When will the promised report relative to the destruction of dogs at Messina be available?

I have given instructions to get the report, and as soon as I get it I will hand it to the hon. member.

I have the consent of the Minister and the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) in moving my motion before notice of motion No. 1. I move, as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

This notice was put down some time ago, and has no relation whatever to—

Might I raise a point of order? May I raise the point whether, in view of the fact that a Bill is on the Order Paper dealing with the relations of pass-bearing natives and trade unions, it is competent for the hon. member to move his motion? The Bill I refer to is one referring to the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1924. According to that Act, under the definition of a trade union, it is perfectly open to natives, whether they carry passes or they do not, to form a trade union, because the definition of trade union in section 24 is that it means any number of persons associated together, either temporarily or permanently, for the purpose of regulating relations between themselves and their employers. Under that definition, it is perfectly competent for them to form a trade union for the purpose of furthering or regulating their interests between themselves and their employers, so that, as far as the Act now in existence is in force, there is nothing in that definition to prevent natives from forming trades unions for the purpose of dealing with their industrial relations. But the Bill on the paper proposes to strike out that definition and to substitute another one (Section 13, paragraph f). The new definition is that a trades union includes an employees’ organization, and means any number of persons associated together for the purpose of protecting or furthering the interests of the employees in any particular undertaking, trade, industry or occupation. In the Industrial Conciliation Act the pass-bearing native is excluded. The definition states—

So the position is that this Bill on this paper proposes by a new definition of a trade union to exclude pass-bearing natives, or natives whose conditions of labour are regulated by Act 15 of 1911. The Bill on the paper proposes a new definition of employee which, for certain purposes, and for certain purposes only, includes the pass-bearing native, but does not include him for the purpose of making it possible for him to be an employee to such an extent as to ask for the appointment of a conciliation board or an industrial council. The Bill only includes him insofar as the determination of wages can be made applicable to him. My contention is that under the law as it stands, the native, whether a pass-bearing native or not, can become a member of the trade union under the Industrial Conciliation Act. This Bill proposes a restriction, and I take it the motion is aimed against any restriction; therefore I submit that as the Bill is on the paper and the question can be raised on the Bill, the present motion is not in order.

I wish to support the viewpoint put forward by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). It has always been clear in our practice that when there is a Bill or a motion on the Order Paper dealing with a certain subject, such a subject cannot be anticipated by any other motion, and if the position is as stated by the hon. member for Yeoville that the Bill gives an opportunity to the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) to raise this question, whether by amendment or otherwise, then I think the hon. member is debarred from proposing this motion. I think that is clearly stated in Rules 33 and 74 and also in May’s Parliamentary Practice.

Members who have raised the point of order did not do me the courtesy of telling me that they were going to do so. Perhaps it was too much to expect. As they have raised the question to block a motion of very great public importance, I would like to say that when amending legislation is introduced any amendments which do not deal with the specific amendments mentioned in the Bill are held to be out of order. I submit that - that is an answer to the point of order. None of the amendments suggested in the Bill in any way touch the motion, which is an attempt to obtain an expression of opinion as to the rights of native workers who, at present, are excluded from all trade unions.

There is nothing in the law against it.

If the hon. member will allow me to finish—I did not interrupt him. There is something in the law which prevents it. A section of the Industrial Act provides that where there is a representative trade union existing in any area it is not competent to recognize another trade union, and that would prevent any native trade union being recognized. The matter is not dealt with by the Bill, and a motion of this kind is absolutely necessary if we are to test the feeling of Parliament on the matter. Under the circumstances I will have no opportunity of moving in the specific direction my motion aims at, except by means of a motion. It is a very strange procedure to ask for a motion to he ruled out of order before the mover has an opportunity of explaining it. What I am aiming at could not, I fancy, be attained by means of amendment to the Bill, as the whole machinery will have to be reconstructed. I have no option but to ask to be allowed to speak on my motion, as that will be the only opportunity of bringing the facts before Parliament.

I am aware of no law which prevents natives joining the existing trades unions. That is a matter of domestic concern and of the rules and regulations in the trade union in question. Unless the mover is going to suggest that separate organizations should exist for natives alone, his argument falls away completely.

I would like to point out to the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) that the restriction he refers to is not a restriction against either whites, natives or coloured, but is put in the Act to prevent overlapping and duplicating of trade unions. I think he will realize the necessity for having some provision in the Act stating that where a trade union is functioning and is representative it should be registered and should hold the field against any other union which might want to come in in the same industry. That is the purpose of that particular legislation. When I read the hon. member’s resolution I thought he really wanted, if I might say so, to clear the air as to whether this country or Parliament was agreeable to natives forming their industrial and trade union organizations. I thought he wanted an expression of opinion whether Parliament approves of the general principle.

That is what I am going to ask for.

You go further. You say it will be necessary to move certain amendments in the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Once Parliament has expressed an opinion we should act upon it later on.

But everything the hon. member has said this afternoon would probably be said when we discuss the clauses in the Industrial Conciliation Bill. There will be opportunities of discussing the shortcomings of the Bill which the hon. member is complaining against. He will be able to discuss the advantages and necessity for their alteration even if he cannot move them, and so the whole discussion can take place on the second reading and the committee stage of the Industrial Conciliation Act. As the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) said, there is nothing in our present legislation which prevents nativ.es from organizing along trade union or industrial lines, the same as anyone else, and that position is not affected by the new definition of the terms “trade unions” in the new Bill.

Oh yes, it is.

It is not a restrictive regulation.

But it says an employee does not include a pass-carrying native.

But I am talking about the definition of “trade union.”

Well, that relates to employees, and not to persons.

The purpose of the new Bill is to prevent evasions of wage agreements by certain employers employing pass-carrying natives who are exempt in the present Act in occupations scheduled at certain rates and for which most other employers are paying in respect of their employees.

Your new definition of “trade union” has that effect.

I do not think it has that effect. If the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) wants the House to express opinions on the broad principle that there is nothing to stop the native organizing on the same lines as other people, then it would have been plain sailing, but, as he wants them to come in under the Conciliation Act and function on certain specific occasions which they cannot do, then everything he can say this afternoon can be said in the Bill that is coming before the House.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) who has addressed the chair on this point seems to me to misapprehend a previous decision on the relevancy of amendments to the subject matter of a Bill. It is only after the second reading that hon. members are confined to the contents of the Bill. I find that in the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1924, there is a chapter devoted to trade unions and employers’ organizations, and this will be open to full discussion on the second reading of the Industrial Conciliation (Amendment) Bill. It seems to me very clear that if I allow the motion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street), there must necessarily be an anticipation of the discussion on the second reading of this Bill, and it therefore falls under Standing Order 74. For that reason I think the objection which has been taken to the motion being proceeded with is well founded, and I regret that I cannot allow the motion to be moved.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I notified the leader of the Opposition that I intended to put it on the Order Paper for Thursday, and I therefore ask permission to allow it to stand over. I did not intend dealing with the matter to-day.

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—

That amendment is moved in accordance with the promise I made in the select committee that the matter would be submitted to the law advisers in order to make sure that employees who have a guarantee of a fixed number of days in service every month, will receive the benefit of the whole of their service, and this is ensured by the new clause I am moving after Clause 3. In order to do that it is necessary to delete the words in Clause 2, as they appear on the Order Paper.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

When this Bill was previously before the committee I raised the point as to whether it could not be made to apply from the date, at any rate, of the introduction of the Bill, so that it would apply to a certain number of people who have been retired since this measure was brought in. The Minister will remember the point.

The point was raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) and I have given careful consideration to his representation, but I am afraid I cannot agree to it. As I then indicated, it is most unusual to make a Bill of this kind retrospective, because if that is done the hon. member will appreciate the difficulty of fixing any commencing date. He suggested that we should make it the date of the introduction of the Bill. That would be the 12th April last year. Then what about those who were retired or left the service on the 11th April, 1927, and before? They would feel that they had a grievance. I may say that the same pressure was brought in 1925 when we dealt with the Superannuation Bill. The same arguments were used and the House then decided and, I think, decided wisely, that we should not make legislation of this kind retrospective, because it raises all sorts of difficulties which it is not easy to deal with in actual practice.

One reason why I was emboldened to suggest this to the Minister was that in the Bill just passed, also dealing with the railway service, he anticipated that to the 1st September, 1925.

That was simply to put it right.

That is what I was thinking of. The Minister says this Bill was introduced in April last. If I remember rightly, the Bill was introduced in the earlier part of this session, was it not?

The 12th April last year is the date when this Bill was first introduced.

May I suggest to the Minister that there would be many hardships in regard to those men who have only just lately left the service? He has precedents for the course which has been suggested. I would like to suggest that he should make this Bill retrospective to the 1st January last and then some of those who have been recently retired would come under this Bill. He would do away with the hardship of men who have lately been retired and, to a certain extent, would meet the Case of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh).

One has every sympathy with those servants who have left the service, but I would again ask the House to consider all the facts. The hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) has suggested the 1st January, but what justification is there really to make it the 1st January and not the 1st December?

Make it the 1st December, if you like.

The House sees the difficulty of making legislation of this kind retrospective. I am afraid we would simply be making difficulties. The argument that it has been done in connection with another Bill is not a sound one. There we were legalizing the admission of certain members to the superannuation fund, who, otherwise, would not be allowed to contribute. This is new legislation altogether, and I think in regard to new legislation the better and safer course is to make it applicable only from the date when the legislation becomes of force and effect.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that day after day we are told by the Opposition that we must economise, and that the Government is spending too much money and here they move to make the Bill retrospective, which will mean more expenditure. They have managed to do that in the Bill as it stands. I want to point out to the House that the original Bill says that the scale of gratuity shall be the salary for six Jays for every year of the person’s service. The Opposition then moved in committee through the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) to change it into ten days. That means more expenditure, but it was passed by the majority consisting of the Opposition together with the Labour party. We, on this side, voted against it, because we did not want expenditure to be increased. I should like to hear what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has to say about it. The position now is that the Opposition first altered the number of days from six to ten, that is, nearly doubling the expenditure, and now they move to make it retrospective as well. Why then all the talk about economy? I have only mentioned this to indicate to the House the value of their hollow remarks.

I am sorry the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has come into the House in the spirit in which, unfortunately, he seems to regard his membership of the select committee on railways. In the select committee on railways before he and other persons like-minded to himself appeared, matters were not treated from the party point of view at all. Now everything is turned to party account; everything that may arise in committee now is regarded by members opposite as being intended to score political capital or as giving them an opportunity of making political capital. I would point out that when I moved that particular motion in select committee, I did not do so as representing my party and two members of the committee belonging to my party voted against it.

No.

Yes, they did. Why the hon. member should come here and try to convert this railway committee into a kind of machine for party propaganda is beyond my comprehension. These standing select committees of this House will be absolutely ruined from the point of view of public utility if they are to be used for party opposition one way or the other. I take sole responsibility for that particular motion and those members who supported me no doubt did so in the same way. It was not moved as a party matter at all, nor intended to serve as a party matter.

I think the hon. member misrepresents my remarks. I did not say it in order to drag party politics into the select committee. I only pointed out that the hon. member on two occasions had wanted to increase expenditure. What about their cry for economy?

I would like to return to that point in regard to the date on which this Bill will become effective. It affects a considerable class in my constituency, that is the boatmen. Now the position is that quite a number of these men have been retired at the end of last year. I have letters from them and have been interviewed by them, and they all had the idea that they would, in some way, benefit by this Act. The Administration has been generous to these people and no doubt something will be done for them from the charitable fund, but it would be much simpler for them to come under this Act. The imprint date for the second reading was 3rd November, 1927. If the Minister could take the date of the second reading it would benefit quite a number of these men who have apparently been lulled into false hopes by this Bill coming forward. The Bill reads: “from the commencement of this Act”, but that is an uncertain date, and I think the Minister would find it simpler if he took the date from the second reading of the Bill, that is, the 3rd November, 1927.

I am sorry the Minister has not conceded the point raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh). This Bill simply gives old servants the right to appear before the committee, and I am sorry the Minister is not prepared to make the Bill retrospective to any extent whatever. The Minister knows there are many scores of old men who have been retired during the last two or three years, and as it appears that he cannot meet our wishes, I want him to see if he could make the machinery of the charitable fund a little less complicated. If he could allow the officials in the big centres to deal direct with cases of relief in their own districts, it would help considerably. I want the Minister to give the local officers authority to deal with these cases direct. If the Minister is unable to give these old servants relief under this Bill, this is the next best thing to do.

I regret it will not be possible for me to make the Bill retrospective, as I have explained. But I can give the House the assurance that any bona fide case which may be brought to notice will be dealt with sympathetically by a grant under the charitable fund. I think that ought to meet the position. The local officers do report on these matters in the first instance, before they are considered by the charitable fund.

I consider the local officer who makes all the necessary enquiries should have power to act without any further reference to headquarters. That is what I want.

Clause put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 3,

I move—

That is in accordance with the undertaking I gave. It puts the matter right with regard to the service of men at the harbours.

Now clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5 and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments, which were considered and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading to-morrow.

I move—

This Bill makes provision for three months’ supply, as the main Appropriation Act will probably not be passed before the end of June. The amount is £10,250,000 against the figure of £10,100,000 last year. The excess of £150,000 is mainly for the provincial administrations. The Bill provides for £8,000,000 on revenue account and £2,250,000 on loan account—a reduction of £100,000 in the latter on the amount voted last year. The terms are the usual ones in appropriation Bills, and the Bill will lapse as soon as the main Appropriation Act is passed; it provides merely for the continuing of the services in the loan account, for which provision is already made, and for existing services in the revenue estimates of last year. I can give hon. members the figures to be disbursed for the three months, but I do not propose to do so unless I am required to do so by any hon. member.

I suppose that under this Bill we have, perhaps, more liberty than under the Additional Appropriation?

Yes.

There are some things to which I want to draw my hon. friend’s attention. One point particularly is that, notwithstanding a very large surplus, the Minister goes and sticks a dumping duty of 5s. a ton of superphosphates coming into this country. That does seem entirely gratuitous. Surely he does not want more revenue? Superphosphates are used largely by farmers, and the more they use the more the production. The Minister of Agriculture stated at a meeting at the agricultural show that farming was a very poor business at the best of times, and here the Minister of Finance sticks on an extra tax, which can be paid only out of the profits, if there are any, and otherwise out of the losses. Surely it is to the interests of the State to increase production? The cheaper you can make superphosphates the more can be used, and the greater the production. The Railway Department give a very low rate for the carriage of it for the purpose of encouraging farmers to use it, and quite rightly and quite soundly too. But when the shipowners give a low rate we object. If they could carry superphosphates for nothing I would be glad. The farmer does not get one iota more for his products, and I can speak from experience. I use a fair amount of superphosphates every year, and I do not on that account get a farthing more for my fruit or other produce. I hope my hon. friend will consider the matter; I understand there is a committee appointed to go into it. Then there is another point to which I want to draw the attention of the Minister, or rather the Minister of Mines and Industries, but he is not here. I understand from merchants in the city that a secret rebate has been given to buyers of Natal sugar, so long as they refrain from buying sugar which, as I understand, is coming in from America. They have to give an undertaking that they have not bought it, and that they will not buy it in future—that they will not buy any sugar except Natal sugar. It seems very strange. There was a tremendous rumpus and complaint about the rebates given by the shipping companies. We have, in fact, passed a law under which they may not give them, and here a specially protected industry, like the sugar industry, which has benefit of a suspended duty, goes and starts exactly the same system. Why cannot my hon. friend simply give notice that as long as this rebate system is continued you will take off the suspended duty? I am very sorry the Minister of Labour is not here, because I want to ask him what is the position with reference to unemployment at the present time? I have brought this up twice before, but have been restricted.

I will send for him.

Thank you. There exists quite a fair amount of unemployment amongst both the European and the coloured sections of the population. I am surprised that there should be unemployment among the coloured section of the community. What steps is the Minister of Labour taking to combat this? We were promised that the matter should be dealt with, and I agree that it should be dealt with; but has the Minister found out the causes of unemployment? If he does not know them, he might set up a research department to investigate the causes. We have a new country capable of big development, and a sparse population, but still there is a great deal of unemployment. Surely it should be within the power of the Ministers, with the aid of their officials, to find out the reason of this unfortunate state of affairs. Most industries are flourishing, particularly the building industry, while ordinary commercial like is fairly prosperous; yet, notwithstanding this, there is unemployment. One of the causes I think is the very heavy taxation. The Government is taking out of the pockets of the people this year in the shape of taxation alone £21,500,000.

What does that signify? Why don’t you discuss the incidence?

Don’t get excited.

That does not make any difference.

It does not signify anything merely to mention the figure.

If you had left a good deal of that money in the pockets of the people, there would have been more employment to-day, for people cannot pay money away in taxation and still use it for industrial development. Since the ministry took office four years ago, taxation has increased by £4,670,000.

Taxation has not been increased, but there has been a bigger volume of trade.

The most effective means to increase employment is to reduce taxation, so as to enable people to use the money for the purpose of giving work. People must use their surplus money in aiding agricultural or commercial or industrial expansion, because unless they profitably invest their money, what use is it to them? Even if they put the money in the bank it still finds its way into the industrial or business field. The receipts from taxation during the last four years have increased by 28 per cent.

The revenue has increased.

The revenue from taxation.

Taxation has not increased.

We are paying more than four and a half millions more in taxation than we did before the ministry took office.

Taxation has not increased, but the revenue has.

Where does the revenue come from?

From the increased volume of trade.

In most countries with an increasing revenue the Government would reduce taxation, but here taxation has increased. One of the best ways to help the Minister of Labour is to reduce taxation. Another cause of unemployment is the working of the Wages Act and the Conciliation Act. The effect of these measures has been to fix wages at a certain level, and the result has been that a fair proportion of employees have been dismissed because their earning capacity did not justify the employers in paying them the standard wages. Obviously an employer cannot retain a man if he does not earn what he gets. I believe there are scores of men in Cape Town to-day looking for work who have been dismissed through this cause.

You want to do away with the Act.

There would be more employment if you did away with the fixing of wages. I know of men who have been in the employ of firms for more than ten years who have had to go on account of the Act. Is nothing to be done for them? There is a further point. When is the Minister of Labour going to put into operation the Labour Colonies Act which was passed last year? There are a certain number of men who are unemployable, and they should be placed in labour colonies. Now I want to put a question to the Prime Minister. What is the position in regard to the Mozambique labour supply? My hon. friend said he took a hopeful view of the situation, but he did not think the Portuguese would go to the extreme. That speech was delivered in Johannesburg in December last, and I believe the convention will terminate in June next. Mine owners and the like are perturbed and I want to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of stating what the position is. It is a matter of great interest to the country.

I should like to support the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) in regard to his remarks on the dumping duty on superphosphates. It has been put up 5s. a ton. If it was argued it was in the interests of the local producers or factories I could understand it and would support it, but the factories are selling at 59s. per ton, whilst the imported article costs 64s. 6d. It cannot, therefore, be said to be done in the interests of fostering local industry. It is usual to sell to the farmers five and six months ahead, and contracts made overseas are five or six months ahead, and when that is done it is sold to the farmer. There is no mention then of dumping duty. It is admitted that the importer, by law, is in the position to get back the dumping duty from the farmer, but it causes irritation to the farmer and the importer, and there is no end of trouble. I commend this question to the notice of the Minister. There have been notices in the paper asking farmers to give evidence before the Board of Industries. I think it is an imposition on the farmers that they should have to pay this 5s. dumping duty. It might be said it is intended on the dumping of freight. I know a case of goods invoiced from Antwerp on 10s. freight in which the customs insisted upon the 5s. being paid.

I agree with the statements of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) in connection with the dumping duty of 5s. a ton imposed on superphosphates. I regard that tax as scandalous. I have protested against it on every occasion, and I shall continue to do so at every opportunity I have until it is removed. No one can accuse me of not being a protectionist. I believe there is no stronger protectionist in South Africa than myself. But we have to do here with a conflict of interests, a conflict between two industries. Now we must ask ourselves which one counts the most. Do the interests of the De Beers’ phosphate factory count more than the interests of the thousands and tens of thousands of people who are interested in the grain industry? The farmers are in absolute need of fertiliser for growing grain. They cannot do without it. It ought to be the policy of the Government to bring down the price of it as much as possible. In this case the opposite is happening. The Minister of Industries wants to compel the shipping companies to keep the freight on superphosphates high, or otherwise to punish the importer, i.e., the farmer. I know that is not his intention, but it amounts to that. He only listens to the recommendations of the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries and disregards all the facts and pleadings of members of Parliament and deputations of farmers. The Minister is afraid that the superphosphate factory at De Beers may close down if it is not protected by the 5s. duty. When that factory was originally established they did not ask for special protection, although the cost of importation was no higher then than it is to-day, and they could make profits. If it was not necessary then to particularly tax the farmer for the sake of De Beers, why is it now? The De Beers factory can produce more cheaply than the Dutch factory. In Holland the wages of the workmen are much higher than what the native labourers get at the Strand, and in Holland the manufacture of superphosphates is not a side line to an industry, as it is here. The De Beers factory was originally intended only for the manufacture of explosives for the mines, but they did not want to throw away their sulphuric acid, and, therefore, they commenced to make fertilisers. All the rock, all the sulphuric acid which the factory requires for the making of superphosphates is imported from overseas. At least 95 per cent. of the raw material is obtained from abroad. Nor would De Beers be able to assist us much in wartime, because a blockade of our coast could just as easily stop the raw material as the manufactured article. The De Beers factory is a bastard industry and not a local one. I should have had more sympathy for it if the rock come from Saldanah Bay or elsewhere in South Africa instead of Christmas Island. In any event there ought to be no danger to the local factory in the circumstances I have mentioned, but, if it should so happen, then better that than that the great grain industry should pay the piper. It is said on behalf of De Beers that many workmen would be thrown out of employment; that is highly exaggerated language. According to what a correspondent in the Strand recently wrote in “Die Burger”, only twelve white people would have to find a living elsewhere if the superphosphate branch of the factory there were closed. The farmers concerned do not object to the Government prohibiting goods from overseas being sold cheaper in South Africa than in their country of origin in order to kill local industries. It would be unfair competition, but no one can state that imported fertiliser is sold cheaper here than in Holland. There is no dumping in the ordinary sense. It has always been the policy of the Government to have the shipping freights made as low as possible. This policy the Minister of Finance (Mr. Havenga) has again clearly instanced in his recent negotiations with the shipping companies. No one will deny that such a policy is sound. Why then an exception to the rule? And that, moreover, on an article of such importance to the farmers. If wheat culture were flourishing then the duty might, perhaps, be overlooked. The drought has very badly hit the Piquetberg district also during the last year and most of the fertiliser put into the ground has been worthless. To further interfere with the producer in obtaining the small benefit which may be got out of the war between the two shipping companies is really too bad. And who has gained through the tax? Only the agents in London or Amsterdam who have sent the fertilisers here. While they reap the benefit of the reduced freights, they have not suffered the burden of the tax because the importers had to pay that; and, of course, the importers recovered it from the pockets of the consumers, the farmers. On the 24th February last I received a letter from an importer enclosing a letter from his London shipper who supplied his superphosphates. It appeared from it that the reduced freight made not the least difference in favour of the importer. The fertiliser landed here cost him £3 2s. 6d. per ton. In the circumstances it was impossible to sell the imported article here at a lower price than the local one, and as the local seller does not get the benefit of the low freight it means that the imported fertiliser costs more than the local fertiliser. That happened a few weeks ago. Since then the price has risen still more. What does it look like for a Minister, who ought to assist the wheat farmers, to be the cause of them paying £3 10s. for an article on which at £3 De Beers can make a good profit? The Minister of Industries listen too much to the one-sided advice of the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries. He should be less obstinate and also remember the incontrovertible facts that the representatives of the farmers and the importers have brought to his notice. However much justification the Minister may have for his policy of supporting the De Beers factory, he must still be able to see that the imported article cannot compete with the local one as long as the latter is also of good quality. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to revoke the proclamation without any further delay.

I should like the Minister of Finance to give the House some information with regard to the policy of the Government in connection with housing. I understand the Government have decided that the limit on which any money will be advanced is for houses not exceeding in cost £800 and the limit of the loan shall not exceed £650. I would suggest to the Minister that he should slightly raise these limits, and the reason is this, that he will find that to erect a decent house containing three bedrooms and a living room—which I think everyone will agree is the lowest limit for a civilized habitation—that it is very difficult to erect such a house under about £900 to £950, and therefore the limits that I understand are proposed by the Government totally preclude the erection of such houses. That house is a house which is suitable for a man who is able to pay about £6 to £8 a month for his house. That includes a very large class of our population, married men with perhaps a wife and two or three children earning from £25 to £35 a month. I understand the policy of the Government is to exclude that class of house and only to make advances for the very poor class of houses. When I speak of a poor class of house I mean poor as regards the quality of its workmanship. I understand the Government’s view is that they are going to advance money on a 20 years’ basis, and provided that habitation will stand up for 20 years, they really don’t mind what happens to it afterwards. I do suggest that any house that won’t last for 40 years is not a house.

Do you think that is putting it fairly?

I hope the Minister is not going to accept that view, and I should like him now to clear up the point and make it possible for a house of a slightly better quality to be built, a house of a size that is a reasonable size for a man with a wife and say three children to live in, provided those children are of different sexes. I would suggest to the Minister that every house that is put up of the class that I wish to see put up—I would like to address my remarks to the Minister of the Interior, who is responsible for this work—that every house that is put up of a substantial nature releases an indifferent house for another man who happens to be houseless at the time, and that it is more important to put up that class of house, a house with three bedrooms and a living room, and of decent construction, than it is to put up houses of a worse quality. I do not suggest that we should turn down altogether the lower type of house. I regret that we have to build them. Personally I believe that it is a disastrous thing that we have delayed so long in this housing question that we have now to put up houses which are not satisfactory, simply to put a roof over the heads of hundreds of houseless families. I do urge the Minister not to cut out the man who is earning £25 a month and who can afford to pay from £6 to £8 a month on the housing loan principle. He is a man he should have particular regard for He is perhaps a man who finds it as difficult as any man to make both ends meet. He is in a very difficult financial position if he has to bring up a family of three children. I hope the Minister can give some assurance that he will not restrict the loans only to those people who can erect a house, the total cost of which may not exceed £800. A very slight addition to these limits would mean that we are really getting in the man who deserves to be assisted in this housing matter. I do not wish to increase the limits by a very large amount—to include the man who can afford to pay to £1,500 or £2,000 for a house. I may say I hope, in view of the very fortunate position of this Government with regard to the increase of its revenue, and the large sum the public are putting up—larger than in previous years—in taxation, that some of that money will find its way into the solution of the housing problem. I think if the Government puts in more than £1,000,000 we shall reap a very great benefit. The Government is advancing the money on the security of the local authority and of the House. I suggest to the Minister of the Interior that he would have a finer security if the money was advanced on a house lasting for 50 years instead of half that time. At the end of 25 years the bulk of the loan will be repaid, but the security will be dwindling in a very critical way. From the purely financial point of view, the security of the Government is very much better on the £800 or £950 house than on one of the very lowest value, though I do believe we are in such a parlous condition now that we are bound to help even in regard to the lowest classes of houses, simply to put a roof over the heads of many people who otherwise could not find a house.

I should also like to support the appeal which the hon. members for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) and Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) have made to the Minister. I am very sorry that I did not know the attitude of hon. members opposite when the hon. member for Piquetberg and I in November last urged the Minister to repeal the dumping duty on superphosphates. I am also sorry that they did not support us when we sent a deputation to the Minister.

If you had asked us we would have done so.

None asked me either, but I nevertheless did my duty. I only want to say that I only did not rise to depreciate an industry, but I just want to make it clear that the original intention of the introduction of the dumping duty was to protect the local industry. I cannot, however, see why they were introduced in November when the local industry had entered into contracts with the farmers in August; moreover, the strongest argument in favour of the dumping duty is that we ought to support the local industry to be certain that in future we should not have to pay more for phosphates, and that in time of war we should be certain of getting superphosphates. Well, I ask if we cannot get the raw material in time of war what security is there then in such a local industry? If we cannot get the manufactured article in time of war, how can we get the raw material then? That is a valueless argument and I think that the Government only used it to people who knew no better. I just want to point out that a very large consumer of superphosphates has stated to-day that the imported are better than the local superphosphates, and I hope that the local product will be better in the future. The sellers allege that the local product is better, but I think that the ultimate proof is to be found in the soil. The practical experiment is, I think, an absolute proof. We can employ experts usefully in agriculture, but if they do not take account of the practical results we shall get no further. To-day we have this article protected which does not, quite as to price and value, come up to the imported article. The local article is sold for a considerably less price than the imported. Why then that unfair tax? It is imported on a basis of reduced freight, but the position has changed. It is an accomplished fact, and nothing more can be done. If there is a small freight war between the shipping companies, why are dumping duties put on so hurriedly and at once on an article which the farmers badly need. Experts say that the country requires the discovery of superphosphates and they do not believe that superphosphates are an article which is used merely for a short time. Phosphate is an article of which the use is increasing and now the Minister puts on dumping duties by which the use is restricted and the production is placed in the hands of a factory, while the demand is increasing all over the world. As the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) said, the whole world before the Great War, exported large quantities of superphosphate to South Africa. Germany, Holland, America and Japan were the countries from which we imported. The great factories of those countries only closed down owing to the drop in price, but it is alleged that factories all over the world will re-start if the prices go up. I therefore do not see a single reason for the fear that the monopoly of producing superphosphates would come into the hands of Dutch producers if the local factory should close down. Even England imports superphosphates from Holland and re-sells them because it is more profitable for the English factories to buy in Holland. I am not afraid that if we impose or remove a tax the control will fall into Dutch hands. I think it will be very difficult when once the link with the importer has been broken to replace it. It will take a very long time. Our country is an agricultural one, and the yield must be increased as much as possible. How is that possible if the agriculturalists is unnecessarily taxed? The wheat production is not the work of the rich man. It is the hireling who produces wheat. Every member in the House agrees with me that we must try to keep the man on the land. We have heard from the Minister of Agriculture that the production is not half as large as it ought to be, and the Elsenberg experts say that too little guano is used, that it should be more thickly manured. If, however, it is encouraged in the way we are now doing, then we shall not get far. I hope the Minister will repeal the dumping duty within 24 hours, because in my opinion the tax is an unfair one and not in the interest of agriculture.

The farmers of this country enjoy a great measure of protection for their produce, but when protection is required for another industry which has benefited them to an enormous extent, then you hear a tremendous howl of indignation. The farmer forgets that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh) says, so far as I can gather, that the imported fertilizers were much better than the locally manufactured ones.

No, I did not say much better. I said the majority of the users of fertilizers preferred the imported article.

There must be some reason for it.

I suppose so.

If the imported article is so much better than the locally manufactured one, then the farmers can afford to pay more for it. What is the history of the local fertilizer industry? Some years ago before the Somerset West factory was erected, I think the price of fertilizer was between £8 and £9 per ton. Some years since several hon. members, including the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie), asked me if I would not influence De Beers Company to erect a big factory so that the farmers could get fertilizers at a reasonable price. I went to England and prevailed on the directors of De Beers to provide half-a-million pounds with which that big factory was erected at Somerset West. Immediately that was finished, down came the price, and the price of the European article fell in sympathy. At one time the imported fertilizer cost 2s. 6d. a ton less than the Somerset West fertilizer, and the farmers all turned their backs on the latter and bought the imported fertilizer. Farmers have protection for their wheat and other articles of produce. I might inform the House that the company has lost a considerable amount of money. They have not made any profits out of the fertilizer factory, but they have helped the farmer to a great extent because, were it not for the existence of the fertilizer factory at Somerset West, you would pay more than 65s. for your fertilizer to-day. You only get it from Europe at that price because we have a big fertilizer factory here. If the farmers, by their action, compel the company to close down their fertilizer factory, never to open again, the European fertilizer manufacturers would put up the price. My hon. friend sitting in front (Mr. Jagger) knows that competition is the soul of business, and if there is no competition up goes the price.

You will still have competition in Europe.

My hon. friend knows, and I do not want to be personal, that if he was the only manufacturer of furniture in this country, you would have to pay more for your chairs and tables. I do not make an appeal for the fertilizer factory at Somerset West, but it is to the farmers’ own interests to purchase as much as they can from Somerset West and keep the factory in existence for their own protection. If you do not do that, European manufacturers will take advantage of the position and you will not pay 65s. a ton for your fertilizer, but nearer £5 per ton.

As a farmer who uses much superphosphate, I should also like the duty to be repealed, but I want to say at once that I do not want to go as far as the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal). I protest against the statement that the Minister has gone out of his way to make phosphates expensive. The Government follows a fixed policy. The last speaker said that if the local factory was killed the factories abroad would make the price £1 per ton more. That can happen very easily and I want to ask if it will benefit or injure the farmers. I am certain that that is the reason why the Government took steps. If we allow the phosphate to come in cheaper and are then consistent we shall also be in favour of taking off the tax on boots, which will result in killing the boot factories; then we shall also favour imported cement coming in cheaper and our cement factories will have to throw up the sponge. How will that help the farmer? Our industrial population forms a great part of the farmers’ market. It would be the greatest calamity it phosphates could come in free and that resulted in our being able to greatly increase our production, but that the market of the farmers would be lost. The farmers get a reasonable price to-day for all produce. A large part of the produce cannot be exported, but is used here and the factories and the work people are the greatest consumers. Another good thing is that the factory worker gets a reasonable wage. That goes into the pockets of the farmers. A broad policy is followed and it would be a short-sighted policy not to protect our industries, and the farmer would suffer thereby. When, a few years ago, we had much unemployment, the result was that the farmers had no sale for their produce. I hope the Government in its policy will bear the farming population in mind and not destroy that greatest field of employment in the country which is the market for the farmers. The great avenue of employment is the industries. If we kill them we should create an impossible position. If the question were asked of the farmers what they would prefer for us, to kill the factories or for them to pay a few shillings more for phosphates, they would rather pay a little more in order to keep the market for their produce.

I am not one of the people that want to kill factories, but I do not favour the farmers haying to pay for the factories. I am the representative of a small district in the Transvaal, but I do not believe there is one district in proportion to its size, which uses more fertilizer than mine. The district produces much maize, and, nowadays not a mealie is planted in my constituency without fertilizer. The eyes of the people are towards the Government to make it easy for them. The Government promises to be very sympathetic, but also we have not yet had the sympathy. We have many difficulties to cope with. In the first place with the labour question, with drought, with hail and with the cost of fertilizer. Many of the poor whites go to the villages and are ruined there. They are rushed into debt by the dear fertilizer and other things. If there is no relief in the Transvaal the maize industry will suffer. I feel very strongly on the point. We thought that relief would be granted, and we get taxation. The railway rates are high and we have to transport our sacks and fertilizer at high rates. I am sorry that I have not the figures here as to how many hundred tons of fertilizer is used in my district by the mealie farmers. Where does the Government surplus come from? From districts such as mine. The maize industry is also a great feeder to the railways. Where would the railways be if we did not transport the produce? The farmers must feed the railways, and therefore the farmers should be assisted. What sympathy does the Government show us. I agree with the hon. members that the farmers must be assisted. I do not want to kill the factories nor to kill the farmers for the benefit of the factories. I am in favour of the protection factories, but not so as to ruin the farmers. I know a little about factories because I have to do with them. Almost all the material has to be imported, and it is only manufactured here and put into sacks. Why, then, can the other dealers deliver it cheaper than they can? The great fault is that the factories are protected at the cost of the farmers. If the duty were temporarily a half-crown, e.g. to encourage them, I should favour it, but it is unfair to make it entirely one-sided. There are many troubles about which the farmer does not say very much, such as the railway rates, the elevators, etc. What is happening with the elevators? The speculators put their mealies into them and leave them there the whole summer and the farmers have no opportunity of putting mealies into them and of getting their sacks back. Request after request is made, but we cannot get the mealies into them. Can the farmers be satisfied if the Government is unsympathetic. Whatever the Government is, the farmer cannot be satisfied if it is not sympathetic. The farmers belong to the hardest workers in the country, and they have the greatest difficulties in the world. If they want to mine for diamonds to pay for their fertiliser, then the Minister prevents them doing so. The farmer has to sit on his farm and die. If there is a drought the farmer suffers severely, but other people draw their salary every month. It is time we had a Government that is sympathetic towards the farmers.

I am astonished at the remarks of the last speaker, especially in accusing the Government of lack of sympathy.

It is a fact.

It is far from being a fact. The entire record of this Government is one of sympathy towards the farmers. I need only refer to the Acts which have been passed.

Where are the proofs?

The entire Statute Book is full of Acts for the protection of farmers, and the Acts are administered in a sympathetic way for the benefit of the farmers. We have just had complaints from the other side of the House about there being too much legislation benefiting the farmers. It is therefore an exaggeration to say that the Government is not sympathetic.

Their rights are being taken away.

The hon. member has mineral rights on the brain. This Government has always honoured the principle, the truth, that the farmer is the backbone of the country.

It stops there.

My hon. friend will say that the sun has already set and want us all to believe it. They are reckless statements. The Government is sympathetic towards the agricultural population and this particular duty was actually imposed because the Government thought of the interests of the farmers. The Board of Trade and Industries, according to law, notified us about the dumping and it was the duty of the Government, if it were satisfied that it was taking place, to use its rights in connection with dumping. What the Government contemplated was the pushing of the line interests, the permanent interests of the farmer. The shipping troubles are ephemeral and we hope that they will not last long and that the difficulties will be solved. I want to point out the important fact that the two principal speakers this afternoon—and I must say that the speech of the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) was refreshing after the one-sided speeches we have listened to—the hon. members for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) and Malmesbury (Mr. Bergh) forgot an important fact—

They are quite right.

If the hon. member will exercise a little patience, I will mention the fact. Those two hon. members were the leaders of an important and representative deputation of farmers from Malmesbury, Piquetberg and also Caledon. They had an interview with me. The deputation consisted of about 25 members and I received and listened to them and promised that the Board of Trade and Industries would be immediately instructed to enquire into the whole matter de novo; the deputation left apparently quite satisfied, including the two hon. members, as it seemed. They at any rate went so far as to thank me, instead of expressing dissatisfaction, and to say that they were quite satisfied with the interview. The enquiry has been started and the Board of Trade and Industries has been specially instructed to complete it as soon as possible, and to report to the Government. Is it fair then to anticipate the whole matter? Is it not reasonable to exercise a little patience and give the Board a reasonable chance of hearing the farmers’ evidence and to report to the Government; if the Government then takes a resolution then there will be every opportunity on a subsequent occasion to criticise if there is any further reason for it. Let us give the Board an opportunity of completing the investigation and of reporting to the Government. Then the Government can possibly take action.

When will it be ready?

By the middle of the month, I think that in the circumstances I need go no further. It will be wrong to discuss the merits and analyse certain statements while a recognised body is actually engaged in examining a number of points. The Board was, for instance, asked to make enquiries into the question of price; the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) mentioned something about price. Another hon. member who followed him mentioned a different price. The Board is engaged in ascertaining the truth. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) raised the question of sulphuric acid and the Board is going into it. It is also enquiring into the reasons why the Malmesbury farmers prefer imported phosphates. The question of contract that de Beers have already concluded with associations and farmers is also being investigated. Opinions were already divided among the deputation. The delegates from Caledon did not quite agree with those from Malmesbury and Piquetberg. The Board will also be well aware of the difficulties of the mealie farmers. In the circumstances I ask hon. members to wait till the enquiry is completed and I hope the report will be ready about the fifteenth of the month; I will then immediately bring the matter before the Cabinet and the Government can consider it and take a decision.

The little text I would like to speak to the Minister on is with regard to boots. The Minister of Mines and Industries some time ago, when the Companies Bill was before Parliament, in another place stated it was his intention to watch very closely the question of the supply of boots by mining companies to workers on the mines. His place was taken about that time by the present Minister of Defence, who made the concession. Whilst mining companies were rightly prohibited from commercial trading, an exception was made that they should be allowed to trade in boots. Then we had the promise from the Minister proper that he would watch it very closely. It has now gone on for over two years. The Minister of Defence is so open-handed, so generous, so liberal that he would give away anything, he would even give away his own party.

The hon. member must not say that.

Very well, I withdraw it, though it is a fact. What I would like to know from the Minister is after closely watching the sales for two years, what does he propose to do about it? I can assure him, on the very best authority that these companies through their stores are making over £25,000 a year out of boots. Why should they be allowed to go on making this profit on an article they are not supposed to trade in at all? I ask the Minister to cancel the generosity of the Minister of Defence who deputized for him, and restore to traders their legitimate trade. The question has been raised as to unemployment. I would like to know whether, in this money Bill, there is ample provision for relieving distress on the diggings. I am not going to enlarge on that subject, but I still hear from the diggers (in fact I have a telegram in my pocket) that they are still suffering very grievously in regard to actual hunger and distress. I know the Minister is the last man in the world who would willingly see that continue, but I think he is trusting too much to officials, and he ought to see that this distress is removed. I would like to learn the intention of the Government in regard to Namaqualand; whether the Government is likely to proclaim the diamondiferous area controlled by the Anglo-American group, for the exploitation of which a company was recently registered at Pretoria. I would like also to know from the Government what their policy is to be on the question of shop rents. An assurance was given that protection would be extended to tenants of shops. For large numbers of small renters, shop rents are becoming almost prohibitive. Is Government not going to protect these unfortunate people? It is not fair to interfere with rentals of a tenant dwelling house, and allow landlords to extort any rent for shops. That is a thing to which Government should pay attention. I would ask the Minister of Mines and Industries something about a mine called the Phoenix, in the Orange Free State. That mine, I understand, was not thoroughly proved, but in October, apparently in clever anticipation of legislation the prospectors made application for this supposed mine to be proclaimed. It is said—I hope it is not true—that cables were hurriedly sent to the Minister while he was abroad urging that this particular area should be proclaimed as a mine, and that the Minister cabled back assenting to it. The mine had not then been proved, and the area had not been officially surveyed. I wish to know what proportion the Government is going to take in that mine, and whether it is accepting a much smaller share of the profits than the Act entitles the State to take. It may jog his memory if the names of Sir Abe Bailey and Sir Julius Jeppe (of the group controlling this mine) recalls the cables that were received and replied to. Other syndicates are operating in Winburg district, and by the recent Act they cannot work for a year. They paid large options and must dismiss their men, as they cannot now go on with prospecting. These unfortunate people are practically ruined, and yet this Phoenix mine, owing seemingly to be able to read in advance what was in the mind of the Government, have been able to get a mine which has not been proved or the area demarcated proclaimed before the new legislation came into operation, and so saved themselves from prohibition of working. I hope this is an idle story for which the hon. member will be able to prove his non-responsibility, that it is a myth, and that I have been entirely misled. I give the tale as it was told to me to give him the opportunity of disclaiming any connection whatever with it.

Seeing that sympathy for the farming industry is so much in the air at the present moment, there is one matter I would like the Government to inquire into; that is the price of agricultural machinery. It is common knowledge that the prices of all articles appreciated very much during the war—probably 100 per cent. The apex was reached about 1920, and from then there has been continuous decline. Motor-cars are practically at pre-war prices, but agricultural implements are 100 per cent. higher than pre-war, and there they stop. Take a common plough used in the high veld, the “Canadian Wonder,” it cost £12 10s. prewar, and to-day the farmer has to pay £24 10s. I don’t want to go through the whole gamut of prices of agricultural implements. That is a typical instance. I am not suggesting that the Government should do anything in the way of manufacturing these implements, but it should be the subject of an inquiry by the Board of Trade. There is no doubt there is a ring somewhere—whether it is in this country or overseas I cannot say. I have been told by a very high official of the International Harvester Company, that they could reduce their prices very materially, but if they do, there is a threat of reprisals, which seems to me to prove there is a ring somewhere. If that ring is in this country let steps be taken to break it. Let us know definitely, if the ring is elsewhere, what the actual price is overseas and the cost of transport and distribution. I appeal to the Minister of Finance, who, I think, has some sympathy with the farmer. I hope that this reasonable request will be given effect to; it is not one for me alone, but from farmers all over the country.

The hon. member who has just spoken referred to rings in connection with agricultural implements, and I have no doubt, if the matter is gone into, it will be found that the accusation the hon. member made is perfectly justified. I hope the Board of Trade will go into that matter. Instead of fighting on the question whether our railway material comes from the Continent or from Great Britain, we could establish our own workshops; we could also have our own factory for agricultural implements. I hope the Government will go fully into that matter. I also want to put to the Minister a matter which is of very considerable moment to the large majority of people, at any rate, on the Witwatersrand, and, perhaps, the Cape also—I refer to the excessive prices for coal. I have information that on the Witwatersrand coal which costs from 9s. to 11s. to land there is sold to the consumer at 24s. I am given to understand that why there is this tremendous difference is that those who are dealing with the coal either retail or wholesale have formed themselves into a ring by which they can lay down the prices which are to be charged the consumer. I hope the Hoard of Trade will also go into that matter, and that the prices will be fixed. I am very sorry the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) put a very interesting question to the Minister of Mines and Industries after the Minister had spoken, because the House would be very glad to have the information. Possibly there is another opportunity of getting that information. There is another question to which I would like to refer, which is the control of shop rents. After the present Parliament was elected a proposal in connection with the control of shop rents was pressed on the consideration of the Minister and the Government by members of the Labour party, and as a consequence a commission consisting of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (the Rev. Mr. Hattingh) was appointed. We were given to understand that if the report of that commission indicated that there was justification for taking action, such action would be taken. There is no doubt that the report of the hon. member was of such a nature as to justify the Government in taking some action. I hope, before the present Parliament expires that something will be done in that direction. There are two other matters to which I wish to draw attention. One is old age pensions, which I understand the Minister of Finance will make some reference to in the Budget statement. Without asking the Minister to give away any of his budget secrets, the House is entitled to know whether he intends to do anything in connection with the matter during the present session. It is a matter which very gravely affects, not only the members on the cross-benches, but the vast majority of the people in the country who are anxious to see the subject dealt with at the earliest possible moment. Doubtless the Minister of Finance will say that he has not given any pledge, but we are not all in the happy position of the Minister who was elected unopposed and, therefore, was under no obligation to make pledges. When the present arrangement was entered into, by which the Labour party agreed to support the Government, a pledge was certainly made to the Labour party by our representatives in the Cabinet, that this was one of the question that would be dealt with. Another point I wish to refer to is unemployment. I do not expect the Government to solve that problem, for we are always going to have unemployment under our present economic system, but I wish to know what steps are being undertaken to undermine the foundations of the economic system and when production will be carried on with the object of providing for the needs of the vast mass of the people. The Minister of Labour in a message to “Forward” said the most satisfactory way to get rid of unemployment was to provide work But what has been done to provide that work? Negotiations are going on with the provincial councils and town councils to secure that the work of the latter shall be done by white labour. That, however, is only a temporary palliative and these negotiations take a very considerable time, for many of these bodies are obsessed with the idea that it is not their duty to assist the Government in providing work. The Minister of Labour should not hesitate to tackle the “lion of the north” on the question of work being done by convict labour that should be done by free labour. I believe the Minister of Justice will be very sympathetic and will accept the position that convict labour should not be placed in competition with free labour. It is better, by far, to give men work than charity. It is unsatisfactory to tell starving men to go to the Provincial Council; the Transvaal Council, at any rate, has not been very generous in providing assistance to the unemployed. The Government has assisted people in the drought-stricken areas and a certain sum should be set aside for the maintenance of the unemployed, which would be better than sending them from pillar to post when they ask for help.

I have never said that the unemployment question could be solved under our present economic conditions. The most that I have said is that we could reduce it to its least possible minimum, but we cannot solve it entirely, for the simple reason that owing to private enterprise and fluctuations in trade, hundreds of men may be thrown on the streets to-morrow.

Trade is pretty busy now.

We have at the docks a certain average number of men employed for weeks, and then all of a sudden shipping falls off and half the men are wandering round the streets looking for employment. By the time we find them employment the docks authorities are scouring round wanting them back. The same thing applies in the fishing industry. Then in Cape Town we have a large influx owing to the drought. We have done our best to keep as many as possible in their districts, but, in spite of that, large numbers have come into town. Another factor comes into operation at Cape Town, and that is the large number of natives that come here and do not belong here at all. They come in search of employment, and eventually drive out the coloured man, who in turn drives out the white man. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) asks what are we doing to meet it. Let me explain that in the first place the Labour Department is not an employing department. It has to go outside to employing bodies, to the Government, the Provincial Councils, and other authorities. I wish the Labour Department had a constant avenue of its own in which it could use men in times of acute unemployment. That is the only satisfactory way you could deal with it permanently. Let me show what we have done in Cape Town within the last six months. From the Labour office we have placed in employment 3,107 persons as follows: European males, 1,030; females, 548; coloured males, 675, females 162; juveniles, European, 360; coloured, 332; making a total of 3,107 actually placed by the department in Cape Town in the last six months. There has been placed in Government departments and the railway service 866, in provincial service 128, in municipal service 62, and in private employment 649. That is an indication of what the Labour Department here have been doing within the last six months. It cannot create employment, and has to depend upon other bodies. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) knows, when he asks what we are doing that the Groot Schuur hospital site was to have been done with convict labour, changed afterwards to free native labour, but eventually we secured it for civilized labour. It is a big work done very satisfactorily and economically. On that work we now have employed, Europeans 141, coloured 101. These men are actually employed doing the earth work in connection with the hospital site, and in the ordinary way that would not have been done. It would have been done with convict or native labour.

What is the extra cost?

They work on piece work, and the total extra cost is £9,000. The total cost is £45,000, and the engineers say they are going to come out within the estimates. £4,500 of the extra cost is being paid by the Hospital Board, and £4,500 by the Department of Labour. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) will be interested to know they are working in gangs, and some of the gangs are earning an average of 8s. a day. One gang has averaged as much as 15s. a day and has given full value. One of the coloured gangs has been up to 13s. a day. Given the opportunity and supervision these men will work. I will now just show what the Government has done in the way of finding work for civilized labour, including white and coloured, employment which, in the ordinary way, would not have been done by civilized labour. I leave out the Forestry Department, because they were all white labour schemes in the late Government’s time. In the Cape Province alone on telephone construction work we have employed 512, white and coloured. Hitherto it was all done by natives. On the Porterville railway we have employed 239 civilized; East London municipality, 26; Cape Town municipality, 33; Cape Divisional roads, 20; municipal sewerage works, 60. In Natal and Durban the municipality employs 124 Europeans on road making on piece work terms. The system the department is working on is this—whatever the extra cost of doing the work, over the cost of native labour, is shared by the municipality and the department. Pietermaritzburg employs 13, and on telephone construction in Natal, 100. In the Transvaal, on the Losperfontein training farm, they employ 355. I mention this to show that the Government is doing something to make provision. All these people would have been engaged on relief work or be out of employment unless we had made provision for them. Altogether we have 800 men on the Labour Department’s rehabilitation scheme in the Hartebeestpoort area. We also have 227 on railway construction, and 308 on telephone construction in the Transvaal. As to land settlement, the Labour Department makes certain roads for the Lands Department. We have got 52 there. We have got 15 on Transvaal roads, and on Pretoria municipal works 32. In the Free State on telephone construction we have got 204, and employed by the Bloemfontein municipality 21. So we might go on. The numbers I have mentioned run into thousands, men who in the ordinary way would either be out of work or would be engaged on relief works under the old system.

Take the Free State, those were not out-of-works.

Under the late Government all this work was done by natives. Under the late Government these men did not have a chance. They were cut out of telephone work and work of that kind. I asked the department to give me a list of the men and the places where they work who in the ordinary way would not have been employed under the old regime on this class of work.

Those in the Free State did not require employment.

There is always a certain amount of unemployment, even in the Free State. I admit there is not much, fortunately, but there is always a certain amount. Then we come to the Transvaal. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) raised one or two points as to what we were doing in the Transvaal, in Johannesburg, but before dealing with that I might mention what is being done in regard to the railway service. When we took over, in 1924, there were in the railway service 3,279 European labourers, ordinary labourers. To-day there are 11,518. On new construction work there were, at that time, 1,800, while to-day there are only 1,200. There is not so much new construction work going on now. The railway construction programme is nearly finished. The casuals at that time numbered 133, and to-day the casuals number 2,289. We get these total figures, in June, 1924, as far as the railways were concerned, the total European labourers were 5,301, while to-day the total is 15,037. That shows you what this Government is doing towards providing employment.

Look at the cost to the Railway Department.

That is another matter. You cannot have it both ways. Even if it is costing more, is it not a good investment? Is it not better to have these people earning money and increasing the spending power of the population? Is it not good for trade?

Look at it from the country’s point of view.

Yes, look at it from the national point of view. From the national point of view it is better that these men should be in employment and so increase the spending power of the country, which makes it better for trade all round. What is the alternative? It is that they should be either out of work and absolutely destitute and in the gutter, or else employed on relief works, which are at all times very expensive and very unsatisfactory. When we took over there were 10,000 of these men employed on relief work, under the late Government, a very costly business. In some cases they were paying—

Not as costly as the railways now.

Even if it is costing more, it is a good investment to have your people in employment. There were 10,000 of these men employed on relief work, which is only temporary and very demoralizing and degrading. Some were getting 3s. and 4s. a day subsidy. The late Government used to pay up to 4s. a head subsidy to any employing body that would take these men. We have done away with all that. There are only about 2,000 men to-day employed on relief works. We have absorbed them and many more in our ordinary services and undertakings. In addition to the 10,000 employed on relief works, there was tremendous unemployment at the time we took over. We have not solved the unemployment problem, but we have reduced it tremendously because we have found openings for large numbers, as I have indicated. Surely the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) cannot take exception. He asked for the information and I have gone to the trouble of getting the department to get out the numbers, places, and the work the men are on, men who five years ago would not have had an earthly hope of getting this work because it would have been regarded as kafir work. It is far better for the country; it is good business to have our men in employment rather than on relief work or on the streets. I regret I cannot find more employment. I regret there is unemployment at all, but you cannot completely eliminate it. Let me take Johannesburg. On the new railway station they are busy with the earth works and laying foundations and so on. £60,000 has already been spent. Most of it has been spent on work that is being done by contract. The Labour Department, anxious as always to provide work, has strongly represented to the railway administration that as much of that work as possible shall be done by civilized labour to meet the local unemployment position. Tenders were invited for certain works, and what do we find? We find that an amount of £60,000 has been spent, and out of that amount £57,000 has been spent on work which has employed European labour, and which in the ordinary way under the late Government these people would not have had a chance of doing. It is a bit more expensive, but it pays in the long run. We have not done enough there, and I want the provincial administration to do more than they are doing. The biggest avenue of employment for this type of man is road making, and some of these men under proper supervision and organization, give exceedingly good value and are exceedingly good roadmakers, but I cannot get the provincial administration in the Transvaal to cooperate to the extent I would like. They are willing to co-operate if we find the money, but they are not willing to co-operate on a fail-basis, by which I mean that they should pay half the difference of the excess cost over the ordinary estimated cost of these roads and the Labour Department would pay the other half. I have had more difficulty with the Transvaal provincial administration in getting them to help and co-operate with a view to finding employment for these people than in any other province. Here is the work on the Wanderers cricket ground. 448 Europeans are actually employed in connection with the Johannesburg railway station, as against 81 natives.

Why natives at all?

They say the natives were employed on the very heaviest work, which was unsuited to civilized labour. I do not agree with that. But it shows what we are doing. There is new work to be started shortly in connection with the Germiston railway workshops, and as far as I am concerned, we hope to get civilized labour employed. I am doing my best, and I am in touch all the time. I have a scheme in connection with the semi-fits which is also a big problem—but again I find it difficult to get the other bodies to fully co-operate. My proposal seems to be fair and simple. We shall have men who are certified as semi-fit by an employment committee; if a municipality takes any of these men on in their ordinary service and is willing to pay the ordinary rate they pay to the natives, the Labour Department and the Provincial Administration will share the difference. Under the Act of Union, the Provincial Administrations are charged with the question of charity and maintenance, and unless these men are in work they call on the Provincial Administration for maintenance and pauper relief.

What about the Labour Colonies Bill?

I have been hurrying on the department, and they will get that established as soon as possible. We had a difficulty in getting a suitable man. We are pushing ahead as far as we can to get it started, but it will not relieve the position a great deal, although it will help to a certain extent. Its salutary effect will be more useful than the numbers concerned. I can say much more, but I think my colleague wants to get his vote through.

On the motion of the Minister of the Interior, debate adjourned; to be resumed tomorrow.