I would like to ask Minis tors if the Minister of Mines and Industries is going to be in the House, otherwise I do not see the use of continuing this debate.

No, I think not. The Minister has asked me to watch the debate for him.

What is the use of bringing forward arguments when the Minister is not in his place? If the Minister is not in his place, I think the debate should be further adjourned. We have had this matter before us since October or November of last year. It is now two months since the session was resumed, and I have been expecting every day that this matter, which is an extremely important one in some respects, would be brought forward, and now when it is brought forward the Minister is not in his place. What is the use of advancing arguments which are intended to influence the Minister, when the Minister is absent?

Does the hon. member move the adjournment of the debate?

I do not want to lose my right of speaking. Would I lose my right?

The hon. member can only make a statement regarding the matter with the leave of the House.

I think it is very unfair. What is the position if I move the adjournment? Shall I lose my right to speak?

No, the hon. member will not lose his right to speak. He has not spoken on the main subject yet.

Well, I will move then—

I am just considering the matter. There is just a slight difficulty because the hon. member moved the adjournment last time.

May I, with leave of the House, say a few words? The hon. member is quite right in saying that this has been on the paper for a long time, but as it happens, the Minister of Mines and Industries is engaged in another place over another matter which has also been delayed for a long time, but I am very familiar with this matter, and the Minister has asked me, in order to facilitate progress, to look after it. I shall make ample notes and any points raised by hon. members I shall be in a position, I think, to deal with. Under these circumstances I would ask the hon. member to continue the debate and carry on as we desire so as to get this piece of business disposed of. We could not consent to adjourn the debate, and I hope the hon. member will not press it or risk his right of speaking, because one wants to hear his views and I have no doubt other hon. members also have views to express. The debate can be perfectly well continued under the existing circumstances.

The hon. member cannot move the adjournment twice in the same debate. If he wishes the adjournment moved, some other hon. member should do it, if the hon. member wishes to retain his right of speaking.

I beg to move—

I second. The last occasion on which the matter came before this House was last October, and it was under circumstances which gave the House to understand that there was a serious doubt whether this matter would ever come before the House again. Since then the House has been sitting for two months and the matter has always been low down on the Order Paper. To-day for the first time in six months it is placed first on the Order Paper, and apparently this is the one day in the session when the Minister primarily responsible for the agreement and to whom we wish to address our criticisms, because it is a very technical and difficult matter, is not able to be present. I cannot imagine anything more extraordinary. I know the Minister of Defence has told us that he knows something about the agreement and he is prepared to make notes and to deputize as much as he can for the Minister of Mines and Industries, but he will admit himself that this is a most unsatisfactory way of doing it. This is not an ordinary debate in which there is just one broad principle involved. This is a debate on an extremely technical and involved agreement and I should be surprised indeed if the Minister of Defence were able to tell me that he could appreciate the true inwardness of every point in this agreement, and of the two diamond cutting Acts involved. Therefore it does seem to me the House has really been trifled with in this matter. Why cannot the Minister go on with the next order and leave this over until the Minister of Mines and Industries comes back from another place? Surely that is the only satisfactory way.

I would like to point out that what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has just stated, that this question has suddenly appeared on the Order Paper, is not correct. On yesterday’s Order Paper this question was already high up, and had it not been for an accident it would have been reached. I want to point out that the tactics which are being employed here are probably only what we can expect from the Opposition in regard to this debate. When this question was before us in October, certain steps were taken to get the matter delayed, and we shall probably find that the process which is going to be evolved to delay this matter is exactly identical with what has happened with the Iron and Steel Bill. We can expect it from the Opposition. The Minister of Defence is probably the man most conversant with this particular subject that we have in this House, and he is probably more capable of dealing with the measure than the Minister in charge. He is a technical man, fully qualified in mining and, therefore, in a proper position to judge with regard to all mining matters arising out of this measure. He is peculiarly fitted to deal with it. I regret the Minister is in another place, but the Minister in charge is quite capable and competent to deal with it, and I hope the House will not accept any further delay.

I hope the hon. member will not press his motion for the adjournment, because it only delays matters. Without accepting the allegation that I know more about it than the Minister in charge, I may say, with all modesty, that I am perfectly able to appreciate all arguments that may be brought forward, but, further, I submit that when hon. members speak in this House, they are addressing themselves to you, sir, and to the hon. members of this House, and the actual presence of the Minister in charge is not essential at all, certainly not in this case. This is a Government measure. I know the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) has somewhat of an erroneous and heterodox idea as to the duties of Ministers to listen to his remarks, but those of us who have more experience of Parliament know that we are addressing ourselves to the House and not to any individual Minister, and I hope the House will not accept the motion.

Surely the Minister knows that when an important subject of this matter is brought before the House, it is to be supposed that the Minister in charge of the subject knows more about it than anybody else. I can thoroughly understand the duties of the Minister in another place, hut those duties were known yesterday, and the least the Minister could have done was, when making arrangements for another place, to make suitable arrangements in this place also. I think that it is only an act of courtesy to the House that the House expects. Had it happened that the Minister had been unexpectedly called away, it would have been an entirely different question, but the Order Paper and the Order Paper in the Senate were arranged yesterday by the Government, and I have no doubt that the Order Paper in the Senate was arranged at the request and with the desire of the Minister of Mines and Industries, and, under these circumstances, I think the least the House might have expected was that this order should have been put down for a day when it was convenient for the Minister to be present. We have a great admiration for the ability and versatility of the Minister of Defence, but we do not think in this particular matter he is as competent to deal with it as the Minister who introduced it, because, had the Government considered that my hon. friend was more competent to deal with a matter of this kind, it would have been submitted to his keeping. But it was submitted by the Cabinet to the Minister of Mines and Industries. Under the circumstances I think the precedent is not at all unjustified in asking the Government to agree to the adjournment of the debate, or at least to wait until the Minister is present.

I do not think the right hon. member is quite correct when he says the Order Paper in another place was arranged by the Government. The particular measure to which he alludes was put down by the House. I wish to support my hon. friend there, and I want to appeal to the House not to accept what the right hon. member (Sir Thomas Smartt) seeks to lay down—that it is for the Opposition to say which Minister shall be here to conduct affairs as far as the work of the Government is concerned. No, I hope the House will not accept that dictum of the right hon. member, that it is for him and his friends to dictate which of the Ministers shall be here. This is a Government measure; and it so happens it suits the convenience of the Government that the Minister of Defence shall represent the Government on this occasion. A similar question was raised on a previous occasion, when I protested.

I need hardly say we are making no such claim as to say which Minister shall be present or absent on any particular occasion. We sometimes find it difficult to get any Ministers present at all; but what we do claim, and what the House as a whole should claim is, on whichever side hon. members sit, that when a Bill or a motion is introduced by a Minister he should be in the House when that Bill or motion is discussed.

The Minister of Defence is in charge now.

The Minister of Defence told us this was a Government measure. We know the remarkable unanimity of the Government on the subject, with which experience has, made us familiar; notwithstanding that, we think it the right principle, not only as a constitutional right, but as a matter of courtesy to this House, that the Minister in charge of a Bill or of a motion should make arrangements to be present when that Bill or motion is discussed, and if he cannot be present, the order ought to be postponed until such time as he can be here. The Order Paper in another place was fixed yesterday, and the Minister should know whether he would be in the one place or another. It was the duty of the Minister or the Government—I do not care which—to make arrangements for the Minister in charge to be in the House, or to have the order postponed.

I think the Minister of Finance has not been fair in the remarks he made just now. He knows perfectly well that the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who takes a great interest in the matter, is thoroughly justified. The Minister of Mines and Industries has a large personal knowledge of the condition of affairs, and we should have from the Minister direct, and not second-hand, what the position is. It is a matter of constitutional practice and of courtesy to the House that the Minister in charge should go right through to the end.

The Government is in charge.

I will ask the Minister of Defence, is he quite sure that the Minister of Mines and Industries is engaged elsewhere? I will tell you why. I am afraid an accident has befallen the Minister. I happened to be coming in from Sea Point a few moments ago and saw the Minister of Mines and Industries in conversation with the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti), who I do not see present. I am afraid an accident has overtaken him.

Motion put; upon which the House divided:

Ayes—46.

Anderson, H. E. K.

Arnott, W.

Ballantine, R.

Bates, F. T.

Buirski, E.

Byron, J. J.

Close, R. W.

Coulter, C. W. A.

Deane, W. A.

Duncan, P.

Geldenhuys, L.

Gibaud, F.

Gilson, L. D.

Giovanetti, C. W.

Grobler, H. S.

Harris, D.

Heatlie, C. B.

Henderson, J.

Jagger, J. W.

Krige, C. J.

Lennox, F. J.

Louw, G. A.

Louw, J. P.

Macintosh, W.

Marwick, J. S.

Moffat, L.

Nathan, E.

Nel, O. R.

Nicholls, G. H.

Nieuwenhuize, J.

O’Brien, W. J.

Papenfus, H. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pretorius, N. J.

Richards, G. R.

Rider, W. W.

Rockey, W.

Sephton, C. A. A.

Smartt, T. W.

Struben, R. H.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Heerden, G. C.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Watt, T.

Tellers: Blackwell, Leslie; de Jager, A. L.

Noes—66.

Alexander, M.

Allen, J.

Badenhorst, A. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Basson, P. N.

Boshoff, L. J.

Brink, G. F.

Brits, G. P.

Brown, G.

Cilliers, A. A.

Conradie, D. G.

Conradie, J. H.

Creswell, F. H. P.

De Villiers, A. I. E.

De Villiers, P. C.

De Villiers, W. B.

De Waal, J. H. H.

De Wet, S. D.

Du Toit, F. J.

Fick, M. L.

Fordham, A. C.

Grobler, P. G. W.

Hattingh, B. R.

Havenga, N. C.

Hertzog, J. B. M.

Heyns, J. D.

Hugo, D.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Kentridge, M.

Keyter, J. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Malan, M. L.

McMenamin, J. J.

Moll, H. H.

Mostert, J. P.

Mullineux, J.

Munnik, J. H.

Naudé, A. S.

Naudé, J. F. T.

Oost, H.

Pienaar, J. J.

Pretorius, J. S. F.

Raubenheimer, I. van W.

Reyburn, G.

Roux, J. W. J. W.

Snow, W. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steytler, L. J.

Strachan, T. G

Swart, C. R.

Terreblanche, P. J.

Te Water, C. T.

Van Broekhuizen, H. D.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van Heerden, I. P.

Van Niekerk, P. W. le R.

Van Rensburg, J. J.

Vermooten, O. S.

Visser, T. C.

Vosloo, L. J.

Waterston, R. B.

Wessels, J. B.

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

Motion for the adjournment of the debate accordingly negatived.

I find that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) did speak on the main question on the last occasion when the agreement was before the House, but as there has been a misunderstanding, I do not think he should forfeit his right to continue his speech because of the intervention of the hon. member for Harbour (Maj. G. B. van Zyl).

Thank you, sir. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) asserts that we are out to delay the agreement. Nothing of the kind; as a matter of fact, I have asked the Minister in charge of the agreement to bring it forward. The delay which has occurred has had the advantage of allowing the public to understand the agreement better. The Minister is very much to blame in one respect, for there is no question that the agreement should be referred to a select committee, as it involves the interests of private individuals, the State to some extent, and the diamond trade to a large extent.

We are quite prepared to send the agreement to the Public Accounts Committee.

I am very pleased indeed to hear that. Since the publication of the agreement we have learned that quite a number of people are interested in diamond cutting in South Africa, and there are diamond cutting factories at Pretoria and Johannesburg. These factories, however, have never asked for a subsidy, but have carried on the principle of private enterprise, and they received none of the important privileges which will be given under the agreement to the new entrant into the field. The head of one of the Transvaal diamond cutting factories, in a newspaper interview, states that the industry can progress quite well without a subsidy. He had imported men from Holland and intended to bring out 50 more, which is considerably in excess of the number the subsidized firm will import. The industry, he adds, does not require to be bolstered up with Government money. What right has the Government to interfere with a man of that kind?

They are small affairs.

It is far better to start small and grow.

How many people is he training?

It is the old story of Government wanting to interfere with men who have put their money into an enterprise. How can Government expect people to invest their money in enterprises, if Government subsequently steps in and takes the bread out of their mouths?

What a wonderfully stimulating effect Government intervention seems to have.

It has the very opposite effect, because they have to fight the Government. You are interfering with established trade, which is already running in South Africa and is carried out by private enterprise, which is better than State enterprise and no subsidy is required. It is proposed to give subsidies in addition to very important concessions. Let me quote Act No. 38 of 1919, which states what the rights of the present diamond cutters are as far as the State is concerned. It is Clause 4. [Clause read.] He is not allowed to export diamonds, but he may export remnants.

You were quite willing to enter into such a contract.

: Was I? Just you answer for your own things. These concessions are very important concessions, as I will show. In the first place, take Clause 11. [Clause read.] In other words, these people are allowed to export diamonds under one carat in weight which have been subjected to one or more operations, at a reduced rate. No diamond cutter can do that to-day.

You made the same proposal.

Will my hon. friend not interfere. I would rather talk to the Minister of Industries, because he is in charge of the Bill. There is another point, Clause 10. [Clause read.] In other words, whereas they are forbidden under the old law to export these glasses of diamonds except under the usual terms of paying the duty, they are now allowed to export partially cut diamonds under one tarat in weight, and hon. members will see the enormous advantage thus given to the new concern, and some people in the trade think it is a very dangerous advantage. They can be exported at the rate lower than those of any other diamond cutter, and lower than the dealers can do. It is a very great concession. In addition to those privileges they propose to give £30,000 subsidy spread over three years. In the quotation I have read this gentleman states they do not require this subsidy. The men brought out from Holland are having their passages paid and their railway fare up-country, I presume to Kimberley? That is not required by other people who do not ask the Government to pay fares, and why is it done now? It is an extraordinary thing that it requires all this to bring them out. To my mind it is an extremely one-sided agreement, and in addition you interfere with the business of the existing cutters, not very large, I agree, but these people have put their own money in it, and now the Government steps in and does not give them the same privileges, which to my mind is a very grave thing indeed. They have not given them any bonus, nor have they assisted them to get all the men out. I will not press the point to refer it to a select committee, as I understand my hon. friend is willing to do that. It is only right, fair and just, in asking the House to approve of an agreement of this kind that it should go before a select committee. Will you move to refer it to the Public Accounts Committee?

nodded assent.

The Minister cannot move that.

I will move it.

You move it, turning to Mr. Jagger.

Yes, I move, as an amendment—

And to report by a certain date.

Yes, I am prepared to accept that.

I second the amendment. I am glad to learn from the Minister that he is prepared to allow the subject matter of this agreement to be investigated by a committee of this House which shall have power to call evidence. I would like to add a few words to what the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) has said, and submit to the House for its consideration, some points of view, some for and some against this agreement, in the hope that they may be of some assistance to the committee as a result of the discussion which will probably follow on the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central). The only way in which one can deal with a matter of this kind is to follow somewhat the same course of taking the agreement clause by clause and drawing attention to various matters that strike the eye as one goes through it. Let me say, first of all, that I welcome the opportunity for investigation in committee, because I do feel that the House and the country are entitled to some information as to the capacity and the qualifications of these gentlemen to undertake this large enterprise. I have tried to ascertain something of their previous experience. I listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister of Mines when he laid this agreement before the House, and it struck me there must be some reason, perhaps because he had no information on the point, why the House was given no detailed particulars on these very important questions of qualifications, and of previous experience, or how these gentlemen have fared in the diamond cutting operations which I gather they carry on at the present time at Amsterdam. I rather gathered that they have been engaged in an enterprise, if not exactly similar, in some country abroad. I would like to ask the Minister what information has been placed before him as to the business capacity, the previous experience and the qualifications of these gentlemen who come from Amsterdam. I think the country is entitled to know how it was that this particular firm were able to obtain access to the Government and negotiate an agreement which, from their point of view, can be regarded as one of the most satisfactory agreements ever negotiated with the Government of this country. I refer to Clause 2, which should also be taken into consideration with Clauses 15 and 16. Under Clause 2 it appears that the Government give permission, although it is not exactly worded in that way, to these concessionaires, these lucky concessionaires, to import from Europe not less than 50 specified persons. What strikes one in regard to that is that there is no provision in the agreement as to the wages, the terms of service, or any of the conditions upon which these men are to be employed, and if 50 men are brought in during the first year, whether it will be competent to bring in another 50 in the next year. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has laid down any conditions which will secure compliance by these men with the immigration laws, or is he compelled to admit, on the demand of the contractors, such persons as they desire to bring in; further, when they are here, what arrangements are being made to enforce a minimum wage?

Are you speaking on behalf of your party?

I am following up the very excellent policy of this party under the Industrial Conciliation Act, which, I was glad to learn from the Minister of Labour the other day, met with the full approval of the Government. Having dealt with Clause 2, upon which I invite the Minister to give us some information, I must say I am not at all clear as to the precise effect of Clause 4, which relates to the employment of apprentices. This clause commits the contractors at the request of the Government to employ a large number of South Africans, young South Africans, no doubt, in this industry. If it is a failure, what responsibility will lie upon the Government in connection with it? If some of these young men for a period of two or three years work for wages which are not strikingly large and the enterprise then closes down, is there any responsibility upon the Government? I would suggest that there might be a great deal of responsibility upon the Government. Therefore, it makes it all the more necessary that in scrutinizing this clause, the committee should go carefully into the whole of the obligations, whether express or implied. We are told that this concession, this practical monopoly, is to extend for a period of five years, and yet in the fourth year of the contract it is still compulsory upon the cutters to continue to take on apprentices who must then, according to the contract, be employed for a further period of five years, and in effect the country is thus committed to a nine years’ contract under this agreement. I would like to ask the Minister whether that is not very likely to happen. Supposing for one moment that the contract proves to be lucrative, will it not be said that it imposes obligations upon the contractors for a period which may extend altogether for nine years? I would like to say one or two things in reference to Clauses 8 and 9, before I come to the very important point which arises under Clause 11, and which has been referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). Under Clause 8 the Government binds itself to take such necessary steps as will ensure an adequate supply of diamonds to the cutters. The Minister may remember that we had a considerable discussion in this House when the Diamond Control Bill came before it in 1925. There the Government constituted itself what we described as a statutory agent, giving it the right to take away from the producer his product and sell it at prices which the Government thought appropriate. Under this Clause 8 I would like to ask the Government whether it is their intention to compel producers to supply these diamonds on credit. We are left in the dark on that point. We are told the Government may, in its discretion, take such necessary steps to secure an adequate supply of diamonds. Not a word is said about the question of terms! Are the cutters to pay cash or are they to get terms? If they get terms who is to guarantee the payment of the price? I hope the select committee, if it be appointed, will investigate that point, because if credit is to be given it may be capable of abuse. Then, in regard to Clause 9, there is one point not at all clear and that is the definition of aggregate output. The Minister does not say whether that is output on the basis of money or on the basis of the weight of carats. In dealing with this clause I would point out it involves the valuation of all partly cut diamonds. I am not quite clear who is to be responsible for that. While these points are of importance, this Clause 11 is to my mind an exceedingly remarkable one. I would invite hon. members to follow me when I put this point for their consideration, because I am not at all clear as to how far it is competent to include this particular clause in the agreement. Let me start with the point put so clearly by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I won’t for a moment deal with the very unfair differentiation created in favour of this concern by the Government. In dealing with the right which is given to these contractors to export any diamonds under one carat in weight and with (to give an illustration) one facet polished, I would like to ask the Minister whether that is within the law and the spirit of the existing enactments passed by this House. Section 4 of the Diamond Cutting Act of 1919 lays it down that it shall not be lawful for any licensed diamond cutter to export or sell partly manufactured diamonds. The next question is this, is there any power on the part of the Government to give this particular right to these lucky concessionaires? We passed the Act of 1927 and I find the only alteration in the law in this respect was that the Governor-General might allow the export of diamonds not exceeding one carat in weight in a partly manufactured state if they are remnants of diamonds completely cut or polished. That qualification I do not find in this clause. It does seem to me that a diamond with one facet cut in that way is a partly manufactured stone. I cannot understand how Parliament could have passed one law under which the Minister may say to Mr. A of Pretoria, “You cannot export a diamond which has one facet cut because you infringe section 4, but my lucky concessionaires can.” I hope the Minister will tell us which is the correct view. It may be a matter for the lawyers to advise upon, but I think the Minister will agree it is a matter that demands consideration. I would like to say a little more about the broad general principle involved, which was put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). I read the other day an interesting article about what was called the “murder Bill.” I do not know whether the Minister of Mines and Industries recognised the description, but it is generally regarded as a correct and popular description of the Iron and Steel Bill.

The hon. member must not discuss that Bill now.

I am just explaining the analogy. I am pointing out there is another Bill which can very rightly be described, as it has been, as the “murder Bill,” and I was explaining how that term came to be used, and I am following it up by pointing out that by this special concession we are giving to these lucky concessionaires we are going to murder those other firms which have borne the heat and burden of the day and have been struggling along. How is it to be done? It is to be done by a process of differentiation. The Minister is going to differentiate in favour of these overseas contractors. What an extraordinary change of front! We listened the other night to section 111 of the Liquor Bill and we were solemnly assured by the Minister of Justice that he would not allow any differentiation by foreign sellers of whisky in this country. The moment we had disposed of that clause we find it is proposed to introduce this principle of differentiation in favour of these gentlemen from overseas. I do not press the point just put to me that it is against our own people. I must say this doctrine of South Africa first to the exclusion of the best brains we can procure from elsewhere does not appeal to me when I find that thereby it is intended to deprive the country of the best available talent for its development. Put all that on one side. If you are going to seek for consistency in the principles of this Government you undertake a vain and useless task. But what about these other concerns? I wish I knew more about them, but one knows in the case of every industrial enterprize in South Africa the great difficulties there are in starting them, of placing them on their feet, and of progressing thereafter. They have been encouraged, it seems to me, in their enterprize by the declared policy of Parliament. They have been told they would have certain rights, and it was made perfectly clear to them that so far as this particular class of competition is concerned they need have no fear, because there is a law which can be applied in all its rigour to all persons in the trade. Yet these lucky fellows for some reason are to be put on a different footing. No wonder they are careful to put in a clause to enable them to float a company. It seems to me these gentlemen are highly fortunate. Why, perhaps even some of these “gamblers and speculators” the Minister has told us about in his Precious Stones Bill will derive some profit. I wonder why the Minister has undergone this sudden conversion. I remember when he stood and raved in this House about gamblers and speculators who were so wicked as to form companies. He said in the legislation that he caused to pass in that other industry that there would be no vendor shares, but seemingly that does not apply when we come to a diamond agreement made by the Minister himself. These gentlemen may have reason to congratulate themselves on the sudden conversion of the Minister in this respect. I hope that this, one of the most important matters in the Bill, will be thoroughly investigated by the committee. Without keeping the House much longer, I would like to draw attention to another point. Anyone looking at this agreement, and at what lay behind it, would ask why it was that these gentlemen wanted a subsidy. It seems to be intended for losses sustained in the cutting operations, and material damaged in establishing the industry. But while these gentlemen are getting this £30,000 from the Government here, they have very few restrictions imposed on them. It seems to me that from the business point of view, this should be very closely investigated. I would like the committee to look at that and Clause 14, where these gentlemen undertake to provide £10,000, which seems to be a ridiculously small sum. The faith that lies in them does not go beyond £10,000. They may not want further capital, because of the profit they can make under Clause 11. They can demand half the first year’s subsidy if they happen to cut only a few large stones. There is no reference to weight and number. If they go to the Minister’s El Dorado and get a £15,000 diamond, they become entitled to £7,500, in the first week of the agreement. Passing on to the clause with reference to the formation of the company, I do ask the Minister why, if he has found it necessary in dealing with the Precious Stones Bill and Mines, to reserve to himself the right of the prevention or restriction of the creation of vendor shares, he has in this particular case made no such restriction at all? If at a later stage we find this is foisted on the public and vendor shares are created, I do hope the House will make it quite clear that responsibility must be assigned to the proper quarter. It will be possible to deal with this matter in more detail owing to the fact that it has to be examined by the committee and it is not necessary therefore to refer to any other clauses, except Clause 19. I will not say more about the details of this agreement; the Minister has done the right thing in accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that this shall go before the Public Accounts Committee, where I hope it will receive thorough investigation, and that the committee will have sufficient evidence to show that these men are competent and experienced, and that their past record will justify the proceedings of the Government.

The hon. member who has just sat down has been postulating some illuminating objections. It is rather a somersault coming from that side. As far as this proposed agreement is concerned, what he objects to is that the minimum wage is not contained in it. I hope there will be no objection to the factory itself and the diamond producer being under proper control as to the minimum wage and hours, and that the hon. member agrees that this principle should also be extended to the mines producing the diamonds. In traversing some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), he said that Government had been in too much of a hurry with regard to this agreement, but I do not know whether he is aware that this agreement has been on the tapis since the time when the hon. member sat on these benches and formed one of the members of the Government which actually had that agreement before them, and when that agreement had the close attention of the Minister of Mines and Industries (Mr. F. S. Malan), who drafted it on the 22nd of September, 1923.

Why did they not go on with it?

I will tell the hon. member. It is a long time since September, 1923, and the dissolution of 1924 intervened. It is exactly as we have contended all the time—when we talk about diamond cutting in this country and cutting agreements, it has been done with one object—to prevent diamond-cutting eventuating in this country. The public have clamoured for it; every Government, when it came into power, has had to meet that, but they have led the public round the bush. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) takes great exception to Clause 4 of the present Act, which was Clause 2 of the original agreement, and which the hon. member’s own Government was prepared to accept, provided that Government would permit diamonds, under one carat in weight, to be exported up to and not exceeding 50 per cent. of the output of the factory. I am sorry to say that there is nothing sincere in the criticism which has been levelled at the agreement. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) made some very sneering remarks about these gentlemen—I think he was going to say that they were foreign adventurers—and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) told us that Government was going to interfere with the small cutter. What, however, is going to be the difference in price of a diamond cut by the small cutter and a diamond cut by the Government-assisted cutter? Both the private cutter and the Government-assisted cutter come from Antwerp, and the public will buy the cut diamond if it is well cut without asking who was the cutter. If you object to the one as being a foreigner, then you must just as well object to the other one being a foreigner.

I did not object to his being a foreigner.

The hon. member for Gardens was quite right when be said that somebody was going to be “murdered” under this agreement. The man who runs the Diamond Syndicate is going to be “murdered” under this agreement, for every diamond cut under the agreement will be one less diamond for the syndicate to export, If the whole of the output were cut in South Africa the Diamond Syndicate would cease to function, and the hon. member who usually sits on the front opposition bench will have no work to do as far as the Diamond Syndicate is concerned, unless rumour, which is often a lying jade, is correct when it states that if a reputable firm makes a success of diamond-cutting in South Africa the Diamond Syndicate is quite prepared to embark on cutting here on a very large scale. The firm with which the Government has entered into the agreement is the second largest diamond-cutting firm in Antwerp and has also been operating in British Guiana. Owing to their actions in wishing to set up a factory in South Africa a thousand of their employees have been thrown out of work, as their factory has been closed down by the Association of Diamond Workers of Amsterdam, who take their instructions from the people who sell them diamonds—the Diamond Syndicate. The ban is still maintained on these people and their thousand workmen are still out of employment. I have here a copy of the official organ of the Amsterdam Diamond Workers’ Association dated February 25th.

Who gave you that paper?

I had it from Mr. Rosenstrauch himself, and if he had the opportunity of being here, he could tell the hon. member something about diamond-cutting which the hon. member could never learn. For two generations the firm of Rosenstrauch Bros, have grown up in Antwerp, and they are au fait with the whole of the diamond-cutting trade. The agreement will not make a tittle of difference to the present diamond cutters in the Transvaal, for Rosenstrauch Bros, have sold their diamonds to wholesale dealers in America, while the Transvaal cutters cut only for the South African jewellery trade. American tourists who recently visited the Union bought £16,000 worth of diamonds because they were cut in South Africa. It would never do for Rosenstrauch & Korbf to sell their output to the South African jewellers—the market is too limited. A brochure has been sent to the Minister by Mr. Rosenstrauch in which the latter said: “There is no doubt that the diamond-cutting industry in South Africa can be developed to great dimensions, employing several thousand men and women. There are 22,000 diamond cutters in Amsterdam and Antwerp, and Mr. Rosenstrauch is prepared to bring out a thousand cutters to train the 500 apprentices. Further development would take place by the establishment of many business firms dealing with polished diamonds such as buyers, sellers and brokers, and the State would benefit by being able to levy taxes on the diamond buyers; it would also encourage large banking business, and considerable sums of money would be turned over and remain in South Africa. These buyers, etc., are at present established in Holland, Belgium, London and America. People who are hostile to the establishment of diamond-cutting industries in South Africa either possess little knowledge of the business, or have personal interests to prevent its development in South Africa.

Who says that?

Mr. Rosenstrauch said this in his brochure to the Minister of Mines and Industries on the subject. He continues—

A statement has been made that the light is too strong in South Africa, and that is the sort of tosh we hear being used to prevent the establishment of this trade. The statement goes on—

They have to live on the profits of the industry. Then he goes on to refer to what Germany has done to establish a cutting industry in Germany, and the gist of what he says is that there was no cutting industry in Germany a couple of years before the war, and until the war started the German Government insisted that 30 per cent. of the best quality stones found in their colonies should be imported and remain in Germany for the purpose of encouraging the diamond-cutting industry in Germany. He goes on—

This is Mr. Rosenstrauch’s report on diamond cutting, and the feasibility of starting the industry in South Africa. This is the man who we are asking to put up guarantees and who is putting up a large amount of his own money to teach 500 South Africans the trade. The Government has quite sufficient information concerning him. Their factory in Amsterdam which has borne the brunt of many years’ hard work, has grown as a result of the endeavours of these people, and I would rather take their word than that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter).

How much money is he risking?

His guarantees are with the Government at the present time, amounting, I believe, to £10,000. That is a small amount to the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) but for an honest man wanting to cut diamonds it is quite a large amount. I only want to quote from one other document, and I hope the Minister of Mines will not take exception to my quoting it. I came in touch with this document and I want to say it is unconnected with the department, and I think the House is entitled to have it. In 1924 when the diamond trade was first approached on the question of giving their opinion on the feasibility of diamond cutting in South Africa, speaking as experts, it is interesting to know what De Beers’ reply was to the Government at that time. This letter was addressed to the Secretary for Mines and Industries at Pretoria, and is dated the 12th November, 1924.

Where did you get that?

That is my business. I am quite prepared to lay it on the Table.

We want to know where you got it from.

[reading]—

So De Beers Company, which has sucked Kimberley dry like an orange, specifies at this stage that Kimberley must not be brought in the purview of a diamond cutting industry. They go on to say—

The company did not favour a contract being entered into by the Government for training apprentices, but the company preferred the whole thing being made a State monopoly. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) will have an opportunity of replying whether he would rather see this a State monopoly than that the Government enter into this agreement. The De Beers Company go on to say that, without going into details, the agreement seems to be a scheme for the training of apprentices more than anything else, and that there is no guarantee that, if they become expert cutters, they will secure permanent employment. They state also that after a certain period the probability is that these cutters will be without employment and, therefore, swell the ranks of the poor white. The company also make some comment on Clause 8, which deals with the prices at which the cutter is to be supplied with diamonds for cutting, and Clause 9, which deals with the export of partly cut diamonds. They state that the great objection to the export of partly cut diamonds was that it would encourage theft and facilitate the disposal of illicit diamonds, and that continual supervision over the factory should be exercised by the detective department. I would like to say that these conditions the Minister has observed in this agreement that he has entered into, and, if there is any question of detective supervision being necessary, there is no objection to the Government subsidizing, or the company itself paying the expenses of a detective to be permanently employed on the property. A similar communication was addressed to the Premier Company, and that company said they entirely endorsed what the De Beers Company had already stated, as they are only the left wing of the De Beers Company. They don’t put it that way, but that is what it amounts to. A similar communication was also addressed to the Jagersfontein Company, and that company practically endorsed the view put forward by the parent company. It is pretty evident that these questions have been gone into very thoroughly before this agreement was entered into by the Government, and it is also pretty evident from these documents which I have just read that there is no substantial objection to the cutting industry as far as the De Beers Company are concerned. The only objections they have are that the factory should not be established in Kimberley, and, if a cutting industry is established, it should be a State monopoly. Why this Government did not make it a State monopoly, I don’t know. They probably have their reasons for the course they adopted. I do not want to go into the question of the partly cut stuff, but expert evidence will be laid before the committee to show that the sawing department, the cleaving department and the polishing department in every factory produces a large amount of small stuff, and that in the training of apprentices—and the De Beers Company say that the whole object of this agreement is to train apprentices—there is going to be a lot of small stuff unnecessarily cut. It is with the object of meeting that clause in the agreement that the Government came to the assistance of these people by making the conditions a little more easy for them. Coming back once more to the question of the small cutter, I can assure the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) that, as far as the small cutter is concerned, he is not going to be affected one jot or tittle or one iota by this large cutting that is to take place under this agreement. In Belgium and Holland there are a very large number of big diamond cutters to-day, and it is found in actual practice that these big cutters are the people who employ these small cutters in that work. Why should the conditions be different in South Africa?

Are any of them subsidized in Antwerp?

They are not subsidized, but none of them are training apprentices. If that is the only objection of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), let me state that this agreement automatically ceases with the first training of 500 apprentices who would at the end of that period be experienced cutters, and the price we are asked to pay is £30,000 for the training of these apprentices, who will be sufficiently equipped at the end of the contract to take over the cutting industry.

What period do you refer to—five years or nine years?

The period is five years. The agreement stipulates that at the end of five years the last payment is made. These apprentices have their wages laid down, from the very first year they start working, by the Minister of Labour, on a scale very much larger than is found in any wage determination that we have at the present time. They will receive in the last period of their apprenticeship £5 a week as wages. I submit that that is a very good wage to pay, and that, if at the end of five years, they can produce 500 competent South African boys equipped with a knowledge of diamond cutting in all its branches, which they say they can, the State has got a very good asset for the money we are spending in getting these people out here. But the danger is not in reference to these South African boys. As I said before, the danger is that it is likely that we are going to shift the whole of the venue of the diamond market. If we succeed in bringing the cutting to South Africa, the Minister of Finance will have to cast around for fresh means of revenue and the 10 per cent. tax here, put on to let the diamond cutting come to South Africa, will have functioned. If the agreement goes on, it will also bring with it the jewellers’ trade that accompanies the cutting industry. The attitude of the trade, as taken up in Antwerp, is, that if this contract is granted, there is not the slightest doubt that the diamond cutting industry will shift from Antwerp to South Africa, and that is one of the reasons why they have imposed the ban on Rosenstrauch’s factory in Antwerp. In fact, I have the assurance of Mr. Rosenstrauch that the president of the Diamond Workers’ Union told him that if they would sign a document not to start in South Africa, the ban would be taken off. The ban is still on that factory. I hope, as the Minister has given us the wink that he is prepared to let this go to the Public Accounts Committee, that the House will not delay the matter unduly. I also hope it will be stated that a report has to be brought up within a definite period. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is a business man, and I do not think that undue delay would be fair to these people. They have been out for nearly a year, waiting for this agreement to be entered into, or to be turned down. At the present time, they have 1,000 employees out of work as a result of their wanting to come to South Africa, and in fairness to these people, the House should take that into consideration and have this report one way or another as soon as possible. Let us be honest. If we want a diamond cutting industry, and the contract is a good one, let us enter into it and finish with it. If it is not a good one, let it be turned down, but don’t keep these people in the expectation that they are to get a contract if they are not going to get it, at serious pecuniary loss to themselves.

If there is anyone who might be expected to welcome a proposition instituting diamond cutting on a very large scale in South Africa, I think it is myself. I have been associated with those who, in good report and in bad report, have endeavoured all we could to get diamond cutting established in this country, and it has not been entirely fruitless. I want to give credit here to the hon. Senator Munnik for his great effort in regard to what we have accomplished. I would recall to members the fact that in 1913 Mr. Munnik succeeded in getting a select committee of the Senate, and that committee brought in a recommendation to impose an export duty of 10 per cent. on uncut stones, so that diamond cutting could be established here. We put up a very good fight then, but we failed; we were up against the big people, those who have no sympathy with South Africa whatever. Their interest has been always to bring everything to London, and all we had to do was to produce the rough stuff for them at lowest possible cost here. The subsequent result of our efforts was attained by hard work and sacrifice of time and even money, and it was from a spirit of the utmost loyalty to South Africa that service was undertaken, with no assistance whatever from the great producers of diamonds! Since 1919 the 10 per cent. export duty has been placed on diamonds, and in nine years the amount of diamonds exported has been £76,000,000, and the revenue has benefited by seven and a half million pounds. That is something done in the face of the opposition of those who have so much control, and enjoy such an extraordinary influence with governments. If we had received the support we might reasonably have expected from loyal South Africans, and support from those who cry “South Africa first,” and if we had obtained the 15 per cent. we wanted, the Minister of Finance of the past Government and the Minister of this Government would have had £4,000,000 more. That respectable sum might have been available for general purposes, and hurt nobody, as it would have been paid to the extent of at least 90 per cent. by rich Americans. When even the smaller export tax was proposed, the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), and his friends, wept tears which ran out of their ears even. Talk about “sob stuff”! The great industry was going to be ruined and all our great millionaires were inevitably to become beggars. Of course, all that rubbish is “professional,” and I hope this country and the Minister of Mines and Industries have now learned it is merely professional. No thanks a tall then to these men that we have had this 7½ million pounds, but entirely through our own poor, feeble efforts. I think the hon. member for Beaconsfield tried to get Mr. Burton to agree that it should be deemed only a temporary war tax, and would be removed later. It came to stop, I am glad to say, but no assistance from these mining gentlemen. Those who worked and strove and partially succeeded, earned the name of cranks. Well, they were profitable cranks, profitable to the State and profitable indeed to the people of this country. We have had three separate Acts, or amending Acts, to regulate and ostensibly encourage diamond cutting, but in no single instance have local cutters been consulted. I am going to refer to them presently, because they have been referred to in a somewhat contemptuous way by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston). I do not want to recur particularly to what I have mentioned before in the House, namely, Government turning for advice to interested sources. That goes on in the strangest way, although statesmen of the world, including President Woodrow Wilson, have warned governments against it. Ministers have depended for advice on one gentleman brought up and trained in the sanctity of De Beers. He certainly must he an Irish Afrikander, for he has been publicly challenging me to come outside and repeat what I never said inside! I have not answered his challenge in that particular way, because he is usually very well backed by lawyers, and I realize that parliament is the one place democracy has provided for people to tell the truth: to stand up and say what is right without any fear of lawyers. Members can fearlessly state here in courteous language the absolute truth, and it is well that it is so. It is a safeguard democracy should cherish as a precious heritage of freedom. What has astonished me in life is ignorance in high places, and this is well illustrated by a statement made by the Minister of Defence, who I am glad to see in his place looking so well. In September last, at Denver, where he is very well known and greatly respected, dealing with this diamond matter, he said that the 10 per cent. export tax was imposed in order to encourage diamond-cutting, and that it had had no effect. I am convinced that, although he once carried the portfolio of Labour, neither he nor any one of the eleven Ministers have been at the small trouble to go to see what local diamond cutters are doing. They have been invited, but I have never heard of their being interested in, or present at, one of these factories. The whole Government reminds me of a locomotive driver who was up for examination for some accident that had taken place, and his plea was he had been too busy to oil his engine! Ministers are so fully occupied that they have not time to look round and see what is being done. As a matter of fact, not only have they had no consultations with cutters, and have not asked them for advice, but when these men themselves offered advice, and came as a deputation to interview the Minister of Mines and Industries to offer strong objection to the signing of a contract with any particular firm, they received but scant consideration. They stated they had already built up a stable industry on which the restrictions placed upon them had to remain, but an outside firm was now to have privileged treatment in having such restrictions removed. The deputation reported that the Minister was not sympathetic. I am sorry these struggling men did not even get cheap sympathy. In nine years they have established eight factories, and one of those establishments, scorned as small by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik), has turned over £100,000 a year in cut stones. Some people who are now rolling in wealth started for Kimberley with a carpet-bag. Wealth and institutions grow. One little factory has over 30 employees, and will shortly have 50. Have these people not their rights? They are South Africans. An hon. member says they have been South Africans for only a comparatively short time, but anyway they risked starting here. Why do not these contract-seekers come over with their advertised 1,000 cutters? After enterprising cutters establish themselves, and the American demand for their cut gems becomes better than it was at first, the word is passed from Antwerp, and perhaps Amsterdam, to get busy and try to pick up this wonderful chance for a contract. The Minister says that others had the opportunity. Was there ever any intimation to that effect from government? Never. Ministers dropped into the political soothing system, which kept them quiet for nearly four years, and if they do not look out smartly they may again be kept dangling in the air for some time, say another couple of years. Always there has been influence at work to prevent diamond cutting in the Union. The reason why the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), and those overseas whom he represents, do not wish to see cutting here is perfectly plain. [Interruption.] Well, if they wanted to see it established here, they could have had it themselves years ago. Every stone cut in South Africa escapes the big combine, and the combine wants to secure all our diamonds at the very lowest possible price. Cutters can afford to pay more for suitable stones than the combine. This monopoly contract (for which we have been kept waiting nearly four years), is the result of a promise of the Minister of Defence, and his colleague, the Minister of Labour, at Kimberley, and after all these years they are beginning to worry whether, at a general election, awkward questions may be asked. So Antwerp is encouraged to put in this precious contract. There is really nothing to prevent Messrs. Rosenstrauch coming along and taking their ordinary chance with anybody else, but they do not. They are proclaimed to be the “second biggest cutting firm in the world, with a thousand persons working for them,” and South African cutters did not trouble them at all. Now they want to snatch this big and valuable concession. They are to put up a guarantee of at least £10,000. Amsterdam and Antwerp, employing between them 20,000 to 25,000 cutters, and earning at least five millions a year, may deem it would pay them to carry on the bluff—again take in these innocent Ministers and say, “We are now sending more substantial men to deal with you.” Amsterdam and Antwerp would willingly pay £10,000 penalty not to put up a factory in South Africa at all. The trusting innocence of our Ministers is indeed most touching. We don’t offer to put anybody else on the same footing as we do Rosenstrauch and Korbf in this contract. I admit that what Mr. Rosenstrauch says is quite correct—that if diamond cutting were established here on a large scale, the big men in the trade would come out to South Africa. That might have the very considerable effect of bringing out the aristocrats of the trade to reside here, instead of controlling the diamond industry from London. It was the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), who recently said that posterity would suffer punishment for our present-day democracy; but, at any rate, we can evidently now call in the aristocracy of the north to redress the balance of democracy in the south. We might have Lord Bessborough, even perhaps a duke or two, and other aristocrats living here! When we analyze the agreement we find that it is drawn in such a loose way that it does not ensure the carrying out of the end we desire to achieve. It states one thing very clearly—that Government is desirous of encouraging the establishment of “a” diamond-cutting industry in the Union. Is that one favoured industry meant to destrop existing diamond-cutting factories? If not, why does the Government not say, “Here are our terms, available to all, and we will give a bonus to every firm that trains apprentices.” If I may venture to give unasked-for advice, for which I also, like another and greater advisor, make no charge, I would recommend the Government to simply fix a 15 per cent. export duty on rough diamonds and have no more bother about it. Let this be done, taking off the extra-extraordinary restrictions on the cutting of diamonds in South Africa, and a thousand cutters would soon be at work in South Africa, without any difficulty and without any financial responsibility on the Government. That is the way other and wiser countries encourage the establishment of industry. They fix the amount of protection they are prepared to grant, and let all comers enjoy it. Here, however, we invent most unnecessary and restrictive complications. The agreement should be submitted to a commission, but when I asked for that to deal with all diamond matters, the Government refused, and the Opposition walked out of the House.

What nonsense!

It was so, only one of your party remained to take part in the division. I can understand the Minister of Mines, who has got the diamond business into a terrible mess, not desiring a commission. He is now going to allow a differential duty, and I would dearly like to know how this “nigger in the wood pile” got in? It was obviously introduced by some exceedingly clever person to be able to give the Government an excuse for not dealing honourably by cutters, and to enable Ministers to say, “We have given cutters this special advantage,” one which has never been asked for by any of them. Strange discrimination indeed. The diamond cutters already at work in South Africa merely ask to be allowed to carry on their business in a businesslike way; they wish to be allowed to buy and to cut and to ship as they choose; and be it borne in mind that cutters come under exactly the same strict supervision as buyers or producers. I wonder who put in that “nigger in the wood pile”! The differential export rate will cause tremendous trouble. Was this inserted then to keep going that family party of expert trappers of Kimberley so that they can hold diamond cutters under their fingers and thumbs all the time? I could tell the Minister some things about that wonderful and expensive department which might even amaze him. They want everybody connected with the diamond trade to be in the position of the toad under the harrow. The diamond cutters of South Africa are honest men—just as honest as anybody else, even Ministers. They ask for no favours, and appeal to the Government only for opportunity of carrying on their occupation honestly for the benefit of themselves and of the country. They are South Africans, and genuinely for “South Africa first.” Whoever put these differential rates into the agreement is a very much cleverer man than the Minister of Mines, clever as I know him to be. The differential rates put cutters in the miserable position of having to be treated differently from everybody else, when all they say is, “Take away the red tape you have specially wound round us and give us a chance of living properly, like the buyers and everybody else; why select us for stupid restrictions hampering our operations?” Plainly the advisor who got this differential x 5 per cent. clause inserted has no good wish to encourage the industry. The existing cutters are content to pay the usual export duty of 10 per cent. if they are only allowed to ship what they buy and don’t cut, and unwanted portions of diamonds already cut. They ask for fair-play, and no favours. If we had had a proper inquiry into it all, I am perfectly certain they would have made their case quite good. Why also give these new people the right of bringing out their workers with free second-class steamer accommodation and free railway passage and all sorts of gifts like that? Those who have been building up the industry had no such aid, and if you give them the same chance they could get out cutters quite easily. Because these favoured contractors are substantial gentlemen from Antwerp, all these good things are added to the inducement. I am perfectly certain that if Ministers think seriously of what is allowed them to export in proportion to what they cut, Government will need to double its detective department and have endless trouble. The hon. Minister declines to assist the diggers because he is afraid of putting up money. Why then does he not put the whole thing on a firm economic protective basis? I plead with the Ministers, notwithstanding their assurances to Kimberley, that they should reconsider matters. Surely these “sacred promises” need not dwell on the consciences of Ministers when they remember that the Minister of Finance has now put them all “on side” as they say in football. They are only bound by his promises, and he made none. The pledged Ministers are therefore quite all right. We humbler politicians envy him in that he did not need to make any promises for his uncontested seat. I ask the Government seriously not to sacrifice 500 of our bright boys and girls by sending them to Kimberley. There is only one subsidiary industry in that place, and it is always kept going, that is the trapping for I.D.B. De Beers Company, which rules there is not in favour of diamond cutting; it has always consistently opposed it. What then would be the effect of setting up a factory there? It would be subjecting 500 boys and girls to the greatest possible temptation. Some of these young people may be tempted into borrowing money, or incurring debt, and then they are inevitably going to fall easy victims to the persuasive “trap” for illicit diamond buying. Kimberley, apart from its unsuitable climatic conditions, is a dreadful place to think of sending these young people to. These “trapped” boys and girls will be sacrificed on the promises of unthinking Ministers. If we must start the industry by this contract, take the young apprentices to Potchefstroom where they will be freer from such temptation. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), and the hon. member for Beaconsfield (Col. Sir David Harris), will, with tears running from their eyes say, “What did we tell you? you would cut diamonds here, and now half a dozen apprentices are in prison." It is a mistake of unbusinesslike men to take these unfortunate youngsters and stick them down in the heart of a diamond-productive area.

Where would you put them?

I don’t say where, and I am not pleading for Pretoria, a suitable centre; I only plead to strike out Kimberley. I have nothing against Kimberley itself except its miserable surroundings, its spying system and its autocratic methods. Without going into this contract further, I ask the Minister of Defence to ask the Minister of Labour, who is certainly a practical labour man and a trade unionist, what he thinks of bringing out 40 craftsmen to train 500 apprentices in five years. Trade unions, I thought, most carefully limit the proportion of apprentices to the number of artisans employed. Some, I believe, permit only one apprentice to four journeymen. Is this contract not totally opposed to all trade union principles, and I understood that our party really stood for trade union principles, at all events in the past. The Minister of Mines in London, referring to Canada, said that Canadians had confidence in their own country and in their leaders. May I tell him as far as South Africa is concerned, we appear not to have confidence either in our country or in our leaders. The reason is plain. I would recommend in regard to this monopolistic contract, when it comes back from the Public Accounts Committee, that it be brought up again at a night sitting—with the lights out.

I rise, not to prolong this debate, but for the purpose, if possible, of drawing it to a close, for the reason that it is going to a select committee, and I want to propose to add at the end of the amendment—

That is a month, and I think it is quite long enough and we have to get through the business of the country.

Oh, that makes it impossible.

No, it does not. Well, I will move, as an amendment to the amendment—

I am sure our opponents will sympathize with us at the shattering attack from the hon. member from Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), who has been such a keen advocate of anything that will stimulate diamond cutting in this country for many years past. It is heartbreaking. If I did not know his record, I should have counted him amongst those on the Opposition side who would raise every argument, specious, plausible or otherwise, that would stand in the way of any great advance in the direction of diamond cutting. I plead guilty at once. He reminded the House of a fearful piece of hypocrisy on my part, and a fearful misstatement. I had said at Denver, in addressing my constituents, that there had been a 10 per cent. export duty put on, but it had had no effect. I was sitting at the feet of Gamaliel in this matter. Did not the hon. member tell us what was wanted was a 40 per cent. tax?

That was Mr. Brink’s suggestion.

No, excuse me, it was the hon. member’s own suggestion. He said also that I have not been to see a diamond cutting factory. I had not been to see one, but when this matter was under negotiation, I took particular pains to inquire how many establishments there were and what number of persons were employed in those establishments, and at that date it was a good deal less than the figure given by the hon. member there.

I thought you did not go.

I received my information from a very good authority, the best official authority I could on statistics. The hon. member, of course, had the advantage of going and seeing all these persons at work. I just want to make one or two further remarks. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter), I wish to take, if I may, exception to his concluding remarks, said in tones which had considerable significance—and the significance was reinforced by loud cheers from the Opposition—that he hoped that the Government had informed themselves of the character of the contractors we were contracting with.

Qualifications.

Excuse me, it was not qualifications, and it was very much cheered on the Opposition benches.

I said qualifications and experience.

The hon. member did not use the word “character.”

Reputation, then. It was not qualifications and experience. I took the words down within the next few minutes after I heard them. It was character or reputation. I take the strongest exception in this House to any such vague innuendoes being expressed. I think it was very clearly appreciated by the cheers of the hon. member’s colleagues on those benches, it was accentuated.

Why do you misrepresent my words?

Those were the words—character or reputation. I just want to refer a little bit to the history of this matter. This particular enterprize of diamond cutting has had the attention of this House and the country on a very large number of occasions in the last 10 years. On one side of the House, and among many of us, there has been the continual urgency to do something definite, to get along and get some real step forward in establishing something substantial in the way of a diamond cutting industry in this country. The Government, supported by hon. members opposite who preceded us, I remember, had the celebrated contract with Mr. “X” in 1919 which was referred to a committee. Under that contract it would have been possible to have had a diamond cutting industry on a reasonably large scale at that time. In face of the opinion, and particularly the opinion of hon. members opposite, especially the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger), who criticized it very severely, that was turned down. A 10 per cent. export tax was put on, and that was relied on. During the time that 10 per cent. export tax had been in operation, very little progress indeed has been made in the expansion of any diamond cutting industry in this country practically until the fact of this contract became known, and then, for some unexplained reason, a very considerable freshet seemed to take place in diamond cutting establishments.

You are wrong there.

As regards these particular contractors, or rather one of them, who is the agent for the others, negotiations were opened with the Minister of Mines in the preceding Government in 1922 or 1923, and favourably considered by them, so favourably that—I will not recall what the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) has quoted—definite lines of a contract were proposed to Mr. Korbf. It is common knowledge that anyone embarking in establishing diamond cutting on anything like a substantial scale in this country must be prepared for very serious opposition both in his front, in his flank and in his rear. Before the Government went out of office, his proposals failed to materialize.

Why?

I cannot say exactly why, but I know the why of the difficulties while we have been in negotiation. Eventually, after protracted negotiations, this contract, which in principle was the proposal of the previous Government, was concluded. I refer to the particular provisions of section 11 of this contract. It was proposed by the late Government that they should give these contractors that privilege. Following their footsteps—and very sound footsteps in that respect—we have concluded a contract along those lines, subject to Parliamentary approval, and I cannot see how this contract can be described as murdering other diamond cutting establishments.

You cannot expect other diamond cutters to be able to live if you do not give them the same privileges and rights.

Is the value of a fully polished and cut diamond determined by the cost of production? Is it not determined by the world’s markets? Do you suppose these people are going to cut diamonds for the South African market? Do you suppose if we establish a diamond cutting industry on anything like a reasonable scale in this country, the people of this country are going to be able to buy all the cut diamonds produced? The value of the cut diamond is determined by the value of the cut diamonds of the world.

You give these people a monopoly of the export trade.

Certainly not. Every fully cut and polished diamond leaving this country pays not a penny of duty, whether it is produced under the terms of this agreement or any other. I am sure you will find that this proposal of ours is really a step forward, and a substantial step forward, towards establishing what, on all hands, at one time or another, has been admitted as a most desirable development in this country, that we shall have a really substantial diamond cutting industry. I do not know that there is any reason why we have to enter into a contract with everyone who comes along. Our object is to establish, on a reasonably large scale, something that will give a real impetus for a limited term of years, to give a move in this diamond cutting industry. The whole thing is temporary, but it is a real step forward in establishing this industry on a reasonably large scale, which some hon. members over there have occasionally talked about as desirable, but which very few have really desired in their hearts. We believe every single industry that can be established in this country which, with temporary assistance, can subsequently become self-supporting, is an advance in the field of occupation and a real movement forward of the people of South Africa.

Why not the State?

We must not say anything about that matter. If they observed that, their alarm would be huge, it would be terrific, because it is so difficult to follow them.

We are not socialists.

No, I think you are not. In another place they have been discussing a measure for the second time which we have discussed in this House, and there the terrific cry of hon. members over there is “encourage private enterprize by subsidy if you like, but don’t let the Government do it themselves,” and here we are encouraging private enterprize by subsidy, and they say “Oh, no; you must not do anything of that kind.” Are we not encouraging private enterprize by subsidy?

No, you are killing it.

We are establishing an industry on a scale altogether beyond anything there is to-day by adopting this measure. The best intentions, unfortunately, are unappreciated by the Opposition. We know that.

Even by your own follower.

Yes. How sharper than a serpent’s tooth is opposition when it comes from the hon. member for Pretoria West. The only consolation I have personally is to think had we declined to enter into this contract and had the fact that the negotiations had been in progress come to the almost universal knowledge of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay), how we should have been writhing now under the accusation by him that we had sold ourselves to De Beers.

I beg to second the further amendment. There has been so much elaboration and exaggeration in discussing this contract with Mr. Rosenstrauch and his company, that I am delighted that the measure has been referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Otherwise it might have taken up a considerable amount of my time to refute all the arguments and bogies that are generally brought forward when diamond questions are being discussed in this House. I agree with the latter part of the speech by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hay) in endeavouring to protect those diamond buyers who first established the industry in this country, and who are not going to be blotted out, but in my opinion damaged, if this contract goes through, because although the Minister of Mines and Industries told the House they would not be injured in the slightest possible way, I do not think he was studying the matter very materially, because under the contract you are practically giving a bounty to those who say they intend to erect a big diamond cutting factory, and the others who have been established for a very long time will have no consideration at all; so you are differentiating between them, and the new man whom you are rewarding and giving a concession. He is undoubtedly going to use it in the markets of Europe, to see how much he can make out of it. In my opinion, it is not fair to these other men.

Will they have to sell their diamonds cheaper?

They will be able to undersell them, because it costs them less. They are getting a bounty. I see it perfectly well. There is a certain part of the speech of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) with which I do not agree. If his speeches were as full of truth as they are of sarcasm, they would be much more reliable. He referred to the sobs and tears of those who are interested in diamonds when the 10 percent. duty was imposed. Of course, that is an exaggeration. The sobs from men of that character are crocodile tears, but when you have the tears of the poor, who are taken in by company-mongers with bogus shares, those are the tears that hurt. The preamble of the speech by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Munnik) was mostly an attack upon the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter). He indulged in an attack of a virulent character because the hon. member, in a practical and able manner, criticized the legal part of this proposed agreement. But the hon. member for Vredefort blossomed out into a counsel for Messrs. Rosenstrauch and Korbf. He seemed to be inspired by them. He asked the hon. member for Gardens what he expected to get out of it, and how he was to be rewarded for the speech he made, but I might, with some justice, ask the hon. member for Vredefort what he expects to get from Messrs. Rosenstrauch and Korbf if this goes through. This agreement which has to be ratified by Parliament, was very low down in the paper until about last Friday. I thought the Government would never bring it forward. I think they had good cause for not bringing it forward. It was suddenly advanced to first place on the paper. It was a very speedy promotion. There must be some reason. The Government must have been very long in doubt as to the desirability of asking Parliament to ratify this agreement, and I think they are still in doubt, and well they might be, but at last they have taken the plunge and have brought this agreement forward for ratification by Parliament. Circumstances have come to their notice since they first negotiated with Messrs. Rosenstrauch and Korbf which must have proved to them—I will not mince matters—that this firm is not of good repute. I say that advisedly. No doubt long discussions have taken place between Ministers, and they have had diverse opinions with regard to the advisability of having any connection with this firm, but they have been forced by the people of Kimberley, one or some of whom have been promised directorships in this concern, if this thing goes through. I say without hesitation that the Government, when they found out their mistake in making this agreement, should have taken their courage in both hands, come to this House and said, “We have made a mistake, and we cannot advise this House to ratify this agreement.” Unless they can arrange with some well-known reputable firm to take over this contract for establishing a cutting and polishing industry, the thing will be a failure and do more harm than good for the future of the diamond cutting industry. If you enter into an agreement with a firm which is “out on the make”—I shall put it that way—rather than encourage the diamond cutting industry—

Are none of your associates on the make?

Are De Beers not on the make?

They make money on the industry itself, but this agreement will be retailed on the markets of the world.

You have no right to say it.

I do not see how Messrs. Rosenstrauch & Korbf can establish a genuine diamond-cutting industry under terms of the agreement. I do not think they intend to do so. They look upon it as a concession and intend to hawk it, for profit, in the markets of Europe. It is nothing but a speculative venture, and the cutting and polishing is a side line. If the Government and the House enter into the contract, the main business of these people will be to export partly manufactured stones, and deprive the treasury of a large amount of revenue, and increasing the difficulties of the mining companies. The mining companies, I may say, have never been opposed to the establishment of a diamond-cutting industry carried on sound, legitimate and business-like lines—but they disagree with the present methods. I think I should better inform the House of the position of the diamond companies if I read portion of the speech of the chairman of De Beers at the last annual meeting.

What was the chairman’s name?

I was the chairman. I have come from a sick bed and have not had time to make sufficient notes. These remarks were well-considered and made after discussion with some of his colleagues—

I hope I have convinced the House that the diamond companies are not opposed to the establishment of a legitimate cutting industry in South Africa. We never have been. What would farmers think if every dealer in produce had the legal right to go to their farms and purchase at the market price the pick of their fruit, cattle, horses and mules, and leave the farmers with the balance to dispose of as best they could. However, I suppose that as the Government is going to work the Namaqualand diamond fields, it will be able to supply these gentlemen with all the stones they require. At the some time the Government is placing the diamond industry in jeopardy. The Government cannot inquire into the standing, position and past of every person who applies for a diamond-cutting licence The holder of such a licence will have a free entry into the company’s diamond room and be able to finger 1,000,000 worth of diamonds, and we shall not be protected in any way. That is unfair. The diamond cutters and merchants overseas buy the stones in competition with one another, and the producers in this country benefit by that competition. Why should not the South African cutters go into the market and buy their requirements at the market price? If they did the alluvial diggers, who complain that there is not sufficient competition amongst the buyers, will benefit. The small men, for whom this socialistic House has no sympathy, find no difficulty in getting diamonds from the producers. When, however, these adventurers come in they will make as much trouble as they possibly can for the diamond producer. What is the present position? The producers of diamonds do all the work, pay an export duty of 10 per cent., but the person who erects a small cutting factory can export these stones free of duty. The four principal diamond producers in South Africa represent a capital of £40,000,000, and they employ about 17,000 people, but directly and indirectly 100,000 people depend on the industry. Yet we are going to jeopardize the whole of that industry for the benefit of a firm of which we know very little, but later on the select committee will know a great deal about them, for I shall place certain documents before the committee which will surprise them. The Government should have been aware of these documents, and it should have found out the past character of these people in the same way as an engineer sees that he has a good foundation on which to build. Mistakes have been made with regard to foundations in this country before, so I suppose the Government must be excused if it made a mistake in not enquiring into the antecedents of this firm.

Read the document.

No, I do not think I should do that, but I will lay it on the Table. It is from the minutes filed by the clerk of the court in Antwerp on October 4th, 1921. If the Government is satisfied to entrust the money of the country into these gentlemen’s hands, then they are easily satisfied. It is my duty as a member of this House, and as a citizen, to call the attention of the Government to the fact that they are placing their confidence and the money of the country into the hands of people who do not deserve it.

I know it is very difficult to talk on this subject, and I am glad that the Minister of Mines has consented to the Bill being referred to a select committee. In that way the people who are cutting diamonds to-day will have an opportunity of giving evidence. It looks as if the Minister of Mines attaches much importance to getting the matter through the House as soon as possible. I think we ought to be careful, because the Minister will remember just as well as I, how, in the past, in the South African republic, we had difficulties with all the concession mongers who went to the Government and said they wanted to push the country ahead, and asked for concessions. The Minister knows what difficulties subsequent Governments had in getting rid of those concession holders. Now the Government asks for certain privileges to be given to a particular group of people. They are the people who will come here to provide 500 young South Africans with work, although there are already people engaged in diamond-cutting in our country. The Minister said in October last that there were not eight small diamond cutters in the country, but I can assure him that there are more than eight today. There are various people in Johannesburg who have taken up the matter. There are cutters in Johannesburg who turn our very beautiful diamonds, and they have been employing young South Africans as well. Why then should we get people from abroad who will cut diamonds under a Government subsidy and train up cutters when we already have people in the country who are doing it without a subsidy. I think that if these local cutters go on in this way, then in five years’ time they will employ more than 500 young people which this company, according to the contract, is going to train. I think the Minister should not deal with the matter so hurriedly. The hon. member for Beaconsfield (Sir David Harris) pointed out what great difficulties were connected with the establishment of such an industry. I am not in favour of no diamonds being cut here. I do not go so far, e.g., as De Beers, who do not want such an industry to be established here, but I am more in favour of encouraging the people who have already made a start here with this industry. Anyone can see in Johannesburg to-day how they are working there and are employing young people, and the number is increasing every day. I cannot see why at Government cost we should benefit people to the detriment of other people who have already started the industry. The hon. member for Pretoria West (Mr. Hay) said that the local cutters who went to the Minister were not received in quite a friendly way by the Minister. I am sorry to hear it, but now they will be properly received by the select committee of this House. I do not know whether the date, 30th April, which is mentioned in the amendment, is sufficient time to take all the evidence. The Minister must beware of those pocket patriots and the speculators who have caused us so much trouble in the past. I am astonished that the present Minister of Mines is submitting this contract to the House. Was that the reason why possibly the Minister of Defence had to take it over? Let the Minister beware of those speculators who hover over the Government like a lot of vultures. Now we are rid of them, and let us try to encourage the people who started the business on their own initiative. I noticed in Johannesburg that quite a number already have little cutting shops, and quite a number of Johannesburg lads are learning cutting there. I am certain that the number will increase. Let us look well into it, and the select committee, when it hears the people, will certainly make a different proposal seeing the present contract is not in the interests of South Africa. Let us rather take the £30,000 for use in the drought-stricken areas. It is unnecessary to pay the £30,000 when we have people who are establishing diamond cutting without grants.

I do not intend going into the merits of the case as the general feeling of the House is to refer the question to the Select Committee in Public Accounts. There will, of course, be an opportunity there of going into everything, even the point raised by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir David Harris) about the reputation of the people, and anything can thereafter be brought up in the House after the Bill is returned by the select committee. Therefore, I have nothing more to say at this stage.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 17,

I move, as an unopposed motion—

It is a mere verbal amendment to bring it into line with sub-section (1) in Clause 14.

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 17, new Clause 19 and amendment in the Schedule, put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

seconded.

Why is it necessary to have these in the schedule now and not before?

Because it is very likely these schools will be taken over by the Government as State institutions, but, in any case, we ought to make provision for the salary of certain persons on the staff of these institutions now. The name of Mr. la Bat has been mentioned. He has served the institution for many years. If we put this in, we can make provision for it.

Now that the inclusion of the blind, dumb and deaf school at Worcester has been moved in, I appeal to the Minister for primary education at these schools be given free, or will the parents have to pay for that primary education?

As far as the Government is concerned, day school education is given free, because we pay in full the salary of the teachers employed.

Has the Minister considered the question of the coloured blind school at Athlone? I do not wish to move on that matter now, but I ask the Minister to pay some attention to this. On Clause 19—

It is only with leave that the hon. member may speak, because the Minister has replied.

Do it on the estimates.

[Inaudible.]

Provision has been made in new Clause 19.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Before you put Clause 2, Mr. Chairman, shall I be in order in moving that? I dealt with the matter on the second reading. Section 14 of the principal Act is not amended as proposed to be amended by the Minister. I put an amendment on the paper to include provision with regard to inquiries in connection with alleged victimization of sanitary inspectors, so that the Minister can hold an inquiry, and a man can make himself heard—if necessary, by legal representation. I want your ruling whether this is in order.

This is a new clause which provides for the removal from office of inspectors of health. As it is outside the scope of the Bill and foreign to its contents, I regret I am unable to put the clause to the committee.

On Clause 5,

I move—

The intention is to relieve the local authority within whose boundaries there are hospitals of responsibility for pauper burials. Very often indigent persons are sent to these hospitals from other districts, and it is not just to the local authority where the hospital is located that it should be liable for the burial of paupers from other districts. If the hospital is under the Union or Provincial Governments, those governments shall be responsible for pauper burials, unless the pauper is placed in the hospital by the local authority itself. In some of the smaller centres there are no hospitals, and very often a sick pauper is sent to the local goal where he can receive treatment from the district surgeon and in that case, it is not the intention to relieve the local authority of the burial expenses.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

At the end of the clause there is a small amendment which I have on the Order Paper. I move—

That is to make it clearer.

I would point out to the Minister that sub-clauses (2) and (3) belong to the principal Act, so the words are unnecessary.

I think it might be taken that Section 10 is Section 10 of this Bill, and it is meant to be Section 10 of the principal Act.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause as amended, put and agreed to.

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

I move—

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) will have the effect of removing the power from the hands of the Minister in certain circumstances. He moves the deletion of two clauses in the Public Health Act, 100 and 102, in other words, he wants to curtail the powers of the Minister to that extent, so that in the event of an epidemic or a case of contact, the Minister should have no power to enforce vaccination. Though I feel, personally, that we owe a certain amount of gratitude to the hon. member for bringing to the notice of the House certain events which have occurred in Europe during the last few years, I think his conclusion is entirely overdrawn and, consequently, erroneous. I think there is no body more capable of judging of the effect that vaccination had in Europe and of the results of the disease which has recently appeared in Europe than the Health Committee of the League of Nations, and I think if this House were to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) we should be committing an error which will not only be a blur on this House, but which will have effects so far-reaching that we cannot to-day see the end of them. I know the hon. member is quite consistent. He has no faith in vaccination, and he will endeavour, as far as he is able, to remove that power from the hands of any responsible authority. Before this House can proceed to the extent of the suggestion of the hon. member, I want to read to hon. members the findings of the League of Nations Health Committee, and to show the effects of non-vaccination. I refer the hon. member and the House to page 139 of the last report of the committee, which was in session in November and December of last year. Here is the result—

The increases in small pox in England and Wales are demonstrated by the tables on the next page. In 1927 the incidence of small pox in England and Wales was practically doubled, and we know that of the European countries England and Wales is the country which is characterized by the conscience clause. I think with these facts before us, we cannot, by any means, with any sense of responsibility, accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). The second argument is that in regard to post vaccination, a kind of meningitis. Again I must refer the House to the report of the same committee of the League of Nations than which committee there can be no more responsible body for guidance. We find it on page 167. We find that in spite of vaccination having been practised in Europe for practically a century and a half, this disease only appeared in the year 1901 and, after that, in 1924. In England and Wales it appeared for the first time in 1922 and in Holland in 1924. For a century and a half not a single instance occurred. For fully half a century scientists have devoted their attention to this particular disease. That it is not the result of vaccination is sufficiently demonstrated by the leading doctor in Europe. [Extract read.] For the years 1922 to 1927 only some eight cases occurred in Holland, and about the same number in England. In the six years in the whole of Europe only 250 cases of this disease appeared. For these reasons I want to warn the House against the effect of the amendment of the hon. member for Hanover Street. We must draw the inevitable conclusion that we have been delivered from these serious diseases by vaccination during the last half century.

I think that we who are not experts in this matter, but have a sufficiently responsible feeling, ought to be thankful to the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) for the explanation of the matter, but I wish to have information from the Minister on certain points. The hon. member for Hopetown raised a very important point. He mentioned that in consequence of the small pox vaccination, i.e., what I believe what we call vaccination, 250 cases of encephalitis occurred in Europe. I have a report here from a Dutch expert, Dr. T. van Heelsbergen, of Utrecht, who is apparently a great specialist in such diseases, and he says that quite possibly cases of encephalitis had occurred previously as a result of vaccination, but they did not attract attention. Although he is a supporter of vaccination, he, nevertheless, thinks that a thorough investigation should first be made, and he agrees with the Netherlands Representative Assembly, which decided that provisionally no compulsory vaccination should be continued, although for many years it was obligatory. Therefore, I want information from the Minister. I have a friend who is a specialist in this department and I remember now that that friend treated various cases of deadly encephalitis, especially in children. I never heard him say that it was the result of vaccination against small pox, but, perhaps he did not know it at the time. I want to ask the Minister whether his department has yet instituted an enquiry into the consequences of vaccination. As I have said, I, as a layman, remember that that specialist treated several cases of encephalitis, but though only a layman I still have the duty to ask the Minister whether an investigation was made, seeing that in Europe serious study has been engaged in, and it has been scientifically laid down that some cases of encephalitis are caused by vaccination. If the Department has made an investigation I am satisfied, but if not, then I must say that I am disappointed in his department, as I have often been in the past. Before I make up my mind on the matter, I want more information. It has been said here that vaccination may cause various kinds of diseases. I have a book here on the vaccination question which states that 279 cases of diseases with fatal results were established as a result of vaccination against small pox in England in the years 1886-’91; they were various kinds of diseases, syphilis, of which five cases are mentioned here, and various other diseases. Encephalitis is not even mentioned, because, although the book was published in 1926, it was possibly not yet known. The matter is of such importance that we require more information, especially as our native population is 5,000,000, who cannot themselves decide whether vaccination is necessary or not. If the native is given an opportunity of saying that he does not want to be vaccinated, he will not have it done. We therefore have greater responsibility than possibly any other country in the world. I should also like to know from the Minister: suppose that we laid down that encephalitis is caused by vaccination, or the Minister has the power under the law of taking steps to stop vaccination or to suspend it for a time. It seems to me that that is not the case. Then the question is whether it is advisable to give the power. It is, however, of great importance because encephalitis, as far as I know, nearly always is fatal.

Half of the cases have a fatal ending.

The hon. member for Hope-town says that half the cases are fatal. That is a frightful mortality. If the disease is really the result of vaccination the Minister must have the power to stop or suspend vaccination until further enquiry is made, e.g., for six months or for so long as may be necessary.

I would like to have an opportunity of explaining my amendments. I am voicing a large number of people who have asked me to put their views before the House. The people of Holland have always been in favour of compulsory vaccination, but when this terrible fact was brought to light, that some of the most horrible diseases were spread as a result of vaccination, they have stopped compulsory vaccination for a time in Holland. My amendment is simply to carry the section to its logical conclusion, so that the exemption shall apply not only to ordinary cases, but under Section 100, which deals with epidemics, and Section 102, dealing with the inmates of an institution as well, because if you are going to allow the ordinary man who applies under the safeguards of the clause to be exempted, why compel a man who is in a Government institution, although he may be a conscientious objector? If a man, applies under Section 10, a certificate should be supplied to him. When the amendment came up last year, there were resolutions and telegrams from the Anti-vaccination League, which is a very strong body, and members of the Christian Science Church objected very strongly to compulsory vaccination in the case of conscientious objectors. Protests against compulsory vaccination were made in 1927 by the Pretoria, East London, Durban and Cape Town Christian Science Churches. There is a very strong body of public opinion, especially in Natal, against compulsory vaccination. According to a message from the Hague to the “Christian Science Monitor” a Bill was introduced into the Netherlands Assembly providing for the cancellation of the three years’ compulsory vaccination law for children, because cases of encephalitis, which had proved fatal, had been traced to vaccination. Dr. van Heelsbergen pointed out that during the last four years these cases had increased to such an extent that the connection between vaccination and encephalitis could no longer be denied. Dr. James Macintosh, Professor of Pathology at the University of London, in a presidential address to the section of Pathology of the Royal Society of Medicine on October 19th, 1926, said—

“The Lancet ” of January 29th, 1927, speaks of the popular distaste of vaccination and remarks—

[Time limit.]

I regret that the last speaker introduced the name of a distinguished physician into this debate, because no medical man in his senses would have written what is attributed to him in regard to the injection of virus into the body. In the early days there was innoculation of the virus from the body of one human being to another, but that has been abandoned for decades. Small pox has been stamped out on the Continent of Europe by means of vaccination. Those best qualified to investigate the results of vaccination have a right to speak on the subject, and if we decline to accept their conclusions there can be no argument, but if we are prepared to advance we will agree that only fools buy their experience. If we can devize a method of procedure by which we can safeguard the human race against the ravages of small pox, let us endeavour to do so. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), or some other hon. member, proposed that our Government should do something similar and appoint a committee of experts to investigate the matter. But why shut our eyes to the inevitable consequences of the laxity which must follow if we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street). If we have nothing better than that, then I would suggest we accept the best we have. It would be an unpardonable error for the future of South Africa to accept this increasing laxity. Apart from that, it has been said that encephalitis is the unavoidable result of vaccination. I have statistics that show that out of 27,000 cases which were vaccinated, there was not one single case of encephalitis. If 100 per cent. of the members of this House were vaccinated, the only individual who will suffer is the one with virus in his body. We shall be acting unwisely and foolishly if we remove the power which the Government has to-day, if we commit the future destinies of this country to a certain number of people who, in spite of conscientious objection, avoid their responsibilities, and their responsibility is this—that they must learn by experience to take the necessary measures to safeguard against it.

The hon. member who has just spoken refers to the “inevitable consequences”

We cannot hear you.

Chair, chair, no one can hear you.

Speak this way, please.

I am sorry, but he said that inevitable consequences must take place unless we tighten up the vaccination clauses. Now at the time of Union we had in Natal the utmost liberty—

We cannot hear you.

The Free State had the same, and we never heard of these inevitable consequences up to the time of Union. For every eminent outstanding medical man who can prove vaccination is efficactious against small pox, some of the world’s best medical men can prove that vaccination has not only not proved efficacious, but is positively harmful. Some few years ago proprietors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica selected one of the greatest authorities on vaccination to write a thesis in the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and that medical gentleman went into the whole history of vaccination. He said that he started from the beginning and worked on it for two or three years and finally came to the conclusion that vaccination had not been proved. He wrote a report which appeared in the ninth edition and which is a condemnation of vaccination, and that was written by one of the greatest experts on vaccination. Naturally the medical fraternity protested against it, and if you look at the tenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica you will see an orthodox statement of the position. All I ask for is liberty of action. If the hon. member wants to be vaccinated, I do not take steps to stop him, and if I do not want to be vaccinated he must allow me to please myself. If he has faith in vaccination, as far as he is concerned, how can it be harmful to him if I do not think it is necessary for me? If he is immune against disease because he is vaccinated, he should have no fear that harm can come to him from me because I am not vaccinated. Some years ago a royal commission was appointed in Great Britain to inquire into the efficacy of vaccination, and it consisted of about 30 eminent medical men and distinguished professors, and they sat I think for seven years, and they asked 30,000 questions—

A useful guide for next Tuesday.

And what did they report? The Royal Commission on Vaccination in Great Britain, after taking this voluminous evidence did not report in favour or against vaccination, but said vaccination had not been proved. What does the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) want? He accepts the conscientious objection clause, which my hon. friend in front has put in, but I don’t think he goes far enough, because the applicant has to satisfy the registrar for vaccination. They had that provision in Great Britain at one time, where they had to satisfy the magistrate. It was found, however, that the magistrates who believed in vaccination refused to be satisfied, and the conscientious objector could not get his certificate of exemption because a magistrate refused to be satisfied, and the position got so bad that it became ludicrous, and a Bill was passed through the House of Commons by Mr. John Burns, who was then, I think, president of the Board of Trade, which did away with an applicant having to satisfy a magistrate before he could get exemption, and to-day exemptions are granted to practically all persons who apply for them. The Bill, as it stands, says that after a lot of trouble and difficulty, we will give you an exemption if you satisfy all the authorities concerned first, that you understand the thing thoroughly, that you have got sound reasons for your belief against vaccination, and once you have satisfied the registrar of vaccination, you may get a certificate of exemption, hut if there is an epidemic we shall come down upon you and vaccinate you. The hon. member for Hanover Street says that the man outside an institution to-day can get an exemption without difficulty, but once inside an institution his conscientious scruples are taken away from him and he is compelled to submit himself to vaccination. I ask the hon. member (Dr. Stals), who has studied this question from one side only, the medical side, to look up and read up the works written by eminent medical men on this subject and the statistics which have been published by the world’s international statistical bureau at Berne and, having got the statistics which are published and the statements of some of the world’s most distinguished medical men against vaccination, I ask him to allow me to attach as much weight and importance to that evidence as he attaches to the evidence of other medical men who he has quoted.

If the Minister gets small pox, which God forbid,—

He has been vaccinated.

—and he does not convey it to anybody else, it is the Minister of Labour’s own funeral, but if the Minister of Labour gets small pox and conveys it to his colleague who sits in front of him and other people perhaps, who may not have been vaccinated, then the Minister is in an entirely different position. We are not anxious as to what may happen to the Minister, but we are anxious that the Minister and other people like him, should not be a danger to the public health. That is really not my reason for rising. I have risen because I am rather mystified. I am glad to see the Minister of Finance here. The Minister of Finance told us this afternoon that when Bills are brought forward by the Government they are Government measures, and it does not matter what Minister is in charge at the moment in the House, they are Government measures and as Government measures they are going to be put through. I see the Minister is blushing. When I think of the words of eloquence that fell from him this afternoon and the manner in which he lectured this side of the House for having presumed to dictate to the Government that any particular Minister should be in charge of a Bill, as they were Government Bills and expressed the combined intelligence of the Cabinet, then, really I am mystified. I am one of those older people who have been brought up under the idea that so long as you have Parliamentary institutions you have Ministerial collective responsibility.

Vaccinate the lot, then.

It does not look as if we have Ministerial collective responsibility now. I would like to hear the Minister of Finance, because, notwithstanding what he said this afternoon, I have no idea whether he supports the Minister of the Interior or whether he supports the Minister of Labour, but if we did follow the advice of the Minister of Finance and my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior went out of the House now and the only Minister here representing the collective responsibility of the Government was the Minister of Labour, my hon. friend opposite, the father of the Bill, when he came in would not know his own child, because between the Minister of Labour and my hon. friend who sits on the cross benches (Mr. Alexander), and some other people, the Minister might find when he came in that his Bill had been turned upside down. I hope this will be a warning to the Minister of Finance that for political purposes he must not make rash statements because chickens have a habit of coming home to roost. When he lectured this House this afternoon, few of us thought that the chickens would come home to roost so soon. It would be interesting to see the interviews which have taken place between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of the Interior in charge of this Bill, because there is no doubt that, feeling so strongly as the Minister of Labour does, there must have been very angry discussions between himself and his colleague.

We agreed to differ, that’s all, on this one point.

Here we have the Minister of Finance telling us that a measure comes forward as a Government measure on which the Cabinet are agreed, and we have another member of the same Cabinet telling us that as far as this Government measure is concerned, they agreed to differ. One would have thought that in these circumstances the Minister of Labour would have seen that there was a constitutional course open to him—we know from experience he is always prepared to sacrifice himself—and that would be to tender his resignation and not be a party to allowing the Government to pass a principle through this House against which he holds the strongest conscientious objections. If my hon. friend is a real conscientious objector, if he has a real conscientious objection and he is not able to impress his views upon the Minister, then the only step for the hon. gentleman to take was in the most polite manner to inform the Prime Minister that as his views were not acceptable to the Cabinet and he held on this vital principle the strongest possible view, the only thing he could do would be, though it would be a great loss to the country, to tender his resignation and refuse to sit on the Treasury benches.

I am one of those who attach much importance to conscientious objections, and if anyone has such objections, it must, in my opinion, be very seriously considered. It is possibly pre-Victorian to have conscientious objections. I am not going into the medical side of the matter. We can leave that to the doctors, but we want to ascertain whether we are entitled to compel anyone who has conscientious objections. As for this Bill, I want to point out that, in this country, we have to do with spread-out areas, and some people live very far from the registrar of births and deaths. How is it possible for such a person to establish his objections to vaccination? It is a great objection. I personally have a conscientious objection to vaccination, and will not have myself vaccinated, even if I have to go to gaol because I am opposed to it, let the medical faculty say what it likes. I have personally seen what children have to suffer when they are vaccinated, and for that reason alone I am already opposed to it. I should like to call the attention of the House to what a great authority on compulsory vaccination, Dr. Kuyper, says in his book, Anti-revolutionary Policy. He says—

That is the opinion of an authority. If the Minister cannot accept all the amendments of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), then we can possibly accept some of them. I feel especially that it is a great objection that one has personally to submit objections against vaccination. Can it not be done on a form which the Department of Public Health issues so that if a person, e.g., objects to his child being vaccinated he can fill up a form and the child can then be exempted? I am not going into religious objections, but I want every person who has conscientious objection should not have to represent them personally, but by means of filling in a form. As for six months, that can possibly remain, but I know that the Minister feels, and I am sure the whole House feels, that if anyone has conscientious objections, we may not treat them lightly. If anyone has them he feels it in the depths of his soul and then it is a serious matter. I admit that there is the great difficulty in view of the black population and the seriousness of epidemic diseases among them, but if there is anyone that is developed and has conscientious objection then it should not be necessary for him to appear personally, but it should be sufficient if he completes a form.

I am very much surprised at the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals). I do not know whether he wants to throw any doubt upon Professor McIntosh. He may or may not agree with him—

In regard to vaccination.

Surely so eminent an authority as that is entitled to as much consideration as the medical authority quoted by the hon. member. He points out, quite rightly, that living virus is still being used in connection with small pox, although in connection with other diseases it has been abandoned. He says—

It has been abandoned in regard to most other diseases.

Name one.

He mentions typhus and he mentions plague.

It never was used in typhus.

I think this is an authority more eminent than the hon. member for Paarl. This is not the way to try and convince the House by coming here and throwing mud at distinguished men, even if you disagree with them. Here is the presidential address of one of the most eminent men in England, printed in an eminent journal. It is using a method of argument that can only recoil on the heads of those using it. The Minister of Labour has always taken up a consistent attitude on this point, whenever it has come up. He has always taken a strong line.

For 16 years.

I do not know what happened when the Opposition were in power—they did not bring their differences on the floor of the House—but one would like some information as to whether they were always a happy family. The only difference is that the present Government, when they have differences, are not afraid to show them.

They cannot hide them.

I hope we will get back to the merits of this question instead of this attempt to draw attention to a thing that has been drawn attention to before. To refer to the Royal Commission, a correspondent from Maritzburg drew my attention to its having heard 50,000 witnesses, and their findings and evidence occupy seven volumes. The final result was that the majority report, signed by eleven commissioners, favoured a conscience clause, and the minority report, signed by four commissioners, was in favour of the total abolition of vaccination. Hon. members must agree there is room for very serious difference of opinion on this matter, and you cannot get over it by calling people cranks. There is serious alarm amongst the public as a result of what has happened in Holland. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) spoke as if the conscientious objector was not recognized by the Bill, but the Bill allows conscientious objection. I merely say that if you recognize the conscientious objector why should you refuse the same man the same priviliges under Sections 100 and 102? My amendment puts all three on the same footing.

I think that I ought now to say a few words about the amendments. Before I come to that, I first want to answer the question of the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost). The hon. member appears to support the Bill as proposed, but on the other hand, he is very much dissatisfied with the Department of Public Health, because he said that it now appears that some people, at any rate, think that there is some connection between encephalitis and vaccination, and he wants to know what information the department can give. He asks whether the department ever investigated the matter. My answer is that the hon. member and, unfortunately, many hon. members and members of the outside public, have an entire misconception of the duties and functions of the Department of Public Health. It is not a university and is not intended for the purpose, it is not an institution for scientific research. The department was not instituted for that purpose. The department is nothing else than what its name indicates, viz., a department to protect the public health against dangers, as much as possible. If the department had to investigate this or the other matter, then a much larger staff would be nesessary, and I should have to come to Parliament every year for much more money. It is no wonder the hon. member is disappointed if he has that idea of the department.

† I now come to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander). Let me just explain, in the first instance, what the present position is. It is that under the existing law, the Public Health Act of 1919, general vaccination is compulsory, and if this measure is not passed the only legislation we have in the country is one for compulsory vaccination; so what this Bill proposes to do is to give relief to the conscientious objector, and as such. I think it ought to receive support from all members of this hon. House, especially from those who are against compulsory vaccination. For the last six years the provisions in the existing law with regard to compulsory vaccination have not been carried out. As the hon. member for Hanover Street has correctly stated, in the preexisting public health laws in the country, provision was made for the relief of conscientious objectors in the old Free State and the Natal laws, but right from the beginning we had compulsory vaccination provisions as far as the Transvaal and the Cape Province were concerned. In 1919, immediately after the ’flu epidemic, a consolidating measure was introduced into this House, and the result was the Public Health Act of 1919; there compulsory vaccination was introduced for the whole of the Union. When this Act was put into operation it was found that there were a number of conscientious objectors, especially in Durban, and as a result of their agitation the operation of the Act, as far as this provision was concerned, was suspended—after the assurance given by the Prime Minister of the day—since 1922; so, for the last six years, the operation of compulsory vaccination was suspended. The result was that the number of vaccinations in the country was, year by year, continually reduced, and the position to-day is that, taking the European and the coloured population, not more than 13 per cent. of the children born every year are being vaccinated. The result is that gradually you are getting, in this country, a condition of affairs which is very unsatisfactory, and is positively dangerous. I told the House last year that unless provision is made this year to give relief to the conscientious objectors and give them an opening, so that their wishes can be met, and, as a result of that, the existing legislation can again be brought into operation, I am not, as Minister of Public Health, going to bear the responsibility any longer of the suspension of the operation of the Act. I cannot do that. It is certainly not in the public interest, and I certainly would not be doing my duty if I did that. Therefore, I am very glad we have reached the stage when there is every prospect of this measure going on to the statute book. What is actually proposed in the Bill is to give opportunity to genuine conscientious objectors to obtain exemption from vaccination. The difficulty, however, is to distinguish between the genuine and the non-genuine objectors, for if you do not do that in the Bill a good many people who are too lazy or too negligent to have their children vaccinated would say they were conscientious objectors when really they are not. The Bill seeks to ensure that nobody shall get exemption as a conscientious objector unless it is quite certain that he has enough intelligence and knowledge to be able to form an opinion on the matter. If you are totally ignorant how can you be a conscientious objector?

I hope your colleague has that intelligence.

The genuine conscientious objector must be distinguished from the non-genuine by, I will not say placing difficulties in the way of his obtaining exemption, but by putting him to some little trouble. It must be easier to have his child or himself vaccinated than for him to obtain exemption. That in a great many cases will be a very good test. If a person actually has conscientious objection then he ought to be willing to make some small sacrifice for conscience’ sake. The great objection that has been raised in the House is that the trouble for the conscientious objector is too great. They don’t want to make some little sacrifice for conscience’ sake, but if they do not desire to do that, their objection is not conscientious. For that reason it is laid down that if anyone wishes to get exemption, he has to apply in person. The hon. member for Pretoria (South) (Dr. van Broekhuizen) has contended that it is not right that we should ask such a person to apply personally. You must not forget, however, that in every district there is a registrar of vaccination, and that the person seeking exemption has no less than six months in which to appear personally before the registrar. I do not think that is too great a sacrifice, or is asking too much. The proposals of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) amount to asking for the deletion of the provision in connection with epidemics of smallpox. He asks for exemption, not only under ordinary circumstances, but also when there is an epidemic. What would local authorities say to that? The responsibility of combating epidemics in their own areas rests on the local authorities, which have to bear a good deal of expense. If the local authorities are frustrated in the carrying out of protective measures they take, in connection with the outbreak of an epidemic because there are so many people who object to being vaccinated, I think we shall have the local authorities up in arms. The hon. member further asks that if anyone applies for exemption he need not state in detail the grounds on which he objects to being vaccinated. That means that anybody can ask for exemption, even although he merely states he is a conscientious objector. If one can merely state that, either personally or by letter, what becomes of the test whether a person seeking exemption has sufficient intelligence or knowledge to be able to form an independent opinion on the matter? The hon. member proposes that the person applying for exemption need not appear personally before the registrar of vaccination. If that is adopted, then everyone desirous of exemption can merely write on a postcard: “I am a conscientious objector,” then the registrar will grant him a certificate of exemption. If we adopt that proposal the whole law, as far as vaccination is concerned, will be made nugatory. There are several things which the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) and others who have supported him forget—that smallpox is loathe some and dangerous, and a very communicable disease, and leaves marks on the body of the patient which he carries through life. The public has a right to be protected against that disease. Further, the hon. member forgets that we have in this country a large native population, to some extent civilized, hut to the largest extent only semi-civilized. The native is very often the chief carrier of infection, and the native population to-day is not in a position that it will carry out the provisions with regard to vaccination unless compelled to do so. One of the magistrates in the Transvaal, in the Ermelo district, gave it as his opinion that if it was made easy for the conscientious objector to get exemption on the ground that he just states that he is a conscientious objector, then in his district no natives will be vaccinated. In the special circumstances in South Africa it is only right and just the people of the country should be adequately protected. With regard to the efficacy of vaccination, I think the whole discussion is beside the mark. Nobody will say that the remedy is absolutely perfect, but as far as we know to-day it is the best remedy we can get under the circumstances. I think we need not go far to see how efficacious vaccination is against the epidemic of smallpox Last year there was a serious outbreak at Durban and many of the leaders of the conscientious objectors became vaccinated. At any rate we have proof that the most serious outbreaks of smallpox we have had in this country for many a day were stopped and eradicated in a few weeks’ time simply as the result of measures taken by the department. We need not go far to get proof of the efficacy of this particular remedy. Just a word about the position in regard to vaccination in other countries, and especially in Holland. Let me just say that what happened in Holland is not altogether new. Three years ago the opinion was expressed in Great Britain that there was some connection between vaccination and encephalitis. The Minister of Public Health, three years ago, as a result, appointed a commission of experts to go into this matter and find out what the real position was. That commission reported that, as far as they could judge, and as far as the results of their research went, there was no casual connection between the one and the other. The position is, encephalitis was found sporadically in various countries of the world before 1917, before the outbreak of the great ’flu epidemic. After the ’flu epidemic the occurrence of that disease was much more frequent. Whether it had anything to do with the ’flu epidemic or not it is difficult to say, but the occurrence of encephalitis became more frequent. The reason why some connection was sought between vaccination and encephalitis was that it occurred in a small number of cases. There was a good deal of encephalitis in these various countries which, admittedly, had nothing to do with vaccination. It had occurred, however, in some cases within a fortnight after people were vaccinated, and that brought some medical men to the idea that there was some cause of connection between the one and the other. The matter was gone into by Professor Jitta in Holland, and he was definitely of opinion there was a cause of connection, and advised his Government accordingly, and the Government acted as the result of that. Subsequent to the investigation in Great Britain, the matter was taken up as already pointed out by the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) by the public health organization of the League of Nations, and they are still investigating that matter, but they have definitely expressed the opinion that the opinion of Professor Jitta, and the action of the Dutch Government, was decidedly premature. They do not know the facts to-day in connection with that, and it is not certain there is any cause of connection whatever. That is the considered opinion of the organization of the League of Nations, but say, for instance, there might be something in the argument of the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander)—that is the position in Holland—and he used that argument against compulsory vaccination. Granted it might be an argument against compulsory vaccination, but it is not an argument against this Bill. It provides an opening for the conscientious objector to get exemption. This is not a Bill to introduce compulsory vaccination, but to give relief to the conscientious objector by enabling them to find an opening for obtaining exemption. I hope, therefore, the hon. member will not insist on his amendment, but will support the Bill.

First amendment in line 48 put and negatived.

On amendment in line 48, after “ninety-six” to insert “one hundred and one hundred and two”, a division called.

As fewer than 10 members (viz.: Messrs. Alexander, Boydell, Fordham, Munnik. Oost, Snow, Strachan, van Broekhuizen, and Waterston) voted for the amendment, the Chairman declared it negatived.

Remaining amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

I am not going to debate these amendments in detail, because they have the same application in the case of adults that the amendments on the previous clause had in regard to children. As the arguments apply to both, I do not propose to repeat them.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause as printed put and agreed to.

New clause to follow Clause 12,

I have not consulted the Minister on this matter, but I take it he will have no objection, conscientious or otherwise, to the inclusion of the suggested clause to follow Clause 12. Clause 104 of the principal Act lays down [Clause read]. The Minister has granted relief to the genuine conscientious objector, and I cannot see that he will have any objection to extending that relief to anyone who desires to enter the public service, and I therefore wish to move—

I should very much like to meet the hon. gentleman, but I am very sorry I cannot meet him here. The hon. gentleman must not forget that the machinery for dealing with epidemics and outbreaks of infectious disease is the public service. He must not forget that the sanitary inspector must play a very important part as far as these outbreaks are concerned in connection with the duties of local authorities, and the hon. gentleman can very well imagine what would happen if your machinery that you use to combat these outbreaks, is itself a carrier of infection, and that is the reason, because you must use the public service to combat outbreaks of infectious disease that you have this requirement in the Act that every applicant for admission to the public service must be vaccinated. For that reason I do not think it would be in the public interest to accept an amendment as moved by the hon. member.

Surely the Minister will be able to limit this to some extent. Take a man employed in the Union Buildings in Pretoria, in say the Native Affairs department, having nothing whatever to do with the administration of public health. Surely the Minister realizes that every public servant who has not the remotest connection with health administration is at present penalized. Is it not illogical to say that anyone who is a conscientious objector will get exemption, but no public servant can be employed unless vaccinated. Under the law of 1919 I could understand it. You allowed no conscientious objectors. But now you have opened the door to conscientious objectors, and why do you penalize a conscientious objector in the public service who has got an exemption certificate? If the Minister said he does not want those who control the position in case of an epidemic to be exempt from vaccination, he should limit the amendment accordingly. The Minister must see that in Sections 10 and 11 he does not say “other than public servants.” Your public servant will still be able to get exemption as an individual. You include a public servant in this Bill, for the purpose of his making application and getting an exemption certificate, but you do not include him for the purpose of getting exemption under Section 104. In other words, you give him an exemption certificate as a citizen of the country, but as a public servant, it is no use to him. Surely that is illogical. You point out he is liable to be dismissed from the public service if he uses this certificate. If the Minister really feels there will be some danger in connection with persons concerned with the administration of public health, then he ought to limit the amendment to such persons who are not in the Department of Public Health. Surely they ought not to be penalized. I have a case of a man who is a conscientious objector and whose son is also. He wrote to me as follows—

There is a man who has not the remotest connection with public health, and yet he is refused an appointment.

I am very glad the Minister has refused to accept this amendment. The position is quite different from that put by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander). Here we have a Government which is able to lay down conditions on which it will take people into its employment. The difficulty about allowing every conscientious objector to have exemption is that every man who is not vaccinated is a potential danger to the community. That is particularly the case where you have a large number of people in barracks, like police in barracks. The real danger is if you allow people to come into large bodies where large numbers of people come together, you are in every case increasing the source of potential danger. With great reluctance, I have supported the Minister in the last few clauses, which I think have gone very far indeed. I do not think anyone can have gone through the epidemic of 1882, as I have, but has seen the disastrous effects on the whole population of Cape Town, especially coloured and Malay. It is all very well to get lax between one epidemic and another, and to have a tenderness for people who say they are conscientious objectors, but it is dangerous, and exposes the whole community to terrible danger when an epidemic does come along. Why many of us are so strong on compulsory vaccination is that we want the security of permanent assurance against small pox. If the Minister were to go further back than he did, as far as the records are concerned, he would find that outbreaks of smallpox have been checked by vaccination. The Minister is quite right that the Government should lay down as a fixed rule that entrants to the public service should not come in without being vaccinated.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) said that my position was quite illogical, but let me point out in the first place that we do not do away with compulsory vaccination in all cases. As the Bill stands here, there is still compulsory vaccination—in the cases of institutions, for instance. An inmate of an institution would be a greater danger if he contracts smallpox than if he were not an inmate, and in his case vaccination remains compulsory, even although he is a conscientious objector—he gets no exemption. The same applies to the actual outbreak of an epidemic, where you may enforce compulsion on the whole community. We do not do away with the element of compulsion altogether. If we retain it in the case of the public servant, the position is not illogical. With regard to what the hon. member said about not compelling public servants in departments other than the Public Health Department to be vaccinated, if we do that I do not think the public service will thank the hon. member, because that will close avenues of transfer and promotion from one department to another. In the public service we have a general principle that public servants are interchangeable between one department and another, and that is very, often the only possible way of promotion. For that reason, too, I do not think we could accept that suggestion.

It seems to me that the No. 13 was unlucky for the proposed new clause, but I now want to move a new Clause 13, and I hope it will be more fortunate. The Minister said that his department was intended to look after the health of the people. The Minister possibly thinks that they do it well, while there are other people who think that they do not always do it so well. My question to the Minister was whether the department will make, or has made, an investigation to determine whether that dangerous disease has also arisen here as a result of vaccination. The Minister has, by his answer, shown that he, personally, at least, is an fait with matters, and, although I have not so much confidence in his department I have sufficient in him to move—

The hon. member must let his motion stand over till the clause is disposed of.

New clause put and negatived.

New clause to follow Clause 12,

Then after the unfortunate new Clause 13 I come with a lucky new Clause 13, and move—

The object is clear. The Minister has not the power, according to law, which is given in the motion. He only has certain powers, such as under Section 92 of the principal Act, where he can prescribe the form for the vaccination of the child, and Section 95, which makes the vaccination of children compulsory, Section 96, which says that the Governor General can, by proclamation, impose certain obligations, and Section 96, which refers to the compulsory vaccination of persons who come into the Union, and Section 100, which prescribes compulsory vaccination in cases of epidemics, and Section 102, which prescribes vaccination of patients in institutions. No provision like that in this new clause is contained in the Act. I hope that everybody will see the advantage, in case of a disease like encephalitis caused by vaccination, or another disease or another reason which makes vaccination inadvisable, that the Minister can lay down that vaccination shall provisionally be stopped, e.g., for one or two months, or that he can merely stop the vaccination of children, or, e.g., can exempt the Europeans, and not the natives, or vice versa. They are powers which the Minister requires with reference to the scientific investigations that are instituted. That is why I have moved this new clause.

It looks as if the hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) now wants to repose too much faith in me. I think that the confidence he wants to repose in me ought not to be given to any Minister. He wants to give the Government of the day too great powers; powers which Parliament ought to reserve to itself. If circumstances such as those in 1922 should actually recur, the Government of the day can take the responsibility upon it to suspend the application of the Act, but the Government must thereafter come to Parliament to indemnify its action, which is guaranteed against the abuse of power. A Minister, if he had such powers, would not have to come to Parliament to answer for to it. The hon. member mentioned a case where it will possibly be necessary or desirable to possibly enforce vaccination on one race and not another. Smallpox makes no distinction between one race and another, recognizes no colour bar, and it would be entirely unpractical to apply vaccination to one race and not to another.

With leave of committee, clause withdrawn.

On Clause 21,

Will the Minister be good enough to tell us what is the effect of the alteration?

When the Public Health Act was drafted the question arose as to the power of local authorities on Government property. It was decided that local authorities had no locus standi, but, according to the judgment of the court, while the local authorities bad no locus standi with regard to Government premises, that is not the case in regard to persons and things on those premises.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I move—

The duties of sanitary inspectors ought to be defined by regulation. The Minister is authorized to refund part of the salary paid by local authorities for sanitary inspectors if they devote the whole of their time to the duties of their office, but the duties are not defined, and it may become a question whether the Minister is bound to refund a portion of the salary of a man who is not devoting the whole of his time to the duties of his post. It is impossible to suggest the definition of the word “duties” now, because inquiries will first have to be made from the local authorities.

I am afraid a provision of this nature will in practice not work well. The definition of the duties of officials connected with the public health are not provided by the Government; take, for instance, the medical officer of health. Nowhere in the Bill are their duties defined, and I do not think an extension should be made in the case of sanitary inspectors. Besides that, the duties of sanitary inspectors have changed considerably from time to time. The conditions in the country vary very much, and it is very difficult as between the small villages and the larger urban areas and municipalities to define in one general definition what their duty shall be. I am afraid the result of such a definition by the Government would be that a good many municipalities will think it is interference on the part of the Government, and it will not encourage them to appoint full-time sanitary inspectors.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 23 and title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

On the motion that the amendments be considered on Friday.

Can the Minister fix another day, because I had a wire from people interested in the matter, who are leaving as a deputation from Durban to-morrow.

Will Monday do?

Yes.

Amendments to be considered on 26th March.

Why is that clause necessary, because in the original Act the clause reads that the Bill shall be under the supervision of the Minister of Public Health or some other Minister. Why alter it now? You have already got the power.

Under the Act it is laid down that it shall be under the Minister of Mines and Industries. There was no Minister of Labour at that time. Since setting up the Department of Labour, it was considered this was an Act which essentially would come under the Labour Department.

Why not leave it to the Governor-General, as in the original Act?

It was put in that way in anticipation of the Department of Labour being set up, because it was the opinion that the Mines and Industries Department would not for all time administer the Act The law advisers say it is the best way to do it.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I should like an explanation from the Minister on this clause, because there seems to be a big principle involved, that is the change from a 50-hour week to a 48-hour week. The Minister brushes it over very lightly in his introductory remarks, but it is a very big thing. You have your boasted Conciliation Act, which the Minister says works very well, and surely the question of a 48-hour week can be settled by agreement under this Act. We had in this House the other day a statement from one of the members on the Labour benches that a signed document was in existence in which a promise had been given by the Government to apply the eight-hour day to the railways. I take it this Bill represents not only the opinion of the Minister of Labour, but the considered opinion of the Cabinet and in spite of a written pledge, the Government of this country decided they could not in the biggest industrial undertaking in the country, namely the railways, bring in a 48-hour week. Very well. Now why is this Government attempting to foist on to the industrialists, on to the private owners, on to the farmers in many cases, something which it says in its own undertaking is an impossibility. I think this House is entitled, and the country is entitled, to an explanation of this matter from the Minister and an explanation which will carry weight, because when the governing body of this country that controls the biggest undertaking in this country, says that an eight-hour day is an impossibility and that they cannot bring it in, I do not see what justification there is for forcing that same eight-hour day on the private employer of labour. It seems an anomaly and it appears to me to want an explanation that will carry conviction not only in this House, but in the country also. I, personally, speaking as a farmer, object most strongly to any alteration of the 50-hour week. It is quite short enough to get through any of the operations which come under this Act, and we have to undertake on the farms. I would instance the wattle industry, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), the other day, and I think it is absolutely against the interests of the country to tamper with the original Bill as it stood, that is 50 hours. I think the Minister, before we accept this clause, should, in the light of the arguments I have brought forward, give this House a very valid reason for the necessity of such a vital change in the hours of labour as is adumbrated in this clause.

It seems to me that the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) wants us to penalize the large number of good employers in this country who are working their employees eight hours a day, and to perpetuate the very unfair competition that these manufacturers have to contend with at the present time. The manufacturers who want to work their employees all hours of the day and night are small in number. The hon. member has not brought forward one figure to show that any industry is going to be detrimentally affected by the inclusion in this Act of these hours. All that these employers who have adopted the 48-hour system ask from their employees is that during the 48 hours they should give their employers efficiency, give them of their best. Efficiency can only be got if the health and leisure of the employee are considered. The hon. member wants us to penalize those men, the good employers, who are endeavouring to bring about satisfactory conditions, and to perpetuate the unfair competition that these men have to meet. I hope the committee will not accept the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Griqualand, but will agree to the clause as it appears in the Bill.

I think there is only one point that I need deal with in the speech of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). He wants to know why on the railways we are not adopting the eight-hour day, and we are going to compel outside employers to do so. As a matter of fact, the eight-hour day is actually in operation in all our railway workshops, and has been for many years, so that it is in conformity with the practice in our railway workshops. It is not in conformity with the practice so far as the running staff and the station staff are concerned. Furthermore, it is in conformity with the eight-hour day convention passed at Washington.

That has not been adopted by all Governments by a long way. It has not been adopted by Great Britain.

This is a step in that direction. As the last speaker has said, more than half the factories in the Union are working less than 50 hours, and this is only to bring the 50-hour week into conformity with modern methods and the modern outlook. When hon. members on the other side were in power, they sent their representatives over to Washington and subscribed to the 48-hour week. I hope the hon. member will accept the indication that the Government is carrying out itself in its railway workshops what it is now asking the manufacturers to do throughout the country.

It is all very well for the Minister to use these arguments, and also the hon. member on the cross-benches. He talks about the health of the employees. Do the farmers only work a 48-hour week, and would you say your farming representatives are poor, anemic men in bad health? The farmer working a 12-hour day can hold his own in point of health and physique against any labour man. This Act applies to both town and country. Sub-section (2) most distinctly lays down [subsection read]. You have your mill for grinding. So long as you grind your meal for human consumption, you are exempt, but directly you grind for cattle food, you come under the Factory Act. Will the Minister controvert that? I, as a farmer, am not prepared to accept 48-hours on my farm or any farm factory I am running for instance, in any process for the utilization of my farm products for stock food. Further than that, our co-operative farm factory is included in the exemption. We are working to-day on cooperative lines, and all co-operative factories are to be subject to an eight-hour day. That is absolutely impossible in our industry. I, as a farmer, to whom this Bill applies, am not prepared to accept this clause. If I stand alone I will divide the House and vote against the clause as it stands.

I find the amendment I had put on the Order Paper is rather in conflict with the Washington Convention. It would mean a ten-hour day excluding meal hours, and that would mean a spread-over from 6.30 in the morning till 6 o’clock at night. That is too long, and I do not move that.

I move it, which I am entitled to do—

Surely the committee is entitled to have some statement from the Minister whether there is anything in what my hon. friend (Mr. Gilson) says. If this Act applies to farming operations, I agree with him it is a serious thing, and it is due to the committee, and especially to hon. members who represent farming constituencies, that they should be informed by the Minister whether the fears expressed by the hon. member are justified or not.

I am not interfering with that part of the Act, which lays down where it should apply; I am not interfering with the definition of factory, or with the exemption or the interpretation of exemption; all I am doing is to alter 50 hours to 48—where 50 exists to-day I am substituting 48. As for the rest, it remains as passed by the previous Government, and it is administered in the same way as it was administered by the late Government.

The point is, it has been discovered since the last Act was passed, that many places which were not dreamed of as factories are treated as factories. Take a place at Malmesbury where they press bales of fodder. The men who work there work fewer hours than the other men on the establishment. Factories here work 48 hours, and that is all right; in country places it is not necessary.

Where they work in the open air they do not come in.

But where they work in a shed? What is the position of cold storage? Does that come in?

That is machinery; that is a factory.

To show how inconsistent it is, take packing plant, where you pack fruit and the like, it is not covered by this, but a place which packs forage does come under this. If you exclude operations under farming you will not have this trouble.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) wants to go further and exclude a co-operative factory.

Most decidedly.

Why should they not be treated the same as anybody else? I am astonished really that in these days an hon. gentleman can stand up against the 48-hour week. There are certain occupations where a rigid 48-hour week is impossible. The hon. member is putting conundrums—when is a manufacturer a farmer, or when is a farmer a manufacturer? Efficiency, and not long hours, should be the test, and efficiency and long hours do not go together. If we have long hours we cannot make South Africa a country worth living in. People must have some opportunity of obtaining recreation. If a farmer branches out as a manufacturer, the employees in the factory cannot be considered to be farm labourers. It is not a good sign for hon. members opposite to appeal to the self-interest of a section of members of this House in order to keep back progress.

There is no objection to an 8-hour day for a legitimate factory in a town, but the last speaker evidently does not know what he is talking about. I want farming representatives in the House to realize the situation, but the representatives on the Government benches of farming constituencies do not seem lately to be intent on securing the same amount of protection for their constituents because of the peculiar circumstances in which they now find themselves placed. I do not agree with the Minister when he says that the alteration merely means the substitution of a 48-hour week for a 50-hour week. I will refer the Minister to the 1918 Act, Clause 2, sub-section 2. Hon. members on the cross-benches must not get excited, for we are not on the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill now. The hon. member (Mr. Mullineux) having run away from his principles on that Bill is now suffering from a certain amount of irritability.

You are running away from your Bill.

Does the cap also fit the hon. member for Jeppes? Did he also run away from his principles? When this mirth has subsided, perhaps hon. members will allow me to read sub-section (2). [Subsection read.] Does the hon. member know if you put up a mill to grind mealies and you grind them for animals and not for human beings, you come under this clause? If he goes in for irrigation work or desires to compress lucerne for animals, and not for human beings, he comes under this clause.

Can you describe that as a factory?

Your Minister says it is. Is the hon. member only just now waking up? Does he allow himself to be duped from day to day? I want to bring a little light to the mind of the hon. gentleman, and I do not think the Minister will contradict it. If I grind grain for the food of animals, or compress fodder, I come under the provisions of the Act.

It has taken you a long time to find that out, and it is your own Act.

That is the interpretation given to the Act, and will be the interpretation given by the hon. gentleman opposite. Will the Minister give me the assurance that between this and the next sitting of the House he will get the opinion of the law advisers of the Crown, and state whether what I say now is correct or not? That is a very fair proposition to put to the Minister, and I hope the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) will see that the Minister gives that interpretation, because, judging from the action of my two farmer friends opposite, they think I am incorrect in the statement I am making.

Business interrupted by the Chairman at 10.55 p.m.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.