it is rather peculiar that at that time the rights of railwaymen were apparently not taken into consideration at all. I do not know whether that was due to an oversight on the part of the Minister, or whether it was definitely due to his policy in making that differentiation, but, after all, I think the members of this committee will agree with me that, however antagonistic they may be to strikes, the withholding by workers of their labour because they do not get conditions that they are satisfied with is less heinous—

The hon. member (Mr. Kentridge) is going a little bit far. I gave the proposer of the motion a certain amount of latitude.

I do not want to go into the merits now. I am pointing out the differentiation which exists between one class of workers and another class of workers. I say I believe that hon. members of this committee will agree with me that this differentiation should not exist. I cannot understand why the provision was not made in the Bill of 1925, unless the Minister believes in the policy of differentiation. I am afraid it is not very creditable to the members of my own party, and particularly those members who are in the Cabinet to look after the interests of railwaymen, that they did not see that the men who went on strike in 1914 should be treated as well as the men who went into rebellion.

I quite agree with hon. members who spoke before me. I know some similar cases in my district. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) rightly said that there is very little difference between the strikers of 1914 and the subsequent ones. Why should the rights of those people who committed the same offence not be restored as well? It remains a grievance - with those people, and on the railways. I hope the Minister will accept the motion of the hon. member for Umbilo.

It is clear to me that the hon. member who spoke first (Mr. Reyburn) and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) do not fully understand the position. This matter has been very fully discussed in the select committee, and hon. members there asked me to submit a full statement dealing with all the different classes of servants mentioned by them. The matter would then be referred to the select committee, and the select committee would be in possession of all the facts. At a later stage legislation could possibly be introduced to cover the different cases. I agreed to do that, and I repeat that undertaking.

This session?

I do not say this session. Let me deal with the particular case. Hon. members do not seem to be in possession of all the information. The servants who went on strike in 1914 and were re admitted to the service almost immediately were dealt with under Act 7 of 1914. All those servants were placed in the position of having their break in service condoned not only for pension purposes, but all other purposes. These are dealt with under the Act of 1914. Under the Act of 1920, those who had a longer break in their service, in other words who had not been readmitted almost immediately after the strike, had the break of service condoned only for pension purposes. The men who went into rebellion fell into the same class as employees who went on strike and who were practically reinstated and whose cases were dealt with under Act 7 of 1914.

They were the ones who were black-listed.

No, because they were taken back into the service within the period of three years. In 1920 the House dealt with those cases, but only dealt with the cases of men who were members of some pension fund. The cases I now deal with are the remaining cases of men who went on strike in 1914, who were not reinstated and who did not fall under the Act of 1920 because they were not members of a pension fund. I hope that is clear.

For pension purposes only?

Yes, in the same way as those dealt with in 1920. I am placing these men in the same position, and I regret under these circumstances I am not able to accept the amendment.

I wish to say I support the motion of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn), because I am aware of a considerable amount of dissatisfaction that exists at the present moment in regard to the withholding of privileges to railwaymen who went out on strike in 1914.

I regret I cannot allow the hon. member to pursue that. Hon. members must give the reason why they want the committee to report progress.

On a point of order, is it not open to any member in supporting a motion to report progress to give the reasons why he thinks it desirable to report progress?

Members can discuss generally the position, but they must not plead for it.

Without going into any details, I should like to express myself as being in favour of this motion to report progress, because it involves a very weighty question and one causing a great deal of dissatisfaction among railwaymen who are affected. I think it is the duty of Parliament to liquidate these outstanding matters and to make an end of them once and for all. I hope the Minister will take this view of it and agree to the motion to report progress.

Let me again repeat that in 1920 cases of this kind were dealt with by the previous Government.

Not for all purposes.

I have admitted that, but I say that I am placing these men, who were also on strike and who were not reinstated, and placing them in the same position as the men dealt with in 1920. The House must realize that if the further benefits are granted to those employees who were not members of a pension fund then we must also extend it to men whose break was condoned under the Act of 1920.

And those who went to war?

Those who went to war have been treated very liberally.

No, they have not.

If my hon. friend can give me any case where this has not been done, I will go into it. I have promised the select committee a full memorandum about all these cases and I think the House might be satisfied with that. I will give the hon. member (Mr. Marwick) a reply privately why we cannot possibly agree to condone for all purposes either in this case or in the case of servants dealt with under the Act of 1920.

May I say, with due submission, that the Minister is begging the question? This was a discussion that took place in committee, and he was asked to get the information. We know he has at his disposal a large enough staff to get the information to enable him to review the matter under the present Bill. Under the Act of 1925 the men who went into rebellion are dealt with for purposes other than pension.

The hon. member cannot go into that question.

I am only pointing out what we want done. We say there is no reason whatever why men who went on strike—

The hon. member is now going into the merits of the Bill.

—should not be dealt with on the same basis.

After the Minister’s remarks, and in view of the fact that he held out no promise that a further Bill would be proceeded with during the present session, I think he should consider whether it would be possible to accept the motion to report progress and get the information he mentions at an early date. There is no violent hurry for this Bill. Cannot he see his way clear to accept this motion so as to give a little longer time for the memorandum to be prepared? I feel strongly that as the whole matter is not a particularly urgent one, and as the cases I am interested in are just as urgent as any provided for in this Bill, the Minister might agree to it. I hope he will accept the motion and see if we cannot deal with the whole of these cases during this session, so as to put an end to the many anomalies created under the old administration of the railways of this country.

The Minister knows I made constant representations about a case which came to my notice, and that would be affected by the motion of the hon. member. It is that of a man who has contended all along that he never went out on strike, but he was tried by the rough and ready tribunal of the day which went against him, and he has been punished as if he did go out on strike.

The hon. member is now going into the merits.

No, I am telling the Minister that progress should be reported and leave asked to sit again. If that is not done we shall not hear anything more about it this session. It is the only chance to make provision for this man; if it is not done it may be put off until the Greek kalends. We are still early in the session, and there is no reason why this Bill should not stand over for a few weeks.

I support the motion. The Minister has only one or two cases, and is not dealing with the cases that ought to be dealt with comprehensively. There is so much left out. Experience has shown that in the Service Act amendments are required. Cases are not provided for in this Bill, and they could be if the Minister would agree to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I think the Minister will realize there is a more widespread feeling than he thought at first. In view of what he has told us, it is desirable that this Bill should not be proceeded with while the point of break of service is still under consideration. This Bill ought to be put off for a week or a couple of weeks. The Bill of 1920 put some men right for pension purposes, but not for all purposes, like promotion. This is another Bill putting men on another basis, but not the same as the 1920 Bill.

I do not want any misunderstanding to exist. I made clear in the select committee that the Government are not prepared to go further than stated in this Bill. No good purpose can be served by further postponing this matter, and the Government are not inclined to include further classes. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) pressed the case of men with military service; the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Snow) dealt with apprentices, and there was the case mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn). I indicated to the committee that I was not prepared to extend the provisions of the Bill, but was willing to submit a memorandum on all those cases. The House or Government may in future, if so advised, pass further legislation, hut that must be left to them. I cannot accept the motion for the adjournment.

Are we to understand that if this finds itself back in the select committee, the Government is not disposed to put back men—

Yes, for the reasons I gave in the select committee, which, unfortunately, I cannot repeat now.

Motion put and the committee divided:

Ayes—15.

Allen, J.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Fordham, A. C.

Hay, G. A.

Kentridge, M.

Marwick, J. S.

McMenamin, J. J.

Nel, O. R.

Pearce, C.

Reyburn, G.

Robinson, C. P.

Snow, W. J.

Strachan, T. G.

Tellers: Alexander, M.: Waterston, R. B.

Noes—71.

Basson, P. N.

Bates, F. T.

Bergh, P. A.

Brink, G. F.

Buirski, E.

Chaplin, F. D. P.

Cilliers, A. A.

Close, R. W.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Deane, W. A.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, W. B.

Duncan, P.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Geldenhuys, L.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Harris, D.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Jagger, J. W.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Keyter, J. G.

Lennox, F. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Malan, C. W.

Malan, D. F.

Moffat, L.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Nathan, E.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Oost, H.

Papenfus, H. B.

Pienaar, J. J.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reitz, D.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Hees, A. S.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Watt, T.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

Clause, os printed, put and agreed to.

On new Clause 9 proposed by select committee,

I move—

Agreed to.

Proposed new clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed;

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to; and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading on 29th February.

Will the Minister consider the case of men who retire before this Bill can come into operation? I know in my constituency quite a number of men have been compelled to retire on account of age. In the select committee it was stated that the measure could not be made retrospective, and such cases as I have referred to would be dealt with from the charitable fund, as hitherto. The Bill we have just passed is made retrospective till September, 1925. Cannot something of the same sort be done in this Bill, for in the mere matter of machinery there would be a saving rather than that the men should have to appeal to the charitable fund? Unfortunately, I cannot move anything myself, as it would mean additional expenditure.

I move—

The Government has decided to adopt the amendment moved in the select committee, altering six to ten days, and we have received the Governor-General’s consent, but that consent, unfortunately, was not notified to the House when Mr. Speaker was in the chair.

Will the Minister consider at the same time, the point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh)?

It will not be possible to do what the hon. member suggests. We have never made a Bill of this kind retrospective. If we make it retrospective for one year, why not for three, four or live years?

Make it from the introduction of the Bill.

I will consider that point.

Motion put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; House to resume in committee on 29th February.

I move—

I think it is necessary to apologize to the House for introducing this Bill. It is only two years since we introduced a Bill on settlements, and we then hoped that that Bill would stand for years, without fresh legislation being necessary. Hon. members will, however, see that in administering such an Act certain alterations become necessary in the existing Acts and regulations. Nor do I believe that we have already reached the end of them. We have already had to make many amendments since the 1912 Act. Amendments have also become necessary now in the Act of 1925, and they are made in this Bill. There are a few administrative amendments, but it is not necessary to go into them now. The first important amendment is in Clause 3. The reason is that in the Land Settlement Act there is no provision for the abuses named in this clause, namely, additional compensation in connection with the purchase of ground by the Government. At an ordinary sale there is a hold upon anyone who makes a false declaration, but there is no provision of that sort in connection with purchases by the Government. One instance, inter alia, was brought to my notice the other day, unfortunately I cannot prove it. A certain price was paid for a farm, but the price was actually higher than the purchaser could pay and the seller then agreed to include the one-tenth in the price, with the result that the ground was bought and the Land Board valued it for the price including the one-tenth. The seller and purchaser afterwards divided the balance. That is, therefore, a way of evasion and fraud which cannot be allowed. In many cases the one-tenth is included in the purchase price, and the result is that the Government pays because the seller proves to the Land Board that the one-tenth has been paid. The intention, of course, is that the purchaser shall pay one-tenth, and the State nine-tenths. There are other instances. The Land Board possibly values ground lower than the price the seller wants. Then the purchaser agrees to buy at that price, but subsequently he pays an additional sum upon the purchase price notified to the Land Board. In this way transfer duty is evaded, and it causes a man to give more for the ground than he can actually afford, and he does not retain sufficient working capital. The Land Board takes into consideration whether a man possesses sufficient capital to build a house and to cultivate the ground properly. It sees that there is further capital to work the ground, but if a part is surreptitiously paid to the seller, then he does not retain sufficient, with the result that he fails. Hon. members will see that we are taking steps to make such deceit no longer possible. The second important amendment is that when a man buys ground under Clause 16, he also will get two years’ grace before starting with the instalments. Under Clause 11 he gets two years, and only commences paying instalments in the third year, but anyone hiring ground under Clause 16 only gets one year’s grace. That is very short for him to so arrange matters as to have sufficient income in the second year to pay the instalments and carry on his farming. I think that is not fair, and I therefore propose that Clause 16 should also allow two years. When we remember that most of the land issued under Clause 16 is ground situated at a distance, then it is no more than reasonable that two years’ grace should also be given here. Then there is another provision Hon. members will know that the law protects contracts for ten years, but we must make an exception in the case of the Land Bank and irrigation boards. They must have the right, when someone does not pay water rates, to sell the lease. Another important provision is with regard to irrigation settlements. Provision is made in the law for certain advances being made to settlers, but the further one is being made here that people on irrigation settlements, i.e., land where dams are constructed and a certain part is irrigated, who will not pay the water rates, can get help. They are usually poor people, and have not the capital to prepare the ground, and to wait until such time as it produces something. Most people go in for fruit growing, and the growing of lucerne, etc. The Bill provides for advances for these objects also. These people will be able to get advances for preparing the ground, the planting of trees and for their maintenance until they get something out of the ground. This is an important provision, and I shall move an amendment in committee to make one point still clearer with regard to irrigated ground. We further have the provision that when anyone obtains land from the state under the Land Settlement Act, he is obliged to occupy it personally and cultivate it. This makes it impossible for anyone who cannot live there personally to get such ground. We know that there are sheep farmers, especially in the Cape Province who, in consequence of drought, are compelled to trek with their sheep. If such farmers can get ground under the irrigation schemes and grow lucerne there, although they do not personally reside there, then they will be able to use it in time of drought, and thousands of sheep will be saved. I think that we must not only think of the settler, but also of the people. They can pay one-tenth or more under Clause 11. The law lays down that one-tenth is the minimum. Say such a farmer buys a piece of ground and plants lucerne which pays a little, he can then use the ground in time of drought. I think that this departure from the law as it now stands is justified. I am thinking chiefly of pieces of irrigable land that escaped and that the state does not want to take over. Another important alteration is that where land is taken back, if anyone’s contract is cancelled and he is not personally to blame, but it is due to locusts or other misfortune, and the Minister is convinced that it is not the man’s fault, then he can be discharged from the payment of interest, i.e., rent. This, however, only applies to people getting ground under Clause 16. My intention was to apply it also to people under Clause 11, but the legal advisers say that it will not apply to them. There are still a few administrative alterations about the land boards, etc., but I have mentioned the chief points. I think hon. members will agree that the alterations are necessary, and that they will be improvements on the existing law. There is still another important point which I nearly forgot. Under the present law the people who come on to Crown land, that they have bought under Clause 7, are in a very unfavourable condition. They also pay only one-tenth, and the rest is spread over 40 years, but in that case the purchaser not only has to pay one-tenth, but also has to commence immediately with the half-yearly instalments, and I think that is not fair. We want to give them two years’ time as well. A man who buys from a private individual gets two years, whereas the man who buys from the state gets no grace. That is unfair, and we are putting it right here. I hope the House will now agree to take the second reading.

I think this is a very useful little Bill, and I hope that the House will pass it as it stands. The clauses are nearly all administrative ones, tending to facilitate the administration of the Land Settlement Act, and they all tend in the direction of helping the settler. The only important innovation that I can see is Clause 9, and I think that will probably be found a very useful one, whereby the Minister, under certain circumstances, will be entitled to grant outside farmers a plot of ground in an irrigation area. I take it that that is the intention of the Minister. I do not think there is anything more I can add, except this—that I would congratulate the Lands Department and the Minister on bringing forward this Bill, and I hope the House will pass it.

May I be allowed to add my congratulations to the Minister in introducing this Bill? I am very much struck with Clause 8. I think it is an extremely good clause. It gives my hon. friend the opportunity, in the case of suitable applicants, to make them advances for the purpose of bringing their holdings into a condition in which they can take advantage of the water supplied there. I was very much struck in Western Australia in seeing these small settlements. So anxious were the Western Australian Government to secure a suitable class of people on the land that in forest areas, where a great deal of felling of timber had to be done, the immigrants got £3 a week for three years for the purpose of allowing them to sustain themselves and their families while they were bringing the land into a cultivable condition and, as there were some cases of people who were not, perhaps, taking the full advantage that they should have taken of the opportunity of developing their land, a system was afterwards devised whereby their work was assessed, and they were given so much per acre for bringing the ground into cultivation and felling the timber, with the result that in Western Australia there are a large number of small holders, who had no capital, who received these advances from the state, establishing themselves as a thriving yeoman population. I think that is the idea that is influencing the Minister in trying to do something in the same direction here. If you have the land and you have the water, but you have not the wherewithal to bring that land into a cultivable condition, there is very little profit likely to be made out of it. The land in the cases to which I referred in Western Australia is given to the settler for nothing. I know that my hon. friend is desirous to see a certain amount of the land in the north-western districts developed. I know the late Mr. Merriman often stated that there are some portions of the north-western districts that it would pay the state to give to the settler for nothing, if he would only go there and develop the land. It is only by getting a pioneer population in that part of the world that my hon. friend will be able to develop the waste lands of the country. I congratulate the Minister upon introducing this Bill, which, as my hon. friend the member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) has said, will receive the support of both sides of the House.

I want to heartily congratulate the Minister on the provisions in this Bill to remedy defects in the principal Act, and to remove difficulties. I support what was said by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), namely, that if there is ground which the Minister cannot sell, it would be better to sell it practically for nothing, or for a very low price to people who will work it. I am now thinking of a piece of ground which is practically covered with prickly pear. The ground is neglected, and later on it will cost more to clean it than to work it. I quite agree that where the ground can be sold advantageously it should be done. There is another point I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice, namely, the difficulty of getting applications for ground approved. There are many applications from people in the drought-stricken districts, who would like to move into the irrigable places. They are not men of straw, but chiefly people who have been independent, and would like to become so again if the Minister will give them a chance. The difficulty, however, is that the works have not yet been inspected by the appointed commission, and have not yet been put on a firm basis. In the meantime the applications stand over, some for more than a year. I want to appeal to the Minister to assist these people. I hope the commission will put the irrigation works on a profit-showing basis as soon as possible, so that the people can go there to make a living. The Minister must have the farm inspected as soon as possible, and take care that the commission makes progress. I am not afraid to say what the commission’s report will be. I know what it will be. All I want is an investigation. We have heard a good deal of the surplus ground under irrigation. The commission made a few good points about that ground. They are convinced that the works will not cover their cost as long as the surplus ground is not worked. This is one of the difficulties which is removed when the applications for ground are approved. I appeal to the Minister.

I want to congratulate the Minister on the Bill. The country already has much to thank the present Minister of Lands for the legislation he has introduced on land settlement. We have a Bill here so fair to the poor people that they will be better assisted than in any other part of the world. The principal Act has already done a great deal of good, and now the Minister introduces a Bill which will provide for special cases. When the Minister comes to retire, it will be admitted that he has contributed very much to bringing the poor people back on to the land.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 29th February.

I move—

The provisions of this Bill are almost self-evident, and for that reason it is unnecessary for me to make any lengthy explanation or to use any arguments. Let me just explain that under the Union Education Department there are four different classes of institutions. The first class comprises universities and university colleges. The second class consists of technical institutes and continuation classes. These continuation classes are allied to the technical colleges. The third class under the department consists of industrial schools established under the Children’s Protection Act, and the fourth class consists of vocational schools and special schools which have been transferred from time to time from the provinces to the Union Education Department. As far as the first class is concerned, universities and university colleges, these are administered each of them by their own special Acts. As far as the second class is concerned—technical institutes—these are administered by an Act which was passed by my predecessor in office in 1923, so provision for proper administration there is provided for. As far as the industrial schools are concerned under the Children’s Protection Act, they have been established under that Act and they are properly administered under that Act, so for the administration there is proper Parliamentary sanction. In recent years a class of schools, vocational schools and industrial schools and other special schools, have been taken over from the provinces, and the Bill which is introduced now makes proper provision for the administration of these schools. To a certain extent legislation with regard to these schools has already been passed by Parliament. For instance, in 1922 provision was made in the Financial Adjustments Act for power to the Union Government to take over such schools from the provinces, so when these schools were taken over when the financial relations between the Union Government and the provinces were revised a few years ago, there was legislative sanction for that in the Act. Under that power then given, immediately after certain institutions were actually taken over; for instance, the Technical Institute in Cape Town and the Technical Institute in Durban. Further, we find in 1925, under the Financial Adjustment Act of that year, provision was made that no member of the staff of any of these institutions taken over from the provinces should be placed after transfer in a less favourable position than that in which he had been placed before the transfer of these schools. As hon. members know, during the last few years Parliament voted the money necessary for the administration of these schools taken over from the provinces, but as far as the administration of these schools itself goes, they are still administered to-day under the provincial ordinances which applied to them when they were still under the provinces. The only change that has been made is that the Minister of Education takes the place of the Administrator; but the Minister must keep to the provincial ordinances, differing from each other, which had been in existence before these schools were taken over. Everybody will admit that this is a very unsatisfactory condition. These schools form part, or ought to form part, of one system under the control of the Union Department, and for this reason these ordinances have to be done away with, and they ought to be under one uniform Union law. It is also necessary to provide for the proper definition of the position of members of the teaching staff in these various institutions, because these schools, being part of one Union system, it is very often necessary for the department to transfer an officer from one school to another, and even from one province to another. The schools to which this Bill refers fall broadly into two classes; one, vocational schools, and the other, special schools. Vocational schools comprise industrial schools, commercial schools, agricultural schools—as far as they are under the Union Education Department—and domestic science schools. All these classes of schools existed under the provinces, and have been taken over by the Union Education Department. Special schools comprise schools for physical and mental defectives; for instance, the school for the deaf and dumb, and for the blind, in Worcester. The reason why schools of this character have been taken over by the Union Government under the powers given in 1922 was that these schools, as a matter of economy, should, as far as possible, be not provincial but inter-provincial; for instance, the school at Worcester should provide for the blind and the deaf and dumb, not for one province, but for all the provinces. This is the most economical way of setting about the matter. These schools have been taken over, and provision must be made in this Bill for their proper administration. There is another provision applying to these schools, with which the Bill deals—the division into State schools and State-aided schools. State schools are such as we find at George under the Children’s Protection Act, at Heidelberg, King William’s Town, and various other places—which stand solely under the Union Education Department—and there are other schools which are State-aided; and under this class fall all special schools, as exist today; for instance, the school at Worcester for the blind, deaf and dumb—which are not State institutions, but State-aided institutions. The Bill generally provides, in the first place, for power given to the Minister to establish, maintain and control such schools. All these schools are to be considered under this Bill as fee-paying schools, and special provision is made in the Bill to meet cases of indigent children, so that in some cases the fees can be reduced, and in other schools may be altogether free.

Some of these schools are free at present.

Yes. Take the agricultural schools; there is one at Tweespruit in the Orange Free State, which is doing excellent work, but has provided so far for the child of very poor parents; others were systematically excluded, but the farmers in the neighbourhood came to me and said—

We therefore lay down the principle that alt schools shall be fee-paying, but for the indigent child special provision shall be made. I think that is a sound principle generally.

Does that apply to Natal?

Yes, to all schools. As to the position of the staff, with regard to salaries and pension rights, members of the teaching staff will be generally taken as civil servants, and the salaries and pension rights will be determined as if they were civil servants; that is, we are getting a recommendation in the first instance, from the Public Service Commission, the Minister concerned agrees to that, and then it becomes operative. The officer’ pension rights will be determined on the same basis—that is, as for the ordinary civil servant. This is also applicable to certain members of the teaching staff of State-aided schools. Let me take, as a particular instance again, the school at Worcester for the blind, deaf and dumb. It has been found that it is impossible for the church, which has begun that work, and carried on that work for many years, to make proper provision for the teaching at that school. The salaries paid were very low, and for that reason the teaching was very unsatisfactory—certainly not on modern lines. There is another reason—we wish as far as possible to use that institution for the whole of the Union. We thought it best that we should leave to the church the control of any boarding school in connection with that institution, and give the same right to other churches if they desire to establish their hostels in connection with that school to have the control of these hostels, but the teaching itself, so far as it is special teaching of the deaf, dumb and blind, will be the responsibility of the State. So the appointment of the teachers will be in the hands of the State, which will have the power to dismiss members of the staff, and have their control. That is the most economic arrangement, and it is certainly on sound lines. Those members of the staff whose salaries are paid solely by the State, we bring as far as salaries and conditions are concerned into lines with members of the staff of not exclusively State institutions. The Bill makes provision for the appointment and transfer by the Minister of teachers from one institution to another. It is necessary that we should co-ordinate these institutions as far as possible. There is a slight variation from the procedure followed in the case of ordinary civil servants. The latter cannot be appointed or transferred except on recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. We recognize that as far as teachers are concerned, where something more is required than mere knowledge, they have to form the character of the children and, therefore, they must have special qualifications. In these cases it is much better that the appointments and transfer of teachers should be a departmental matter. In this respect the teachers in the schools with which the Bill deals are placed on the same footing as members of the teaching staff of provincial schools, but so far as the fixing of the establishment and determining of salaries are concerned, that will be done by the Minister on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission and after consultation with the Treasury. So far as the extension of these schools is concerned, the increase of expenditure generally will be under the control not only of the Minister, but of the Public Service Commission and the Treasury. With regard to discipline, the middle way is followed between the Civil Service and the ordinary staff in ordinary schools, colleges and universities. Generally speaking, the members of the staff are brought under the Public Service Commission in regard to discipline, but in certain respects a little more latitude is given to prevent any restrictive interference with the duties of these teachers to form character, impart knowledge and lay the foundations of good citizenship. One more point. Under the Financial Adjustments Act of 1925, teachers were safeguarded against any reduction of salary or pension right as the result of the transfer of the schools from the provinces to the Union. This measure takes the place of that provision, under the Financial Relations Act, and for that reason teachers who were taken over from the provinces are given the option to retain unaltered their position, so far as salary and pension rights are concerned, under the 1925 or other Act, or they can voluntarily accept the conditions and benefits of this particular Act. This is merely a protection of vested interests.

I have nothing to say against this Bill. It is part of the long and painful process by which we are getting out of the hopeless position that was created by the National Convention in regard to our educational system. We have been trying ever since 1910 to divide education by a horizontal division. It was laid down in the Act of Union that education other than higher education belongs to the provinces. That apparently simple division we have been trying to adjust to the actual necessities of people and the country. I do not know whether anybody can tell whether technical education, for instance, is education or education other than higher education. We have, at any rate, come to the conclusion that native education is higher education, because it has been taken away from the provincial authorities. We have decided that education of defective children must be regarded as higher education. The needs of the people demand that it must be done under the National Government. This is another stage in the long and painful process by which we are striving to escape from the hopeless condition laid down under the South Africa Act. As such, I wish all success to the Bill, and I wish we could take primary education away from the provinces and have a national system, but that I am not optimistic enough to expect to come at once, but it will come one day. It is not clear from the Bill whether the term “special needs” is meant to include mentally as well as physically defective children. Will it include the Alexandra Institution? Then the definition of special school as being a school for defective children only intends to include physically defective children. According to the definition which I overlooked, defective children means physically or mentally defective other than those certifiable under the Mental Disorders Act of 1916. I take it, therefore, that special schools will deal with mentally deficient children who are not certifiable under the Mental Disorders Act. Such children, while not being certifiable are yet mentally deficient and are not fit to associate with ordinary children in ordinary schools. The ordinary schools do not want them and the institutions for mentally defective persons cannot take them because they are not certifiable, and we do not know what to do with them. I hope the Minister will get one or two schools to deal with children of that kind. I take it that under vocational schools will go ordinary technical colleges.

No, they are under the Act of 1923.

So this Bill will deal with schools for vocational education which have not yet attained to the status of technical colleges.

Industrial schools like that at Oudtshoorn and Uitenhage.

Well, I have nothing against the Act; it is another stage in a progress which I hope will be rapidly accomplished and, as such, I support the second reading.

I appreciate what the Government has done to tackle technical and vocational schools which in the past were neglected between the provinces and the State. The late Government, when in office, did a great deal of talking of what they were going to do for vocational and technical education. Lately they are doing very little talking because they see the error of their ways. They realize now there is a Government with a policy, and in that policy they are holding out a helping hand to the mentally defective.

What about mentally defective members?

Do you want personal assistance? Let us deal with a few figures. This Government, on taking office, took over the technical institutes, then under the control of the provincial authorities.

Who took over the Cape one?

I did a little bit in the Government taking over the Cape one. As a former member of the provincial council, let me say we gingered up the Government. The Nationalists and Labour parties worried the administrator of the Cape so that he began to worry Mr. Burton, then the Minister of Finance.

And the Government then took you over.

Yes, and the Government took me over too, and I believe they were wise in their action on account of the work I had done in the provincial council in the interests of technical and provincial training.

Why didn’t you stay there?

The people preferred me to be here. In the provincial council we forced the hand of the late Government. When this Government took office they had 3,841 students only, we have over 16,000 at the present time, showing an increase of over 12,000 students at technical institutes. We have not finished yet.

Haven’t you?

This Bill does not deal with technical institutions. You have evidently not read it.

It goes a good deal further. In this Bill we are taking over schools which the late Government were using as a kind of brake to pacify certain individuals. Whenever there was an outcry about blind and mentally defective boys, the late Government worried the churches to take them over. This Government is altering that. We are also taking over agricultural institutions. I am sorry in this Bill the Minister does not go a step further in regard to the status of teachers. Why are the teachers on a lower status than the teachers in the universities. It is wonderful to think that the teachers of dead languages or theology are termed professors, but those who instruct boys to be practical and useful citizens and valuable assets to the State, they are called teachers, and must rank on a lower status.

Give us the figures.

Let me quote a few more figures. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who is an expert on figures, will find on an analysis, that we have a long way to go before we play the game to the youth of this country in regard to technical and vocational training. Even if this Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, we shall still occupy a lower status so far as equity to the wage-earning class is concerned than any other country on the face of God’s earth. If we leave out primary education and take the money that is spent on other subjects, that is technical, vocational, scholastic and theological, what do we find? In Great Britain out of each £100 of State funds they are spending £6 on university subjects and £94 on the technical and vocational training of the youth of the country. Let us take Germany. I am quoting the figures prior to the Great War. In Germany for every £21 they were spending on university subjects, out of State funds, they were spending £79 on vocational and technical subjects. We acknowledge that Germany has turned out efficient tradesmen, in fact, tradesmen second to none in the world. What happened in France? France spent £18 out of each £100 of State funds on the scholastic subjects taught by the university which the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) and others had the advantage of. France, however, spent £82 on technical, vocational and other subjects which made the youth of France better men. I have nothing to say against university education. I am sorry I did not have it. Nevertheless there are few openings for men who have gone through the universities compared to the openings that exist for boys who have passed through the technical and vocational institutes. Now what happens in South Africa? Out of each £100 provided by the State, we are spending £81 on university subjects, compared with £19 on technical, vocational and mental institutions. I say it is a crying shame that in South Africa we are so backward. It is true that this Government has done a great deal. I acknowledge that in the three-and-a-half years this Government has been in office it has done a great deal. Nevertheless we have to realize, as members of Parliament, and as representing the people of South Africa, that we have to try and build up the country on a sure foundation. For that reason I think the Minister should go a step further and say that when we have teachers employed in these technical, vocational, mental and other institutions, that they, at least, should be put on the same basis as those who are teaching in the universities, who are teaching subjects which it may be are beneficial for the few, but for the greater benefit of South Africa are not to be compared with the institutions I have mentioned. I dare say the Minister expects a great deal from these teachers. He has told us that at least these teachers should be put on a better basis than is even laid down in this Bill. I shall not weary the House on this occasion, because the rest of my speech would be in appreciation of the great work the Minister has done in the cause of education compared with what previous Ministers did.

I want to say a few words on the subject mentioned in this Bill. The Bill authorizes the taking over of the Deaf and Dumb Institute at Worcester. It is only our duty to say here what a great debt we owe to the Dutch Reformed Church for what it has done in connection with the education of the deaf and dumb and the blind in Worcester. In the old days the State took practically no direct interest in the establishment of such an institution, and the Church established one there which is a great honour to our country, and which has proved of great assistance to the blind and deaf and dumb children. We certainly ought to express our thanks here to the man at the head of the institution, Mr. de la Bat, a man who has given up his whole life for an honourable cause. He has now retired after lifelong devotion to this honourable work. To-day he has left the service with a very small reward for what he has done. The State was unable to add anything to it. The Minister was not able to increase the pension. Mr. de la Bat is a man of high character, who will not come to Parliament to ask for an increase of pension. If, however, the Government, as an appreciation, and not as reward for the work that he has done, should introduce a motion to give him a pension as acknowledgment of all the good he has brought about, then I am certain such a motion would be unanimously passed as an acknowledgment of the work of which South Africa will for many years yet reap the fruit. I am certain that there is a feeling in the House amongst all parties that if the Minister proposed to acknowledge the services of Mr. de la Bat to South Africa, the motion would be received with approval in the House. The taking over of the institution by the Government is a wise step. It is a national matter and ought not to be controlled by the Church. The Minister now admits that the State has a great duty to such institutions. The taking over is therefore also an honour to our Church. The State can now carry on the good work of the Church. I got up with the object of bringing these points to the notice of the Minister. There is another matter, vocational education. In my constituency it is being felt more and more, especially at Elgin, where the fruit industry has spread very largely, that there is a need for an institution to acquaint boys and girls with the knowledge of handling fruit. There are quite 200 young people working on one farm to-day packing and sorting fruit. According as the industry extends, the work is becoming more and more technical, and the farmers are beginning to think that a school ought to be established, connected with another school, or separate, where the young people can be trained to acquire a proper knowledge of this branch of the industry. The fruit industry is already one of the largest in our country. The packing, sorting, and thinning out of fruit, and the pruning of trees is becoming more and more technical. Instruction must be given, not necessarily by a great agricultural expert, but preferably by a man of experience who can teach the boys to sort and pack. Capable sorters and packers get £1 a day on the farms plus board and lodging. This kind of work will probably be a good way out for our sons. We then keep young people in touch with the countryside, and it is a matter which deserves support, we talk a lot about the extension of the industry. I am a supporter of it, but I already see the time coming when there will be no further extension possible, and that there will be no extension of the field of employment. The cultivation of the earth is, however, unlimited. The field of employment in the countryside is unlimited, and the future of the sons of South Africa is in farming. Our country is meant by providence for the development of the earth, and that is the great industry which our people will build up. If the Minister can take steps in the direction mentioned, if he thinks he can establish such a school, then he can start with it at Elgin, where the boys from Villiersdorp and Drakenstein can also come. The Minister of Agriculture has already a petition asking him to train the young boys in this department in the interests of the country. The Minister saw them work there, and it pleased him to see 40 boys and girls in a large room employed in packing fruit, and he even addressed them.

I am certain that the House is thankful to the Minister for this Bill. From the day this Government took over vocational education from the provincial councils, we have waited for it to introduce legislation to encourage vocational education. The boy on the counrtyside has little opportunity to-day, after leaving the ordinary school, to continue his studies. Proper provision is never made for vocational training, and the boy who wants to have a profession has all the facilities. The primary school exists to train for the secondary and the secondary for the university, but the child who wants to go in for a trade has much trouble. There is another point that I want to call the Minister’s attention to. It is in connection with housing at the existing schools. At Jacobsdal, e.g., very poor provision is made. I hope the Minister will also give his attention to this matter. I am very glad that in the Bill he meets parents who cannot pay for the education. There are various people who will now be enabled to benefit by the exemption of the part payment. It gives many of our boys a chance of continuing their studies. I am only sorry that the Minister has not gone a little further in this free education, because in the Free state and Transvaal we have free education up to matric. Now the parents who want their children to take vocational training must pay. This again gives the child who wants to take a profession a privilege over the child learning a trade. The last point I want to mention is Clause 14. I think it goes too far. It is only said that a parent or a guardian is responsible for all expenses in connection with a pupil, if he leaves the school without permission of the department, but par. 2 goes so far as to say that such a person can be fined, and even imprisoned. I think it goes too far. The parent possibly has a good reason for taking the child out of school, while the department does not consider it a sufficient reason. I can agree with the provision that the parent should refund the expenses, if there is no reason for the removal of the pupil, but the penalties are too great. I hope the Minister will withdraw this clause. I rose to say that the country is very grateful to the Minister for this Bill.

I am glad about the powers the Minister is obtaining to establish vocational schools, and I want to express my thanks for the special power he has taken to establish special schools. This Bill provides for two kinds of children. The one kind consists of children with physical disabilities, and the other of mental deficients. The poor children with physical disabilities had no other refuge in the past but the ordinary school. There they found things rather difficult. Nevertheless, many of them made a success of their lives, but most of them did not have an opportunity of making an independent living. It is felt that there should be separate schools for such children. It is just as necessary for the sub normal children. We have already made provision for mental deficients in our country. A few years ago, moreover, provision was made for mental deficients, but there is another class, namely, the sub-normals who really lack the gifts to follow the lessons in the ordinary schools. The children generally get the undeserved blame of their teachers, and are accordingly discouraged and go into life disheartened, and then often turn out failures. The Bill makes provision for this very class, so that in future there will be less failures than before. We have made tremendous progress with the education of sharp-witted and normal children, but we have done nothing yet for the subnormal, although it is the duty of the state to also provide for them.

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

I move—

As was the case with the previous measure I introduced, the case for this Bill is very self-evident. Legislation of this nature is certainly long overdue, and should have been passed long ago. The Bill proposes to remedy defects in the legislation with regard to adulteration. In the absence of amending legislation, the public is imposed upon and seriously defrauded. As matters stand at present, we have conditions deleterious to health and the honest trader in the country is at a disadvantage. The existing laws with regard to the adulteration of food and drugs are unsatisfactory. There is no uniformity, and the existing laws are old, obsolete and totally inadequate to deal with the position. The most recent legislation we have in regard to this matter was that passed by the Free State in 1906 and by Natal in 1901, so that the most recent legislation we have in two of the provinces is in one ease 22 years old and in the other 27 years old. Even then the legislation is much older than it appears to be, because the adulteration laws in these two provinces are based on the Cape Act as it then existed, and this was passed in 1890, so that in reality in these three provinces the adulteration laws are 38 years old. Even this age is not correctly described, because the Cape Act again is practically the same as the English Act passed in 1875, so that our anti-adulteration legislation in this country is really no less than 53 years old. In the Transvaal there is really no legislation at all in regard to this matter, and the few enactments in connection with adulteration which have been passed were passed 33 or 34 years ago, and the enforcement of these anti-adulteration measures have been left to the municipalities. In some cases the municipalities have enforced them, but that is only true of the few larger municipalities. Practically there is no legislation in the Transvaal with regard to that matter, and since these laws were passed great changes have taken place in the trade in the country. Some say honesty generally has suffered amongst the trading community, but I will not say that, but there is so much adulteration going on in the country that it justifies Parliament in taking action to amend the law. Let me quote official figures. In various years large numbers of samples have been taken of foods and drugs and have been analysed. Of all the samples taken in one year, the number found to be adulterated was over 5 per cent. In another year over 6 per cent., another year 6½ per cent., another year 7 per cent., and in one year over 10 per cent. That shows there is a serious position in the country with regard to adulteration. Apart from that, the existing laws only try to prevent harmful adulterations. There is adulteration going on in recent years of quite a different nature. Not so much is it harmful to health, but articles sold are spurious and mis-described, and in that way dishonest traders defraud the public by adulteration, and it is high time that against that sort of thing the public should be protected. Take, for instance, butter in the market in Cape Town. Recently 22 samples have been taken of butter sold on the Cape Town market. Of the 22 samples, six were found to contain from 11 per cent. to 23 per cent. of foreign fat. It is not harmful, but it is defrauding the public.

Is that not against the definition of butter in the Dairy Act? They can be prosecuted for that.

Yes, I think that is so, and that is the position to-day. Take, for instance, coffee, a subject in which every member takes a special interest. The digestion of members of Parliament depends upon being supplied with the proper stuff, and upon the digestion depends the temper of Parliament. Take coffee. No less than 17 kinds of coffee are sold in the country as first-class coffee, and they are all made of a cheap kind of Rio coffee, and in some cases, as an hon. member said, might not contain coffee at all. We have no legislation to deal with that position. Take disinfectants. The Bill provides for anti-adulteration methods in the case of disinfectants. The public health depends upon whether disinfectant bought as such has disinfecting power. If a hospital buys disinfectant and proves it has not got disinfecting powers, it might create a dangerous position in the hospital, and it was only right to bring under the law disinfectants for which there is no provision in the country today. What I have said is enough to show that unless we amend existing laws the public is defrauded, and we get a position deleterious to health and a position which is unfair to the honest producer and the honest trader.

Do you take powers to deal with old and obsolete tinned stuff?

Yes, I think so, in this Bill. I need say very little about the general clauses of the Bill. It has been drawn up after a careful study of the legislation in other countries, particularly Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America, and it has been introduced at the definite request of the chambers of commerce in the country and also the chambers of industry and the Union Council of Public Health and all the larger municipalities and last, but not least, on the insistent demand of the Board of Trade and Industries. The demand for legislation of this nature has been very general and very insistent during recent years. The Bill, after it had been drawn up, has been sent to all these bodies and has been approved of. If there were any differences, any criticism, it was only on minor points, but in general it has been approved of by all these bodies concerned. All I can add is that I propose after the second reading to move that this Bill be sent to select committee, and that select committee can deal with it and take any evidence it likes, and I hope, seeing that this measure has been so long overdue, that it will go on to the statute book during this session.

I do not want to delay the House and I shall not do so I only wish to say that I entirely agree with what the Minister says, that this Bill or a Bill of this kind is long overdue, and it will certainly be to the advantage of the public of South Africa if this Bill can be passed into law during this session. As the Minister has stated that he proposes to send this Bill to a select committee after the second reading, it does not seem to me that we need spend much time discussing it on the second reading, because most of the points arising in the Bill are points of detail which can very properly be discussed in select committee. The only point that occurs to me in looking through the Bill is whether sufficient provision is made for carrying the Bill into effect. I see that in Clause 3 it is proposed that. [Clause read.] But, after all, local authorities are not too anxious as a rule to incur any additional expenditure which does not bring them in a corresponding revenue, and I would like to see that adequate facilities are provided for enforcing the Act in these local authorities where the Minister entrusts to the municipality, or whatever it may be, the duty of carrying out the Act. And also, what is to be done in regard to areas outside the local authorities, because it certainly is important that this Act should be enforced not merely in the larger towns, but also in the smaller towns and the country districts. That was the only point on which it seemed to me the Act was not very explicit, but otherwise we are all agreed on the principle of the Act, and I think in select committee we can bring this Bill into a form in which it will be of great advantage to the public. There is no doubt whatever that a Bill of this kind is long overdue, and I certainly have no objection to the second reading.

I want to detain the House for a few moments in the hope that the select Committee may deal with two points which occur to me as a result of representations made in reference to two clauses of this Bill. In the first place the definition of “inspector” may lead to rather unsatisfactory results, because he is defined as any person who is authorized to carry out the duties. He might be without any particular qualifications. It has been pointed out to me that by defining “inspector” in this way we may be putting this work into the hands of absolutely unqualified persons, and it has been suggested that the definition of inspector instead of reading “any person authorized” should read “any qualified person authorized”. It is a matter that arises in connection with the status these men have been fighting for, and to some extent met in the amendments passed in the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Bill. I hope, at any rate, the department will give the point fair consideration. I have advised them to put their case before the select committee. The other point is in regard to Section 15, which affects those engaged in the dairy trade. Representations have been made to me that if this is carried out literally it will entirely kill the trade in what is called skimmed milk. They say that skimmed milk is the milk the poor man buys. It is brought round to his door and sold much cheaper than the fresh milk. If you are going to compel them to deliver that milk by means of a separate delivery, they will simply have to give up the trade. They make representations that if you want to prevent adulteration you can do it in another way, i.e., if you made the same provision here as there is under Section 16, providing that the container, on the cart as well, should bear this conspicuous label. That would meet the case without destroying their trade. I hope their case will receive the earnest consideration of the select committee.

I entirely agree with the Minister in the necessity for introducing this Bill, and while there may be a great deal to be said for what the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has drawn attention to, the main object of this Bill is that the poorer classes shall not be defeated when they think they are buying a food product. The value of the Bill is the protection of the public so far as the food qualities of an article are concerned. It is the poor man who needs that protection. If a dairyman carries about skimmed milk in his cart, and he is selling fresh milk as well, there may be a tendency without supervision for the skimmed milk to enter, by accident, into the receptacle which is supposed to contain the fresh milk. I am glad my hon. friend has referred to coffee, and I hope he will draw the attention of the internal arrangements committee to the coffee sold to hon. members and have it analyzed, because very often I am under the impression that the beverage which they think is coffee contains a large proportion of chicory plus, of course, the water that is added; because, although people may desire chicory or ground acorns or dried—

Carrots.

Carrots, barley and products of that sort, I think people who buy a beverage should have protection and get what they think they are buying; they should really know what they are buying.

What about whisky?

An admirable Act was passed in the Cape Parliament in which whisky and brandy were defined. I think we were the only country in the world in which these were defined; but we are not now thinking of the stimulation of the population, but of nutriment. The Minister will be supported from both sides of the House in passing the measure through as quickly as possible, because if there is one thing more necessary than another, it is that foodstuffs and their nutritive characteristics should bear the correct labels. I would like to draw attention to Act 16 of 1918, and I hope the Minister will put his officers on the track of those who are selling samples of the butter to which he referred. [Definition of butter in Act 16 of 1918 read.] As far as butter was concerned, provision was there made to try to prevent adulteration. I hope my hon. friend will see the law is enforced in all its severity—if such samples of butter are sold as those to which he referred. I hope the Bill will not take long in committee, and will soon be placed on the statute book.

I do not know if I shall be able to eat much more butter, after the definition just read out by my right hon. friend. I would like to know, does the Bill deal with tinned stuffs, which may be sold in all good faith by a shopkeeper without any knowledge of their age. We know that under certain conditions tinned food as it grows older may take very dangerous forms indeed. I heard complaints of the evil results following the consumption of food packed in tins, jars or glasses which have been in stock for a very long period, the full extent of which is unknown both to the seller and to the purchaser. If the Minister has not the power, will he secure it, to insist that the date of packing shall be clearly marked on such food receptacles, for if that is done it would be a very great benefit to the community and assist in safeguarding its food supplies.

I will remember that point.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time and referred to select committee for consideration and report, the committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers.