When we last debated this matter there was a great deal of opposition to this clause by those believing that if this clause were adopted we should then really be altering the name of the Bill and calling it a Bill for poor relief, for in this clause it states that inquiries will be made into the financial standing of the children with the object of compelling the children to contribute towards that pension. I understood that the Minister was quite willing to leave it to the opinion of this House, and I hope and trust that hon. members will do their utmost to show that it is hot the wish of the majority that an Old Age Pension Bill should degenerate into a poor relief Bill.

If I were a member of the Opposition I would strongly advocate the retention of this clause, because it will stultify whatever credit the Government would otherwise get for having instituted and established an old age pension scheme in South Africa. I met an elderly gentleman last Friday. He has not done so well in South Africa as, shall I say, the gentlemen on the front benches of the Opposition side of this House, but he brought up a large family, and they all contribute a little towards his support. He assures me that if it is decided that the amount of the old age pension is to be recoverable from his sons or his sons-in-law, then he will not make application for it at all. I thought when the Minister of Finance moved to report progress when we were last on the Bill that he did so with the intention of reviewing the position, and I fully expected him to get up and tell the House that the Government had decided to delete Clause 18. Why, it is a blot on otherwise very acceptable and very necessary legislation. The Minister has left the matter to the good sense of the House, and I do hope hon. members will vote—and I intend to call a division on it—so that this obnoxious clause will be removed from the Bill altogether.

Clause 18 put, and the Committee divided:

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the First Schedule,

I do not wish to detain the House, but I think the scale of payments will probably have to be reconsidered later. At present we cannot possibly pay more to old people than what is here proposed, but I think the amount is particularly small. Why there should be a maximum of £51, and not £60 I do not know. I think it is almost impossible for anyone to live on less than £5 a month. In the countries where old age pensions exist the experience is that 90 per cent, of the people who draw old age pensions have no income whatsoever, and about 5 per cent, belong to the class of people who have over £24 a year income. Now it seems to me that, although we fix £54, only 5 per cent, will have more than £30 a year income, because they will get a pension and have a small income besides, but all the 95 per cent, who have incomes will have only the £30 pension. I think it would be a good scheme to put every pension at £36 to be reduced by every pound of income of the person. If a man has £5 income he will then get £31 a year; a person who has £10 a year income will get £26.

What about thrift?

This is not a question of thrift. Suppose a person has an income of £24, then he has £54, namely the £24 and £30 pension, to live on. The Government clearly feels that a person must have £4 10s. a month to be able to live, that is why the amount is fixed at £54, and another system is well worth the trouble of considering. Where thrift comes in, in the case of a man of 65 years without an income and without work. I cannot see, or is he to save on the £2 10s. pension? I hope the Bill will be passed, but the payment is small.

Schedules and title, having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; to be considered now.

Amendment in Clause 6 put and agreed to.

On amendment in Clause 10, viz.: In line 48, to omit “cancel or suspend it or”.

I understood the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Sir William Macintosh) desired—and I agreed—that the House should delete the power to cancel the payment of a pension, but not to suspend payment. Circumstances, however, might arise when the Government should have the right to suspend payment of a pension.

I have no objection.

I move—

Mr. A. S. NAUDÉ seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 13, 16, 17 and 20, put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted; third reading tomorrow.

According to the customs returns for 1927, the import trade of the country has increased by £2,000,000 exclusive of Government imports. Of this no less than £540,000 represents increase in the importation of foodstuffs; £265,000 being for wheat, £93,000 for butter, and £3,000 odd butter substitutes. That is practically £100,000 in the one dairy product—butter. That does not show a very prosperous state of agriculture. There has been a big increase in the export of wool amounting to some 53,000,000 lbs., and £11,000,000 in value. That goes to show that the effects of the drought have been rather over-rated, and to show that the cattle industry of this country is decreasing, not from drought, but because the farmers are getting out of cattle and going into sheep. If we cannot farm cattle, we cannot go in for agriculture, which depends very greatly on the keeping of cattle. We find that in the wheat-growing districts of the Western Province, wheat, barley and oats are being grown year after year on the same land without rotation of crops. In Great Britain, Denmark and Holland there is a rotation of every five or six years, and the farmers are keeping a considerable number of cattle, and consequently the land is getting manure, because the farmers are not allowed to sell any straw off the farm under their terms of lease. Here you not only sell the grain, but the straw, and the consequence is you have nothing to put back on the land. In 1925 the export of beef amounted to £259,000, in 1926 £454,000, but last year it fell to £178,000

Whose fault is it?

The fault of the Union Parliament. In 1926, 62,000 carcases were exported, 42,000 of which came from Rhodesia, 15,000 from Bechuanaland, and the balance from the Union. The increase of cattle in the Union according to agricultural returns is something like 750,000 per annum, but the total consumption in the Union is only 360,000. about half, so that you have to grow 350,000 head of cattle every year to replace casualties, and that is much too high a rate altogether. It shows that too many cattle are allowed to die from what the South African farmer calls poverty, but in other countries they call it starvation. We do not put it down to laziness, but to the action of God, because He did not grow enough grass. It is showing a very poor spirit on the part of the farmer. We have a department of markets and economics, and a department of animal husbandry, but so far we have not seen very much benefit from either of them. The department of animal husbandry has not succeeded in allowing us to obtain stud bulls to replenish the herds of the country, and it is a well-known fact that we cannot go on improving the quality of the herd without importation. The Minister sent a delegation to the Argentine the other day to inquire into the matter of cattle production there. It is only last February that an Argentine farmer gave 3,500 guineas for a calf under 12 months old, and many others were imported from £300 to £1,000. That shows the class of cattle being introduced into the Argentine. They got them from Great Britain, mostly from the north of Scotland. Here the importer, instead of receiving encouragement, has every obstacle thrown in his way, and so little assistance given him by the department, that he has to hunt for it. The dairy industry is rather difficult to start in a country like this of very large farms, because dairying means a lot of hard work. There are no holidays for a dairy farmer. I think the Government might do something to see if they cannot ease the difficulties under which the stud breeder labours in introducing fresh blood into this country.

What do you propose the Government should do to help the stud breeders?

Have we seen anything of your animal husbandry division or your marketing and economics division?

It is your own fault, then.

How? We cannot find them going round the country, and you may publish as much as you like in the— [Time limit.]

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that it is quite impossible at the present moment for South Africa to export soft fruits to the U.S.A. The U.S.A. has placed an embargo upon our soft fruits on account of the fruit fly. I understood, and I think quite a number of members in this House felt, it appears wrongly, that this was a political move on the part of the U.S.A.

No.

The feeling was that the Government desired to protect the farmer on the Pacific coast. I am credibly informed that that is not so, and that the U.S.A. has made an offer to the Minister to send over here one of its entomologists. The Consul-General in South Africa has been in consultation with the Agricultural Department, and has pointed out that there is an opening in the United States for our fruits if they can really come to the conclusion that there will be no danger to their fruit. They are prepared to send a man over here to investigate the situation. Up to now our department has not seen its way clear to allow that. If that is so, it is very important to South Africa. I would ask the Minister whether there is anything in it, or whether the information I have received is incorrect.

I just want to remind the Minister that he has not replied to the query which I raised the other night in regard to Elsenburg, wherein I quoted part of a letter from a fruit farmer in the Stellenbosch district, in which he stated that there is no course in horticulture at Elsenburg for English-speaking students, and that the course is in Afrikaans. He adds—

I would like to ask the Minister where does the equality of languages come in? It is absolutely unfair that in a fruit-growing district where Elsenburg is situated new settlers, who have been attracted here, should not have the chance of a course in horticulture. I see that we have on the estimates £13,700 for horticulture, and I claim that there should be equality of languages.

I made a few remarks to the Minister the other night on the subject of dairying, and the only criticism I got from the Minister was to accuse me of being a socialist, because I told him that it might be necessary to expropriate land. I wonder if the Minister knows that his Government is the father of the expropriation of land in this country, that this Government has adopted the policy. Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister has gone to the country and told us that he wants 10,000,000 acres of land for native land settlement, and that he proposes to take powers to expropriate that land?

That is not fair; it is wrong in fact.

I am not wrong in fact. It is actually stated in a Bill that the Governor General may for the purpose of acquiring land for native land settlement, obtain land in certain areas. I say that to accuse me of socialism when his own Government is fathering the policy of socialism according to his own description, is not right. With regard to the Minister’s reply, what we get from him is criticism. We know that the Minister believes that the best method of defence is attack. Let me suggest to him that when he attacks in future he does not attack with an empty gun. Let him have a loaded gun. I would like to put this question to the Minister. His sheep experts, I understand, are, in future, not to be allowed to class rams for sale. In the past they have been classing sheep for sale purposes. I understand it is the policy of the department that in future the Government is not going to set its imprimatur or its guarantee on a sheep. I think we want here a little uniformity in the policy of the department. Quite recently it was stated that Mr. Edelman, of Cedara, had, in the Underberg district of Natal, graded 100 bags of seed potatoes. I do not object to that, but I do say that we should not take a step of that sort in one branch and then say that it is a wrong policy to apply to another branch of farming. I put it to the Minister that it is very sound policy to go on classifying these sheep. When you have sheep offered at a sale it is a big protection to a farmer to know that the sheep brought forward have been classed and graded by a Government expert as suitable for use in a man’s flock. Buyers have, in consequence, a certain feeling of security given to them. I put it to the Minister that if he is allowing the grading of seed potatoes he might continue to allow the grading of rams to go on as he has done in the past.

I hope the Minister, when he replies, will tell the committee what has been done about investigating the possibilities of artesian water in the north-west. We have seen reports that eminent geologists are of opinion that considerable supplies of artesian water can be obtained there, and I need hardly emphasize the importance of this to the country if it is correct. The biggest loss to the country in sheep, at all events, when drought occurs, is through a combination of hunger and thirst, and of these two, thirst leads to the greatest number of fatalities. If artesian water of suitable quality occurs, it would lead to the development of many irrigable patches in this territory. The matter seems to be of very great importance, and we would be glad to know whether the department has the matter in hand, and what the results of their investigations have been so far.

It has been stated that scab no longer exists in the Free State. What duties are the staff of inspectors now engaged upon? I should like to know if the Minister has been informed of the recent outbreak of scab at New England in the Barkly East district, which happened about eight weeks ago, and, but for the bad condition of the fences between Hersehel and New England, could not have taken place. We had been clean, and when just about to be proclaimed a protected area, scab was similarly introduced on account of the bad condition of these fences. We have been at the Minister for a long time urging the re-casting of our fencing laws, by which the farmers are not properly protected. Indeed, our Fencing Act is quite antiquated, and requires remodelling in order to meet present conditions.

The hon. member is now pleading for an alteration in the law. This is not the stage at which the hon. member may do so. There is no Bill before the House.

I am endeavouring to show that because of the condition of the fences and the Fencing Act, we are constantly being exposed to infection of scab.

If there is a motion before the House, or a Bill, it would be a different matter. On the estimates the hon. member cannot advocate any alteration in the law.

I am not going to touch upon the law, excepting to show how antiquated the Act is.

I think I have made it clear to the hon. member that it is no use attempting to proceed now.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would it not be possible for an hon. member to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that, for the purpose of preventing these outbreaks of scab, every possible assistance should be given in the direction of encouraging fencing? Surely that is not altering legislation.

The hon. member is permitted to discuss administration as far as the Minister is concerned as much as he likes, but he cannot advocate an alteration in the law.

The protection we get under the existing law is inadequate. For a number of years farmers on that border have received no assistance from their neighbours on the other side at all. Fences which hitherto have been jointly maintained are no longer so maintained. That is one of the matters that should be looked into. There is another matter I must bring up, namely, the spread of the disease called bloedpens in our district, and I should like to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to send an expert or a veterinary surgeon up in October to study that disease among the lambs. It is a most serious thing. Farmers have lost up to 50 per cent, of their lambs, which usually die during the first four or five days after birth. It is a matter crying for the most urgent investigation. It is rapidly spreading, and threatens to do incalculable harm unless something is done to arrest it.

In view of the extreme scarcity of facilities for cold storage of eggs, I would like to ask the Minister to inform the House whether his department was acting in the best interests of the farming community when they leased the North Quay cold storage to a private firm, Messrs. Irvine & Johnson, for a considerable period—I am told for over 15 years. The export of eggs from the Cape Town docks has been seriously hampered. It is going to have a serious effect on farmers who are keeping fowls for the production of eggs. Until recently, we had three cold storages— Kamp’s, Verster’s and the Imperial Cold Storage. The Imperial, unfortunately, has been burnt out, and the other two have been acquired by the Imperial Company, with the result that there is an absolute monopoly. The leasing of this quay has also had a very disastrous effect on the farmers who produce fruit. What do we find? The fruit that was required for local consumption is being sold on the local markets at half the price of the actual cost of the empty boxes. This could be avoided if we had the storage accommodation. It may be argued that there has been a serious loss in connection with the North Pier cold storage, but whatever the loss may be, it is small in comparison with the actual loss of the people who are producing fruit and eggs. We think the interests of the farmers have not been considered, and have not had the attention we anticipated from the Government. In a few weeks something like 11,000 cases of eggs per week will require storage, and, under present conditions, where they are going to get storage from I am at a loss to understand. It is possible they might get storage from Messrs. Irvine & Johnson, but probably at very extortionate and fabulous rents. It has not been in the interests of the farmers that this store should have been leased to a private concern. We have heard a lot about the false packing of wool. As one interested in the wool trade almost for a lifetime, I must compliment our farmers. There is certainly a big improvement on what has been the case during the last few years. With regard to experts, we have not enough. There are insufficient men to put on to deal with classification or with the packing of wool. This is done in September and October, when the farmers are busy with their work. In our division we can do with, not one or two, but at least five experts. I maintain that there is no better employment for our young men than to become experts, particularly in classification in the wool section.

I thought you were so alarmed that the estimates are so high.

With all due respect to the Minister, the estimates are undoubtedly high. They could be cut down in many respects. Money spent on wool experts is better than when it is spent in other unnecessary socialistic measures.

You can move a reduction.

A reduction has been moved in regard to the Minister’s salary and in other directions.

How many experts can you employ for that amount?

This is a matter for the Government. My friends from Natal are always inclined to criticize the Western Province farmers with regard to ploughing. They have a lot to learn from the Western Province with regard to the production of wheat and cereals. Undoubtedly there has been a tendency to plough land year after year or after an interval of two years, but in my division several people allow the land to lie for three years, and sometimes for four. Without the Western Province and its wheat production, we should be in a serious position. We would have to import much more wheat. Given fair average rains, I can assure my friends from Natal they will have plenty of wheat from the Western Province.

I represent an urban constituency that is in close touch with agricultural interests, and I want to ask the Minister if he will do me a favour, that is, during the remaining term of his office as Minister, to visit the districts adjacent to East London. We have no trouble about the sending away of our wool, and the steamers for that purpose can easily get into East London harbour, but our trouble is the export of fruit. The export of citrus from places in the Fort Beaufort division depends very largely on East London harbour. I want the Minister to study things for himself and to bring his influence to bear on his colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours, to provide a turning basin in East London harbour; like the boy in the soap advertisement, we shall not be happy until we get it.

There is an old saying, and I daresay the Minister knows it, that if the mountain won’t come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain. If young farmers will not go to your schools, you must send your professors to meet them; you must send them to meetings of the associations, not the larger, but the smaller ones. You must impress on farmers the benefit of feeding cattle, not only for the benefit of the cattle, but also of the farms. You will soon realize the benefit of keeping good quality animals. There is never a bigger mistake made than to think it is only the big framed animals that count—they have no flesh on them, and a man is bound to lose money on them.

They are all bones and horns.

If you get good quality animals with plenty of flesh on them you will make money, but not on raw-boned animals that should have been in their graves years ago. I quite agree with the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) that it would be a retrograde step on the part of the department if they did away with the grading of rams, because nothing is more important than the grading of these rams before they are sold. Many farmers do not know exactly the quality required to grade up their own flocks. It is more for the benefit of the purchaser and buyer than for the seller. With regard to the export of beef, unless we can produce quality we are never going to get away from the continental market. Mediterranean countries want lean beef because they cook with oil. Colder countries do their cooking with the fat of the beef, and want plenty of fat. You want a good quality cattle—young cattle—comparatively fat. Most of the buyers and housewives of this country are too great friends of the frying pan, which is the ruination of the meat trade in this country. One pound of steak and chops is as far as a housewife can go in this country. I do not deny that there are those who realize what they are buying, and make the best of the butcher shop. The great hulk do not know a roast from a filleted steak. More good meat is spoiled by had cooking than had meat is improved by good cooking. It is “up to” the Agricultural Department to impress on the farmers the absolute necessity of improving the quality of their animals and marketing their stock when it is young. That is a job for the division of animal and field husbandry.

During the last few days there has been very peculiar criticism on agriculture. The hon. member for Natal Coast (Brig.-Gen. Arnott) may be a very good cattle farmer, but here he comes into the sphere of sheep farming and tells us how extremely necessary it is to have more officials for grading rams. I acknowledge that the hon. member may be a very good cattle farmer, but I ask whether it is the duty of the Government to grade a farmer’s sheep.

He is also a big sheep farmer.

Well, it is the duty of the farmer to see that his sheep are properly classified. There are sufficient experts to-day who are competent to classify sheep. Is it not a fact that sheep farming is one of the best paying industries in the country? If we look into it we see that after the sugar industry sheep farming pays best. Now the hon. member says: “Appoint sheep experts.” For what purpose? Why must we help still more people who are prospering, while there are others who need help far more? We want to help the farmers, but not the stud sheep farmer, because his sheep have usually been classified, but we want to help the man whose sheep have not been classified. In future we shall adopt the following plan. We shall instruct the farmers on the matter of classifying sheep by lectures and practical illustrations. We want to educate the farmers, and not, as the hon. member wants, to do the farmer’s work while he stands and looks on. I think that it is self-evident that the farmer must be able to do the work himself. Why must the Government do what the hon. member can, and ought to, do himself, because it is the duty of every sheep farmer to learn it. Our experts will also give advice on the subject of wool, but we cannot classify every farmer’s wool, eight per cent, is classified by Government officials, and the balance of 30 per cent, is classified by other experts, often young people who have acquired the knowledge. Thus, out of the 40 per cent, which is classified, eight per cent, is classified by Government experts. The other 60 per cent, is not classified, and the object of the Government now is to teach the farmer, whose wool is not classified, how to do it. We cannot go on helping people whose wool is already classified. I have already clearly said that the department is doing everything in its power to assist the sheep farmer as much as necessary. Hon. members opposite are continually contradicting each other’s criticisms. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) says quite a different thing from, e.g., the hon. member for Natal Coast (Brig.-Gen. Arnott). The latter spoke contemptuously of the lean cattle of the farmers, in other words he said that the farmers did not look after their stock. He forgets, however, the extraordinary conditions which have been prevailing in our country, as for instance in the districts Pietersburg and Zoutpansberg, where thousands of animals died, and the Cape Province, where we have had a three-years’ drought. Does the hon. member think that it is possible without steps having been taken in the past to see that the people can pull their stock through in times of drought, to prevent their being poor stock? Nothing was done in the past. We are now making experiments, and it has been proved that it is possible to keep stock alive in times of drought. The hon. member must not, however, speak contemptuously of the people if they have neglected something in consequence of the drought, although no provision had been made for it. Then the hon. member said that our cattle are unsuited for export, and that Rhodesia and Bechuanaland have better cattle, and export more. Will the hon. member say that if the Johannesburg market had been opened to the stock farmers of Bechuanaland and Rhodesia, they would not rather have sent their stock there instead of exporting it? There is no doubt, that if the inland market had been open, then those people would have sent their cattle to that market. I have already repeatedly shown that we are trying to do everything to improve the position of our dairy farming. In the past, there was no system for assisting dairy farmers. I have now introduced a system to help them, and that is why it is being criticized. Experiments are being made to prove to the farmers that it does not pay to keep bad milch cows, and I have said that there are already more than 10,000 cows being tested. There is an experimental station at Zoutpansberg for crossing cattle, and to see which slaughter cattle are most suitable for our country, but hon. members are not satisfied with it. In Pietersburg there is a station for breeding bulls, but hon. members opposite are not satisfied with that either; what then do they want? They are hopelessly divided. Some hon. members opposite want to expropriate the wheat farmers’ ground along the coast in the Cape Province, and others again say that I must not do such a thing. They are absolutely hopeless. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) opposes a levy, but the Natal members support it. Hon. members say that they represent the interests of the farmers, but why do they not act unitedly in their interests? Let us see how they have worthily represented the farmers. The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) said: We are the people who represent the farmers. We are the people who have the interests of the farmers at heart.

Hear, hear

I am very glad that hon. members say “hear, hear.” I just want to deal with a few points now. They looked after the interests of the wheat farmers by wanting to expropriate their farms. Hon. members opposite have so much sympathy with the poorest among the poor farmers, namely the tobacco farmers, that they made them pay £800,000 into the Treasury from 1922 to 1924 in taxes. Those are the poorest of the farmers whom they love so much. What did they do for wheat growing? They say that wheat growing does not pay. Did they ever do anything to improve the position? We are now making experiments at Malmesbury in rotation farming. We only began it last year, but in any case we are trying to effect improvements, which was not done in the past. What did hon. members on the other side do for the grain farmers in the past? We put the additional 2½d. protection on wheat, but hon. members opposite imported the so called Burton flour, with the result that our farmers could get no prices for their wheat and the country lost £700,000. That is the way in which they assisted the wheat farmers. What was done in the past for sheep farming? Were we not told that if we got into office sheep farming would retrogress and scab would increase. Our sheep have improved and scab has been reduced from five per cent, to 1.17. That is the position to-day. There was an extra charge in England of three farthings for cleaning South African wool, because it was alleged not to be clean. That also has now been removed, because it is no longer necessary. The present Government has also saved £50,000 a year for the sheep farmers by the new shipping freight contract. What about the embargo on cattle? If hon. members opposite say they love the farmers so much, then they surely must have done something to show that love, but instead of that they taxed the farmers and impoverished them. This Government has done everything in its power in the interests of the farmer.

What about the I.C.U.?

If hon. members no longer know what they say, it is very sad. That sort of remark will certainly not assist in settling the question of the I.C.U. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) made a fuss because I discharged certain officials, and because I employed certain others. It reminded me very much of the parable of the publican and pharisee. The pharisee asks, “How can you dismiss a man? I have never dismissed a man for political reasons. I have never been guilty of that,” Did not the hon. member send away 400 scab inspectors? He will say it was Mr. Enslin or the department who discharged and appointed people, and that the Minister did not occupy himself with the matter. But did not the Minister use his influence to see who was dismissed, and who was engaged? Now he comes with a very righteous expression and says that he never did such a thing. It is, however, remarkable that no Nationalists who were dismissed were reappointed, and that those appointed were nearly all Saps. Now the hon. member says that I have appointed a man who was guilty of certain illegal transactions with rams. I challenge the hon. member to repeat that assertion outside. It is a Mr. Spies, a former Government official who resigned for certain reasons. I have appointed him again, because I must have a man who can get on with farmers. The hon. member comes here and makes accusations, but I challenge him to repeat the accusations outside the House. Further, the hon. member said that I appointed a head official who comes from the same district as I do. It would be very unfortunate if I could not appoint anyone who happened to live in the district I come from. But what did the hon. member do? A few years ago he defended the position of Mr. Lamont, and now that I have appointed him, as head of the Department of Economy, the hon. member attacks me.

I meant the chief clerk of the Department of Markets.

The hon. member apparently does not know that Mr. Lamont is chief of the Department of Economy and Markets. He makes attacks here and is not even aware of the facts. Then an hon. member has brought up the question of Afrikaans in the teaching of horticulture. He said that there are settlers studying at Elsenburg, and they cannot follow the classes on horticulture because they are in Afrikaans. I do not know what the hon. member means, but I just want to say that the classes have equal language rights. As far as I know, there are only a few boys who do not understand Afrikaans, and everything is done to bring them up to the standard of the courses which are given in Afrikaans. The hon. member surely does not ask that where there are a few people who do not speak Afrikaans, and three-quarters of the students are Afrikaans-speaking, English should there he preferred to Afrikaans. Lectures are given on agriculture in both languages in the various institutions. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) spoke of the export of our fruit to America. I want to tell him that the trouble has always been the fruit fly. That is why our fruit has not been admitted, but I understand that the American consul has again approached the department and we will go into the matter thoroughly. The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Gilson) has repeated that I have not replied to his criticism. What criticism? I deny that we want to expropriate farms, and that we are greater sinners in that respect than the last Government. If we are sinners, then the hon. member wants us to be still greater ones. I deny that there is any danger, and that we have socialistic tendencies in that direction. I have already told the hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) that we are spending £50,000 less on scab than formerly, but we cannot get rid of all the scab inspectors, because it often happens that scab reappears at a place that was free of it. Then he asks whether I know that there has been an increase of scab in the Barkly East district. I get monthly reports about the position, and if it is so, I hope the hon. member will assist in fighting it. Now he wishes his district to be proclaimed as a protected area. We cannot do so unless the district has actually been clean for a certain time. Then the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) spoke about the cold storage buildings in the docks. As the hon. member knows, they come under the Minister of Railways, and he agreed that they should be let because they were vacant. We could not have known that the Imperial Cold Storage would be burnt down, and as there was sufficient room elsewhere for fruit in the docks, we could not allow that other place to lie idle.

Did the Minister of Railways consult you?

The departments had certain consultations, but if premises are not used why should not the Railway Department let them? If the cold storage had not been burnt down, would that space have been required?

Yes, of course.

What for? Are we to allow Government property to remain empty, and the State to suffer loss? Why then was no use made of the accommodation? We have now the Board of Control on the Export of Perishable Products, and the board was of course consulted and agreed to it. The hon. member for East London (City) (the Rev. Mr. Rider) asked me to visit that part; I shall try, but doubt whether circumstances will permit.

The Minister gets so excited under criticism that he indulges in an avalanche of words in which he is not always careful to refer particularly to what has been said in discussion. He accuses me of objecting to the appointment of Mr. Lamont. I never said such a thing.

You said the Chief of Markets.

If the Minister will not get so excited

I am not excited. Don’t make yourself afraid.

The Minister always reminds me of Mr. Pott. “I will be cool," said Mr. Pott, and he immediately proceeds to froth at the mouth. If the Minister would only give me time, I want to congratulate him on appointing Mr. Lamont. The Minister has found the mistake that he has made.

Nothing of the sort.

He refused to appoint Mr. Lamont, who had been chosen by the late Government for that post, and had been sent to the U.S.A. and to Europe, and he appointed another gentleman, and now the Minister has found that it was in the interests of the service that Mr. Lamont, who was thoroughly qualified, which the Minister said before he was not, to make him Chief of the Department of Economics and Markets. I did not refer to Mr. Lamont. I referred to a gentleman who has been appointed as chief markets officer in the Minister’s department, in the department, I presume, controlled by Mr. Lamont, and I pointed out the fact that there were competent officers in his department before this new entrant into the service, who, I presume, fills the bill which the Minister referred to the other evening, and who is placed over officers who have been in that department for a considerable period of time. I also referred to the fact the other evening, that while I was in office the chief of the co-operation department, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, was Mr. Retief, that Mr. Retief retired under the age limit, that there were an officer and other officers in that department competent to take Mr. Retief’s place, and that during the period he was head of that department he recognized the abilities of that officer and other officers in his department. I asked the Minister whether he thought it was necessary to go out of his way to take an officer, no matter how great his qualifications may be—I know nothing about his qualifications in any way—from the bank in Piet Retief and make him registrar of co-operative societies, and I further asked him if he thought that taking people from outside, placing them in responsible positions in his department and preventing the gradual advancement of other officers was likely to lead to esprit de corps in the public service. I do not propose to say anything further about that, or anything much about the cold storage. All I would say is this, that I am surprised at the Minister, who takes himself rather seriously, not realizing that a Government is not composed of watertight compartments, and, whether it be right or wrong, that the Minister of Railways should pay such little attention to my hon. friend and his department, that he leases a cold storage without even thinking it worth while to consult him.

I would have given him permission.

But the Minister did not get the opportunity of giving permission.

It was not necessary.

How did the Minister of Railways know my hon. friend would have given permission?

It was not necessary.

The Minister said just now, as justification, that the Control Board had been perfectly satisfied. Is the Minister unaware that the Control Board has been appointed to provide for the export of perishable products in this country, but the storage is not alone export storage, but it is the necessity of keeping in cold storage in this country perishable articles which they can put on the market at a suitable time? That is a very important thing. I would like to get some information from the Minister, not alone for myself, but for my brother sheep farmers. The Minister, some time ago, said that a ewe could rear a lamb and produce wool worth 15s. on a quarter of a pound of mealies a day if she only got water enough, at a total cost of 5s. I know there are some places in the United States where sheep-breeding is being carried on in much the same way as intensive poultry farming is carried on in confined areas, and I would be glad if the Minister would inform me where he got information of that character. I would advise anyone who has any money to invest and can get a piece of land like the parade, to go in for an industry of this character. I think it is a matter on which the Minister ought to give the committee a great deal more information than he gave some time ago in a public address. I can understand that if animals have some veld to pick up, or if they can get a certain amount of prickly pear, they could exist for a considerable period of time. It would be interesting for the committee if the Minister would give us the necessary information and the basis upon which it is founded.

I listened very carefully to the reply the Minister has given, apparently to all the questions that have been raised on his vote, but I raised one or two questions on the Auditor-General’s report.

You were not here when I replied.

That is rather weak. It won’t hold water. Perhaps the Minister will give me the answers now, or does he wish me to put them again? The greater part of his speech was devoted towards attacking his predecessors in office, and not to replying to the questions that had been put. I take it the object of the committee in going through the accounts is to get information from the Minister, not of the misdeeds of his predecessors, but what he has been doing himself. I think it is only waste of time. We might sit till the end of the year if Ministers are going to take the opportunity of attacking their opponents for future elections—for propaganda.

What are you trying to do?

I am trying to get some information on what I consider very important points. I asked for elucidation, and I am entitled to have it. I hope the Minister will give it. It is most unsatisfactory. Here is a student who was given over £700, and he stopped only two years in the employ of the Government, We cannot get the money back. I want to know if we are going to get some value for the money this country spends. If it is only a shilling, I intend to get the information.

I want to ask the Minister whether he received a request from the farmers’ union at Newcastle for the establishment of an experimental farm, and I should like to ask him if he sees a chance of granting the request. There is a very great need for it in the northern districts. As the Minister knows circumstances there are quite different from those of Cedara, where there is an experimental farm. The request was conveyed to the Minister last year, and I understand the farmers’ union of Newcastle have again passed a resolution this year to urge the establishment of an experimental farm. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the question, and I should like to know if there is a chance of its being established.

No, if application is made for an experimental plot, there is more chance of its being considered, but these experimental farms cost a lot of money, and we have one at Standerton which is not far from Newcastle. The existing agricultural schools are not even full, and we cannot extend the facilities when the existing schools are not full. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) was not here when I replied. He must not think that I can reply to his bench. In future I shall not reply to questions of hon. members who are not in their places. The hon. member inquired about an inspector who travelled about at Government expense, illegally. I want to tell the hon. member that the money was refunded, and that the official was warned that he would be dismissed if it occurred again. Thereafter an official did so, and he was dismissed. About the bursary gained by a boy for study overseas, I can say that he served for two of the five years which he had bound himself to serve. He wanted an increase of salary, which I could not grant, and after consultation with the Treasury, he was given a certain time to pay back with interest the amount which he had got from the Government, and a large part has already been refunded. He has left the service.

I do not want to keep the Minister’s vote going—[interruption]—the Minister is a champion in keeping his own vote going; but he has not quite followed me in regard to rams. I think he is too generous. We have formed a ram breeders’ association throughout the country and banded ourselves together to hold sales in different centres to stud breeders. The Minister has been very good, and let us have his experts to class rams offered for sale, they have graded them into three classes—stud, selected flock and flock rams. I think that is an excellent thing. This gives confidence to the buyers. A buyer can buy a ram knowing it has the seal of the Government branded on the horn, as being suitable as a flock ram. It is both in the interest of the buyer and of the seller. Let him make a charge, we are quite willing to pay for it. With reference to the guano islands, if the Minister looks into the report of the Auditor-General, he will see that in the last five years he has made an accumulated profit of £150,000 on the sale of guano. This last year the sales were £84,000, and the profit £19,000—or nearly 20 per cent. Of course there may be an explanation for it, but on the face of it looks as if they are making a big profit on fertilizer, which, as far as possible, should be sold at cost price, plus interest and depreciation. The profit is made principally out of the pockets of the grain growers of the Western Province. The Minister might want time to consider the question, and he might reply where this enormous profit comes from, and what it means.

The country has gone through a serious drought during the last few years, which has been unequalled in its severity; no one has had experience of such another drought during the last 40 or 50 years. Can the Minister or his department give us any figures with regard to the losses that have been incurred by the farmers during the last few years’ drought, because one hears such reckless statements as to the losses. Something official, reliable and that can be depended upon will be of great interest to us farmers. We would like to face the position and know in what position the country is with regard to these drought losses. I have been rather perplexed when I look at the statistics, and cannot find anything reliable after the years 1924-’25 in our Year Book, whereas in Canada and Australia, I can get the statistics for 1927. I hope the Minister will get reliable up-to-date figures, so that we can see the progress we, as a farming community, are making. The only figures that I can rely on are those of the Minister of Finance in his budget speech, in which he painted the most glowing picture, and said that, in spite of the adverse drought, the export figures showed a considerable increase. He also said—

What does that mean? If it means the previous year it is very contradictory and perplexing when you consider the terrible drought through which we have passed, because when we get the figures of the previous year, according to the Minister of Finance, the export of farm produce in 1926 was £8,500,000 less than in the previous year, and yet, according to these figures, they are £6,500,000 up, and we are still £2,000,000 to the bad. It seems to me these figures are rather conflicting when you consider what the country has been through in the way of drought. Of course, the Minister was considering the matter purely from the financial point of view; that of £ s. d., and balancing his budget. I look to the Minister of Agriculture to be able to give us the figures from the farming point of view, and what I call the human interest, and not the purely financial one, because it seems to me a serious position that we are down £2,000,000 this year, despite the supposed increase. I hope the Minister will be able to publish the figures shortly, taking stock of the agricultural position, and it would be a very advantageous thing for us farmers to have these figures published very soon, because it is a very unsatisfactory position not to know whether the agricultural position is really improving or going back.

I am sorry the Minister should think fit to refer to my temporary absence from the House as the reason for not replying to my question. Only six of his supporters are at this moment present in their seats.

They are not asking any questions—they are satisfied.

There is only one farmer among them.

I am satisfied with the answer to the first question, but not to the second, because the Minister said the Treasury waived the repayment of a portion of the £700 odd which the student cost the country; that means that £157 was presented to this student. Whose money was that? Why should we lose that money?

We are losing nothing.

The student served only two years and has been released on payment of only three-fifths of his liability to the State. I suppose the Minister has forgotten my third question as to the loan of £100 to a student by the Union Government. Why has this not been recovered from his sureties? It may be said that these are small sums, but I believe in looking after the small sums as the large sums look after themselves. Is it not possible to build up a fund by contributions from farmers during their prosperous years, so that in times of drought they may be assisted without encroaching on State money?

The hon. member has just discussed the possibility of the Minister’s continuing to sit on the Government benches. If he has let the cold storage accommodation for 15 years, then I hope he will not sit there again, because I have never yet heard of such a thing. Now we have the fruit and the people cannot put it in the cold storage.

What people? Mention names.

There are many in Elgin and Stellenbosch. I can give the names to the Minister. As to the export of oranges, I must say that it is a great scandal that there should still be reports from Europe that useless oranges are sent, dried-out stuff. If we send such things we may just as well send footballs. Why are such oranges sent out of the docks? What are the inspectors there for? That is the way our market is ruined. If the circumstances in one part of the country are unfavourable that section must suffer in consequence, but we must not send out fruit and spoil the market of the whole Union. As for the sale of surplus tobacco, the Minister, when a member said that the Government must provide markets, replied: “What a hope,” as if our tobacco was inferior and could not compete with other tobacco. The scrub cattle from Rhodesia are stopped, but what about the fine refuse tobacco which arrives from Rhodesia by the truckful for export? The fine tobacco is brought in in bales to compete with Union tobacco. I want to call the Minister’s attention to it, and I hope he will have the people imprisoned, and not let off with a fine. In Oudtshoorn I saw plenty of good tobacco, and it should never be a part of the surplus which cannot be sold in the world market. But what of the surplus tobacco of the Western Province, e.g.? Has the Minister ever tried to find a market in South Africa? If he makes efforts the co-operative societies will certainly be prepared to give sample tobacco gratis to send to the representatives of the Government.

I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson). I have frequently referred to guano islands, but I have despaired of receiving a satisfactory reply. An article such as guano should be sold at as low a figure as possible. I believe the guano is the only industry controlled by the Government which has given such a huge profit. The Minister may reply that the guano is worth from £15 to £16 a ton, and is sold to the farmers for £7 a ton, but that is no argument, as far as I am concerned. We are also told that the Western Province is very fortunate in getting any Government guano at all, because the Transvaal and the Free State would be prepared to pay a higher price. To encourage the farmers to produce the foodstuffs we so badly require, they should be able to buy the guano at the lowest possible rate.

I want to support what the hon. member for Natal Coast (Brig.-Gen Arnott) has said with regard to the export of meat. The figures quoted by the Minister are altogether too optimistic, because they include large contributions of export meat from Rhodesia and South-West Africa. His own figures show that, in comparison with South-West Africa, the Union is making a very poor show indeed. £5,388 worth of meat was exported to the United Kingdom compared with £21,000 worth from Rhodesia and £15,000 worth from South-West Africa. The figures for export to Italy are almost as disquieting—£57,000 worth from the Union and £117,000 from Rhodesia and £13,000 from South-West Africa. What matters a great deal more is the attitude of the Minister towards this question. I was responsible for the introduction of a motion at the beginning of the Minister’s career as Minister of Agriculture drawing attention to the critical state of the beef industry in South Africa, and by that motion I invited the Minister to consider the desirability of availing himself of the Watkins-Pitchford process of making nutritious meat food from the indifferent stock we have in the country. That motion was supported very strongly by the then member for Kroonstad, who is now Administrator of the South-West. The Minister, the other evening, disparaged this process and seemed to suggest that, if it had been any good at all, the farmers themselves would have taken it up. I want to quote what the present Administrator of South-West Africa said with regard to the attitude of the farmers. Mr. Werth said—

The Minister suspended action at that time because he was referring the whole question to the Board of Trade and Industries for an exhaustive report. He seems to forget that the Board of Trade and Industries recommended very largely in favour of some such process as Col. Watkins-Pitchford had designed. The Minister would have us believe that the whole thing was, if not a hollow fraud, not worth while going into. The body he elected to refer the matter to, reported in favour of some such process. Showing the Minister’s attitude of indifference towards meat export we come to the next phase of his treatment of Col. Watkins-Pitchford’s process for the preservation of meat so that it can be sent long distances without a lot of cold storage provision. There again I think it will be found that the Board of Trade and Industries supported Col. Watkins-Pitchford’s process. I have no precise information, but I have reason to believe that the Board of Trade and Indus tries was in favour of that process being taken up and tested for the benefit of stock farmers in South Africa. The Minister almost suggests that the whole purpose of Col. Watkins-Pitchford was to get a comfortable appointment with the Imperial Economic Committee, or that he wanted to make money out of it. He knows that Col. Watkins-Pitchford said it was not his desire to make money out of it, and that if any royalty was to be paid, he was quite content to pay what the Government was prepared to allow him. The process would not only have done away with the necessity for elaborate cold storage; it was successful in preserving carcases by a method which leaves the meat in its natural condition, but removes the causes leading to putrefaction, and the experiment proved that the application of the process softens and makes palatable meat that would otherwise be too tough for consumption. The Minister doubted whether the process was of any value, yet a representative of the Australian Meat Council reported most favourably on specimens of meat that were-sent via the Red Sea to Europe. The Australian representative’s comment was read by me to the Minister when a deputation waited on him in support of the process. When the Minister came into office, the organization of the Veterinary Department had two different branches, the administrative side and the research side. He has put them both into one. In reply to a question the other day by the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson), the Minister stated that the professional officers at Onderstepoort and its sub-stations are engaged on research work, in some cases in addition to teaching and routine duties. Nobody has a higher opinion that I of Dr. du Toit, the head of the department, but I maintain it is quite impossible for a research officer effectively to carry out lecture and administrative duties without detriment to his research work. He should not have such a wide range of duties as teaching students and attending to the multifarious routine of the organization of the Veterinary Department. The Minister’s own report shows that the doctrine I propound to him here is acceptable in regard to entomology. I want to read what his own report says on this subject—

That seems reasonable, but the very reverse— [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the Minister one question. I would refer him to page 148 of the estimates, sub-head C.4., “preferent sires scheme”. Can the Minister explain to us the terms on which that scheme is carried out, and for what particular purpose and object?

I was dealing with the different policy which the Minister has adopted in reorganizing the veterinary service to the one which applies to his entomological division. I want to emphasize that, in that division, the very reverse to the arrangement in vogue in the veterinary scheme is adopted by him. Whilst dealing with entomology, I would point out that our system of coping with the locust invasion is a very antiquated one, and one that is neither efficient nor inexpensive. Many years ago in Natal, before Union, we had arrived at a means of breeding a disease which was fatal to the locusts, and which enabled the extermination of this troublesome pest in a manner which was very effective. One of the officers who was concerned in that has written to Dr. Ripley, of the School of Agriculture, Cedara, in these terms—

Why should we spend such globular sums of money in locust chasing, in following the most antiquated methods ever thought of since the time of Adam, when the scientific study of this thing, as far back as 1907, resulted in the successful extermination of these pests on scientific lines? There is another point. The Minister has been blamed, and I think with some justice, for not having expedited the establishment of a station which would admit of pedigree cattle being imported into this country from the United Kingdom. It so happens that the Empire Marketing Board, which I know is not a popular body with the Minister—

What nonsense.

Has taken the matter in hand, and had the Minister, at an earlier date notified the Empire Marketing Board of his willingness to admit stock if they had gone through the quarantine station in Great Britain, that station would have been established. It seems to me that a close study of the reports of this board would result in nothing but good for our entomological department. The annual report speaks of the work done in breeding parasites that destroy insect pests. We should be kept abreast of all the discoveries in these matters, and before long we should arrive at the stage reached in Natal in 1907 in regard to the destruction of locusts, and so avoid the expenditure of an enormous sum of money to very little purpose. In connection with the establishment of a dairy industry, I am glad to see that the Secretary for Agriculture has issued a circular calling a conference in Bloemfontein, but I would suggest to the Minister that he should call a conference of members of this House. Let all of us who are interested in the dairy question meet him, and let us pledge to him our support for the introduction of a reasonable measure, either administratively or in any other way which the Minister considers necessary, and for carrying out the two principal things that the Board of Trade and Industries have recommended. There is no doubt that, unless the way is cleared for an export market to be built up, the dairy industry will encounter a blow from which it will not readily recover. At the present moment in the disorganized state of the industry, the question of export is a very serious one. It is not under proper control, there are a certain number of companies which, as the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) pointed out, are allied to control consumption and sale and prices, and, I believe, export, to some extent, but there are a large number of companies which have sprung up since the date of that agreement that are outside this particular ring and which will suffer severely in the event of a surplus occurring and export being necessary to provide for that surplus. I want to emphasize that the Minister, in regard to the report of the chief fruit inspector, was in error the other evening in supposing that I was referring to two different seasons. It is well known that the citrus season, as far as the growth of citrus fruits is concerned, does not extend from one year to another. The report of the inspector referred to the crop for 1927. That report, as summarized by the Secretary for Agriculture, was one which was in absolute conflict with the report of the same officer to the Land Bank on the same year’s crop. The report to the Minister of the Secretary for Agriculture was said to speak in encouraging terms of the improved methods of packing and improved methods of grading citrus fruits. The same officer, in his report through the Land Bank, spoke in condemnatory terms of the methods employed. My whole complaint against the Minister in regard to the fruit industry is that there is no proper connection between the fruit marketing organization and his office. [Time limit.]

I am glad that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) is now in his place. He spoke about the appointment of outside people. I thought it necessary to appoint them, and I am sure that the hon. member must admit that they have done good work. He asks if I was consulted in connection with the letting of the cold storage accommodation. There is a board of control specially appointed by law, and it found that no fruit was being stored, and they cannot allow Government buildings to remain empty. The hon. member also asked me a question recently in connection with locusts. I have to-day received a telegram from Col. Wilkins in which he says that nearly all the districts are now clear, except the two which the hon. member mentioned, and he hopes that in the course of this week locusts will also be got rid of there. He said, however, that the formation of the locusts was extraordinarily thin now, and we must expect an outbreak from the districts of Fauresmith, Jacobsdal and the most northerly parts of the western Cape Province. I just want to say that I am now completing the organization, and that, after the rains this winter, there would be a danger of hatching we shall do our best to exterminate all locusts. It will, of course, cost a little money, but the interests of the country demand that we shall act. We shall do our best.

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but I am very glad to hear what the Minister says. I have no doubt the department will do everything possible. I had a letter to-day saying that the locusts were still in large quantities in the Britstown district, and had eaten up all the wheat that had been sown, but it further says the department is using every endeavour to get rid of them. It is only fair to the department to say that, but I would like the Minister to inform the committee that whatever steps are necessary will be taken, because, unless we track them down and destroy that swarm, it is going to be a very serious visitation.

I assure the House we shall do our best. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) asked what we were doing for the improvement of cattle farming. We have an amount on the estimates which is intended for prizes for the breeding of first-class bulls, so as in that way to encourage it. The scheme was introduced in consultation with the members of the Cattle Breeders’ Association. Then the hon. member asked what losses were suffered during the droughts. The Census Department is preparing them, and I promise that they will be made known as soon as they are complete. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) was not satisfied with my reply. Then I cannot satisfy him. The money advanced to the student is being repaid. Only recently I had a letter from him in which he asked to be relieved from paying the balance, but I refused. As for the £100 to another student, I can tell the hon. member that it was authorized, but the student did not take it. The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. J. P. Louw) hopes that I shall not be sitting here next year. The hon. member knows that the people in Stellenbosch are now waking up and know what kind of a member they ought to have, and these are the last convulsions of the hon. member for Stellenbosch. He also complained about the cold storage building. It was unoccupied, and that is why it was let. Then he referred to the surplus tobacco, and stated that I said that we had no hope of obtaining a market. I said that there was no hope of disposing of the surplus tobacco at a reasonable price overseas at present. There are enormous surpluses in all the markets of the world, but this is a produce which does not deteriorate, and the surplus may possibly be sold off next year. I have asked Mr. Diamond, the Trade Commissioner in England, to do his best. The manufacturers are, of course, not going to mix large quantities immediately, because it alters the flavour of the tobacco. We are only trying to induce them to take a certain percentage, and I am certain the people in five or six years will become accustomed to our tobacco. Then the hon. member said that much refuse tobacco was smuggled from Rhodesia. He says this in the House, but let him give facts, where, and how it has happened, so that we can arrest the people? Where are the proofs? We know that it happens.

Is that my work?

If you see anything illegal being done, and which injures our country, ought you not to report it to my department?

I was informed about it.

Let the person who reported it be man enough to give the particulars. The excise officer cannot see everything. The hon. member referred to the bad oranges that were exported, but we cannot raise the standard so high all at once. If we want to put ourselves on an equality with California, we could hardly export anything. We are doing our best to raise the standard and shall succeed gradually. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski), and other hon. members, said that the Government was making big profits on guano. Most of the profit is made on the skins of seals. Do hon. members know that members of the agricultural union have said that I should increase the price from £7 10s to £15, which is the actual value? They said that the distribution would then be fairer, but I refused.

I want to know from the Minister whether he proposes to bring in a Brands Bill next session, as hinted in the department’s report. I want to know why there was not a special issue to members of the edition of the department’s report which appears in “Farming in South Africa” for November last. Sufficient copies might have been bound to send round. I have seen one copy. In that report, on page 370, with regard to the East Coast Fever Committee, it states that the committee recommend a policy of branding cattle, which would be of great assistance in checking the movements of stock. It is also reported—

We had a Brands Bill introduced three years ago, but it was withdrawn by the Minister. I would urge upon him that it is a matter of great importance to the farmers. Many of the farmers’ associations have asked for it; the Cape Province Agricultural Association and South African Agricultural Union, having been consulted, passed resolutions in favour of it. The police ask for it, and it is absolutely essential for the proper control of the movements of cattle and detection of stock thefts. I raised the question on the vote of the Minister of Justice, who undertook to consider another point, which was a Stock Removals Act, but referred me to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the Brands Act. Akin to that is the question of another Act which is necessary for the cattle and sheep industry in order to check thefts, and the heavy losses that now occur—a Stock Removals Bill, which has been demanded and asked for many years past. We want a really strong Act, stiffened up in the right directions. In the Cape Province, at least, something is required to check the movements of live stock driven by Hottentots and natives. Secondly, there have been cases of speculators and cattle buyers who have removed stock which had not come into their possession legally. There ought to be a form of pass which would show where, and from whom, the cattle were bought, to what districts they are being removed, and other details of that sort. Finally, there is the question of stock thieves who are very difficult today to run to earth, and the evidence which the police are able to get is frequently discounted by purely legal technicalities. Then, I want to ask the Minister whether his research officers are getting quite a fair opportunity. My view is that they are too much occupied with executive duties, and better results would be shown if they could be released from these duties, which take up so much of their time. It is not fair to expect these men to give lectures and the like, and also undertake research work of an arduous nature, which requires an untired brain. They should be wholetime men as far as possible. Then, I would like to ask the Minister whether he will make further provision for extension officers in the eastern districts of the Cape Province? The work these officers are doing is of the best quality, is most helpful, and has had a very marked effect on the production by farmers throughout the Union. One of these extension officers should be located at an experimental station in the Eastern Province—I am sorry the Minister is rather restless. I admit that his vote has taken a long time, but these are points needing attention. All that has been said from these benches is not by way of controversial argument, but to help forward the agricultural industry to the best of our ability. As to the tsetse fly, I was very much disturbed at seeing that the investigations in Zululand had been brought to a close, and to read the opinion of one of the department’s officers that “until game can be materially reduced, it was not possible to keep the fly within bounds.” We should do everything possible to preserve our game. Many species are almost extinct, but it is well known that fly is rampant where there is no game at all. The destruction of game is proceeding with alarming rapidity. A friend of mine saw two men in the northern Transvaal with permits to kill ten head of wildebeeste each, but he counted 137 head of all kinds of game that they had killed. If we kill only wildebeeste, I would not have so much objection, but I am afraid extremely valuable species will be exterminated. We have a magnificent variety of fauna, and we have not sufficient data to justify its destruction because of the tsetse fly. Experience in Rhodesia proves that you can cope with the tsetse fly without killing off the game. The Minister said that we must see to it that we export only of our best produce. Then why did the Minister lower the standard of quality of citrus fruit exported from the Union? Experienced men in the overseas fruit trade tell me that it will take years for us to recover from the effects of the exportation of that bad quality citrus. The Californian orange has a splendid name in Europe, and I would like to see the South African orange as a whole, take an equal footing with the Californian. The Minister, when he referred to the subject of our exports of agricultural produce as raised by the hon. member for Illoyo in relation to California, said we could not expect that our exports should be on the same footing as the American nation’s with their vast population and greater age, but he might just as well refer to Western Province fruit-growers as “the South African fruitgrowers.” We cannot be too careful in maintaining a high standard of quality, and whatever the pressure may be that is brought to bear on the Minister—from Rustenburg or elsewhere I trust there will be no further relaxation to meet a situation which is only temporary. Unfortunately some of the oranges we export are from trees which are too young. [Time limit.]

I just want to answer the few questions put by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben). He admits that the debate on this vote has been extraordinarily long. After saying that, he asks a series of questions which have been replied to over and over again. This question about fruit has been debated repeatedly, but notwithstanding his admission that the debate has been a long one, he brings it up again. It is not necessary to speak about fruit again, as I have dealt with the matter twice to-day. Regarding the tsetse fly, I said the other night that a commission has been appointed to go into the matter. My own opinion is that it must be decided whether Europeans or game are to occupy the tsetse district, but I do not wish to go further into it, because, as stated, a commission has been appointed in Natal on which members of this House have seats, and they will investigate it. The second point we have also already debated. The third point I explained at length the other night. I pointed out that the Cape Province was very much favoured with regard to extension officers. They have Stellenbosch and Elsenburg. They have sheep and wool experts who are included under extension officers. The Cape has just as many extension officers for sheep as the other three provinces The other points of the hon. member have also previously been dealt with. The only new point he touched was the Brands Act. The Bill was laid before the House, and why did it fail to pass? Owing to obstruction by hon. members opposite. I said at the time that, if the Opposition continued, I would withdraw the Bill, and I accordingly did so. I, therefore, cannot now promise that I will introduce it next year. I move—

I want to call the Minister’s attention to the amount of money he is asking for labour for the farms—on page 157, farm labour £4,700, and £850 for labour for the school; Grootfontein, labour £3,850, and school £1,050; Cedara £2,000 and for the school £600. I would like some explanation. I understand the schools are teaching young fellows farming, and I should have thought the best way to learn would be from actual experience of work on the farm. I understand the policy of the Government is to push white labour, but there is as much other labour employed here as ever I have seen. Surely you ought to employ youngsters to do the farm work.

I would like to raise the question of the lack of facilities for agricultural education for women in this country. I would ask that as the State is doing very little in the way of providing courses for continuous and practical agricultural education for women, the Minister might reconsider his attitude towards one institution which is trying to do something in that direction—the farm at Harrismith which has been run for many years by Miss Miller. I am told that since 1922, 80 students have passed through that school—44 under Miss Miller, and of those 44, 10 have found paid jobs, 10 are working at home, six are on their own holdings, six are married to farmers and take an active part in the work of the farm, six are married but are not working, two are awaiting jobs and three are not doing any agricultural work. You will see that the bulk of them are doing exceedingly good work and making use of the agricultural education they have got. All the students who have taken the certificated course have got certificates. Improvements to the extent of £1,143 have been put into the farm in the last six years. They have an up-to-date dairy fully equipped as the result of a donation, and in 1927-’28 they got first prizes for butter at the Bloemfontein show. The Department of Agriculture sends its experts to the farm to report on the work, but it gives no financial assistance. Can the Minister tell us what is the latest report on the institution? I have reason to understand that the reports on the institution in the past have been uniformly good. I do hope that the Minister will reconsider the attitude he took up when I last raised the question, and when he said he would get someone to visit the farm. He could not give any definite statement that he would give them financial assistance, either as a grant towards the experts they have, who cost Miss Miller over £600 a year, or in some other way to show that the State encourages the work of this particular institution, private though it may be, seeing there is no other institution of its kind in South Africa which provides a continuous up-to-date practical agricultural course for women.

In regard to the complaints made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) about the expenditure on labour, I would point out that we are not giving out more now than they used to give out in 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924. The hon. member will see on page 159 with regard to labour at Cedara, we have reduced that by nearly £300. We are trying to reduce this expenditure, but you require labour for your research stations. It is not all labour for the work on the farm, but labour that is required for the experiments that you are carrying on, for your demonstration plots and so on. That is why the expenditure on labour is rather high, but it is not higher than it used to be before. We have actually made a reduction at one of the schools.

You have not made a reduction at Stellenbosch.

We could not manage a reduction at the other places. As far as white labour is concerned, the hon. member brought up the point that the policy of this Government is to employ white labour. We are trying that at Glen, and there are some boys at work there, and they are busy putting up buildings. We are starting that policy to see whether It will be payable to go in for white labour at these schools. I hope it will be successful, and then it will be started at the other Schools also. The hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has again brought up the question of assistance to the school conducted by Miss Miller at Harrismith. I know the position. I visited that farm myself, but when you once start assisting these private schools, where is it going to end? We have got our agricultural schools at present. We have got the faculty at Stellenbosch where young ladies can go and get their education and be properly trained. We have got the faculty at Pretoria. In those faculties there are only a few girls undergoing training. If we go and start extending these places before we have filled Stellenbosch and Pretoria, I do not know where we are going to end. The estimates of the country will go up, and there will be no check. I am very sorry for my hon. friend, but I am afraid I would not be able to persuade the Minister of Finance to assist me in that direction, unless I could prove to him that there is no room at Stellenbosch and no room in Pretoria. Then, of course, we would take into consideration the extending of these places, but at present I do not see how we can do that, and it does not appear to me that there is any justification now.

May I press upon the Minister, not the question of a large grant, but some grant in aid towards this institution at Harrismith? I wish to support what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) because I have a good deal of knowledge of the sort of training that is being imparted to the young girls who have gone to this school. They take the same examination that the Glen students take, and I believe they have acquitted themselves very well, indeed. Not only that, but they have got a very practical training, and I know wives of settlers who, having been to this school, have been able to prove themselves useful housewives and farmers’ wives, well able to carry on farming. One of our most successful poultry breeders in Natal was trained at Miss Miller’s farm. It so happens it is situated in a place which serves two provinces, and it is a mistake to suppose that although the lecturers are unilingual that no bilingual pupils attend there. I saw daughters of Dutch-speaking senators taking instruction, and I am sure the hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Cilliers) would confirm what has been said by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) in support of this institution. It is doing very useful work, and I hope the Minister will be able to make a grant, however small, in the direction of encouraging that work.

I want to reinforce what has been said. Women can attend courses where there is a faculty of agriculture at a university, and they can attend the short courses at the agricultural schools, but that is not what we are aiming at. I want to see something established which will enable women of South Africa who want to take up farming, to get a thoroughly practical training, something other than a university course. We want a place where girls can get a practical training, the same as our young men can get. The short courses certainly do fill a very great want, and they are most helpful, and so are these faculties of agriculture, too, where women who want to become instructresses can be educated. I want the Minister to realize that we are not trying to bait him, as he seems to think, but we do want to get things done, and if he can do something to assist this established institution which is doing good and useful work, I hope he will do so. He may not see his way now to establish State agricultural schools for these girls, but where there is a place like that it would be most useful, and the money would be well spent, to subsidize the place. Subsidize an institution which is being soundly run and turning out efficient young women agriculturists, and is in every way deserving of help, pending the time when the women who want to go in for farming are sufficient in number to warrant the establishment of schools.

I think the time is at hand when the Minister will have to consider the advisability of establishing an agricultural college for women, because there is no doubt there are a large number of women who are now desirous of taking to agriculture and especially of taking up small holdings where they can go in for poultry and various things of that character. This institution the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has referred to, I know is an extremely good one, and has turned out some very apt pupils indeed, and until the Government have embarked upon the establishment of an agricultural college for women, I think it would be a very good thing if the Minister would make a small grant to an institution of that character. The lecturers they have there are all qualified and the course is an extremely good one. I would also like to ask the Minister in connection with the agricultural college at Cedara in Natal, if it is the intention of the Government or if instructions have been issued that in future the courses at Cedara shall be 50-50 in English and in Afrikaans. It is not because I have any objection to the courses in Afrikaans, but I do say, so far as the Cedara school is concerned, it is the only one in which students who are not acquainted with Afrikaans had an opportunity of getting a thorough training, and if there are none like that in which the greater portion of the courses is given in English, it is impossible for many of the people we are encouraging to come to the country and settle on the land to have an opportunity of taking the agricultural course. My hon. friend will agree with me that a certain number of students of this character have been going there, and it would certainly be impossible for them, until they have a thorough understanding of Afrikaans, to derive the full benefit from the agricultural course. I would like to know, are the reports I have received correct, and are both languages to be used equally throughout the lectures; in fact, as far as some of the schools are concerned, like Elsenburg, the vast majority are given in Afrikaans. It is found difficult for certain students who desire to go there, and it is all the more reason why the Minister might make special provision in a case like Cedara.

I assure the Minister that an institution like an agricultural college for women is absolutely essential.

I have permited hon. members to raise this point, but really, strictly speaking, I am not allowed to, because there is no item here with regard to a college for women.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would it not be competent for me or any other hon. member to move a reduction in the vote, agricultural schools, for the purpose of substituting money for an agricultural school for women?

The right hon. member should have discussed that point when the Minister’s salary was under discussion.

We are now discussing five agricultural colleges, for which thousands of pounds are being voted. Could not an hon. member move a reduction in the vote for one of these colleges for the purpose of substituting an agricultural college for women?

An hon. member is entitled to move a reduction or the omission of an item, but the Minister cannot move to substitute some other item.

I saw the Minister of Agriculture, and he assured me that this was the proper time—not on his salary—to raise this matter. That is why I said nothing about it on the salary of the Minister.

It would have been better for the hon. member to speak to the Chairman.

I must say that the last time that I raised this matter, I also raised it on this particular Vote. In future I will certainly see the Chairman about it. I simply want to say to the Minister I think there is a misapprehension about this matter. The Minister is under the impression that the school to which I am referring has to do the work the university is doing. The two are entirely different. The girls who have gone back to their fathers’ farms will be very useful there because of the agricultural training they have received. The Minister seems frightened that a very large sum will be required, but really a very small amount will be sufficient. I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter.

The institution of a women’s agricultural college is of national importance. I am sure it will be a success, for there are thousands of women eager to receive a liberal agricultural training.

I am afraid the hon. member is going a little bit wide. He is now discussing policy.

A similar reason as that referred to by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) has misled me.

The Chair cannot be responsible for hon. members not knowing the rules of order. I am sorry I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss policy.

Would it be competent to do so by re moving a reduction of the vote?

The hon. member may discuss administrative details without moving an amendment.

In regard to the contribution on the vote to the women’s agricultural school at Stellenbosch, the utility of that branch of education, that is, agricultural education for women, should be developed on a more extensive scale and in other directions: by the younger women members of both races meeting at places—educational institutions— they will obtain a better knowledge of each other and create a common bond of union and sympathy. We know how important the influence of women is not only from an agricultural, but from a national, point of view. The institution of our agricultural colleges for women will be an unqualified success and redound to the credit of the Minister. Such an institution is essential, not only from an educational, but from a national, point of view.

It seems that hon. members think that I do not sympathize with the women. I want to refer hon. members to our agricultural schools’ short courses on various subjects, of which much use is being made. Hon. members say the time has come for us to have separate universities for women. We have institutions for them at Stellenbosch and Pretoria. The hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) wants the women to receive a more practical education. My reply is that they can get it at the short courses. The women must have an opportunity of learning their daily work, which is possible at the short courses, and they do not need such a long time for the study of these subjects. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) referred to agricultural teachers who were entirely unilingual, who, according to him, ought to teach at the agricultural schools. If we allow that, where will it end? There is only one agricultural school that is unilingual, namely, Cedara. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) asked if it was true that, we were going to introduce bilingualism at Cedara. The answer is yes.

Why?

Have we not a constitution? It seems to me that hon. members want us to respect the rights of one language and not of the other. What would they say, e.g., if I suggested that Stellenbosch should be unilingual in Afrikaans. I want to refer hon. members to Grootfontein. Elsenburg and Potchefstroom, which are all thoroughly bilingual. In Cedara all the lectures are given in English except a small minority. What are we going to do now? In 1926 it was decided to make a start at Cedara in gradually introducing bilingualism. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort asked if we could not give more time before the change. It is not my decision, but the heads of my department met and they felt the time had come to respect the language of both sections of the people, and they decided as just stated. But if hon. members feel that it is still too soon, I may possibly be disposed to grant an extension of time. Hon. members must understand that there are Afrikanders in Natal as well. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort brought the matter forward in a reasonable manner, and I shall therefore, consider whether we can postpone it a little longer.

Might I point out I am not objecting to the schools where the majority of the students understand both languages. If my hon. friend will take Elsenburg, he will that nine-tenths of the work is in Afrikaans, so that an English student going there and not understanding Dutch finds it impossible to take advantage of that excellent institution. All I propose is some sort of moderation. There are a large number of boys in Natal, born in Natal, who, owing to the fact that Natal has practically been an English speaking colony before Union, have not an opportunity of learning Afrikaans. But as there is an institution like Elsenburg in a Dutch-speaking district, where practically all the courses are given in Afrikaans, it is only fair and reasonable that consideration should be given to a place like Cedara, where, I believe, only one student at the present time is Dutch speaking, and that one thoroughly understands English. Besides, you must have some place, if there is a desire to encourage young people to come into this country and settle on the land, where they can get agricultural training.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.7 p.m.

I want to call the attention of the Minister to the expenditure under the heading, “Experiment stations”. There are three such grants—£1,758 at one place, £1,290 in another, and £2,443 in a third—in each case a reduction on the last year’s amount voted. I am not much concerned about the reduction of amounts, but I am very much concerned about the extension of these very useful institutions. For instance, you have one at Bathurst, one at Pietersburg, and one at Malmesbury, but absolutely no provision made for anything on the Boarder part of the Cape Province, where there is a considerable number of young farmers not well enough off to go to agricultural colleges, but who, in the vicinity of their homes, would receive very gladly and materially profit by such instruction as could be given at an experiment station if one were there. These young men who have their way to make, are not as well off in one sense as the native farmers in the Transkei, for those qualified demonstrators who have been to the agricultural college are young, fairly well educated men who go through the length and breadth of the Transkei conveying the instruction they have learnt to the very great profit of the natives in that great territory. Why should not a sum be allocated for the provision and maintenance of an experiment station, say about Komgha or Cathcart, or somewhere in the immediate district?

I have got to point out to the hon. member that he is now discussing policy which he should have discussed, if he wished to do so, when the Minister’s salary was voted.

May I not mention the necessity of such a thing as this?

The hon. member may discuss the administration as much as he likes on any of the items.

It is bad administration, I submit, that we should not have such a station in the border districts.

I may just point out to the hon. member that under vote 28 (g) (3), provision is made for experimental plots.

I would like to say a few words in support of what the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) said in regard to tuition being given in the two languages, at a place like Cedara. I am told there is only one Afrikaans-speaking student at that institution, and it seems so unnecessary to insist on the use of the two languages at a centre where English alone is spoken. I may tell the Minister this take young fellows from centres such as Durban and Maritzburg, have many of them probably never heard Afrikaans spoken

Don’t they want to learn it?

Yes, if you send instructors there to teach them, but I understand the Minister intends that lectures shall be given in Afrikaans. What is the use of lecturing a lot of students who have no knowledge of the language at all? It is reducing this bilingual fetish to an absurdity, to send Afrikaans-speaking tutors to a centre like Cedara. I understood the Minister to say he would consider the matter, and I hope he will give it favourable consideration for the reason that it is unnecessary. If it were necessary. I would say let us have it by all means, but in view of the fact that at present there is only one Afrikaans-speaking student there, it is unnecessary.

I would like to point out that we always hear that there is never any opportunity to learn the second language. We want to give that gradually, so that they have a chance to learn the second language. The right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) asked me to consider it and give the English-speaking children a chance there. I am quite prepared to help as far as I can. I hope he will, therefore, leave the matter there I will do the best I can.

I hope the Minister will not concede the point. The position is as follows. There are scores and hundreds of Afrikaans-speaking farmers living round about Cedara. Are their rights not to be acknowledged, and are they to send their children to Potchefstroom, Glen, etc., to be able to have lectures in their own language? Further, I have some figures here with reference to Afrikaans in Natal which will interest the hon. members for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) and Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt). I have the report of the Natal Director of Education, and it is not the present one, but that of 1925. It says that there were 24,000 children in the Natal schools, and of those there were only 3 000 who did not know Afrikaans as a second language. On the next page it says, inter alia, that at the following places, teaching is done in Afrikaans up to and including matriculation, because there are parallel classes, viz., Lady Grey, Ladysmith, Weenen, Vryheid, Pietermaritzburg, Dundee, Utrecht and Paulpietersburg. So other places do exist where Afrikaans teaching is given, and I, therefore, cannot understand hon. members not knowing what the position is. Instead of being grateful for the Minister’s meeting them as he does, which, in my opinion, goes too far, the hon. members for Klip River and for Fort Beaufort get up apparently only to keep the matter going. Is it a fact that they only want to protect the students, or is there another reason behind it? Hon. members must not blame us for being suspicious. It is a good thing if the Minister tries to meet the Natal people, but it cannot come from one side. If the hon. members for Klip River and Fort Beaufort still get up—and the latter has, as far I know, no concern in Natal—then I think that the Minister will have to remain firm, and protect the rights of the Afrikaans farmer and children in Natal. It is quite clear that in recent years—and the figures clearly show it—Natal, also is, fortunately, beginning to be more and more Afrikaans.

I just want to ask the Minister a question in connection with the experimental station at Pietersburg. They have no telephone there, although the Agricultural Department has approved of it, but I understand the difficulty lies with the Minister of Finance. I am, therefore, glad that he is present. The position is that the experimental station cannot give the farmers the necessary help, because it has no telephonic connection. When the farmers want to telephone to the station, the nearest telephone is at Pietersburg, five miles from the station. An application was made, and the Agricultural Department, as well as the Posts and Telegraphs Department, approved of it, and, I understand, the Minister of Finance is the reason the telephone has not been put in.

The Minister of Finance does not provide money for each separate line.

The excuse of the Agricultural Department was that the Minister or Finance had not provided the necessary money. In any case, the Minister of Agriculture will agree that it is necessary. The farmers require information from the station; they nearly all have telephones throughout the whole district, and they often live at a considerable distance from the station. I think the station is the only public place that has no telephone. I hope, therefore, the Minister will attend to the matter.

I should like to have some information with regard to Grootfontein. It is not only an important school, but it is also an institution with which an exceptionally large farm and business is connected, and where much work is done. I now notice that after the item, “Vice-principal” it says, “not repeated”. I know that the vice-principal left there some time ago. Are we to conclude that it is the Minister’s intention not to appoint another vice-principal? The field of work is particularly large, and, in my opinion, it is not possible to manage with a principal only, but a vice-principal is required. Now I should like to know whether we are to conclude from this that no vice-principal is to be appointed, and whether the Minister is not afraid that this will lead to trouble. For years there was a farm manager on Grootfontein, and I think the Minister will agree he did very good work, that he was capable, and took an interest in his work. Our farmers were disappointed to hear that he had vanished, and for some time no one was appointed in his place. The Minister doubtless had good reasons for the discharge, but I did not hear what they were. I see another has been appointed in his place, I do not know whether permanently or temporarily. If it is a permanent appointment, then I hope the Minister has appointed someone acquainted with circumstances in the Karroo, which differ so greatly from those in other parts of the country. If it is a permanent appointment, then I hope we have got a clever man of the same capacity as the one we had before.

I notice that the milk and cream purchased for dairy courses at the different colleges amounts to £360, but at Glen the amount is £1,000. Can the Minister explain why there should be that extraordinary expenditure at Glen?

I hope the Minister will entirely abandon the idea of introducing a bilingual course or bilingual lectures at Cedara; half-bilingual, as I understood. It is within my personal knowledge that at the present moment there is only one Dutch-speaking student there, and he has gone there deliberately because I understand he wishes to have instruction through the other medium. I want to emphasize for the Minister’s information if any such thing is proposed, he will have the attendance falling off considerably, if, indeed, he does not have the school empty, because it has always been looked upon as a centre for the teaching of agriculture in Natal, and it is the only school of agriculture, I understand, where there is a unilingual (English) course; and because of that, a number of settlers from overseas go there. That is, in addition, a growing number who attend there from Natal, and the figures published by the Minister show that the school compares favourably with any of the others under his control—99 at Glen, 79 at Grootfontein, 36 at Cedara and 56 at Potchefstroom. In regard to the other work, the school has conferred a very great benefit on the whole of the province, and is very much appreciated. Another point which I want to impress on the Minister is the restriction he has placed on the lecturers at Cedara from contributing articles to the press, which is felt to be a very retrogressive step. Let me compare what is done by the principal poultry officer who is allowed to run a magazine, the proceeds of which go to his own benefit, or a large share of the advertisements, I understand; but there is the strictest embargo against any of the lecturers contributing to the press. In the past this has not interfered in any way with their duties, and has enabled them to supplement their income to a small extent. These articles have been very much appreciated by the farming public. I think, my hon. friend (Mr. Nel) brought this matter up on a previous occasion, and since then I have had opportunities of learning from the people of Natal that they feel very sore on the subject, and they want these lecturers to send their informative and instructive articles to the press from time to time. One would like to know what arrangement the Minister has made in connection with the poultry lecturer in regard to the extension scheme. He is stationed at Maritzburg, and no longer at Cedara. Does the Minister favour that arrangement, and if so, why has it been found necessary? Is it in response to a request from those interested in the subject, or is it just an arrangement which has been made without consulting the public?

On the Vote being put,

Why does the Chair not allow the Minister to reply?

It is not for the Chair to ask the Minister to reply.

The Minister got up to reply.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, you may not have seen the Minister, but he got up to reply, as courtesy demanded.

I am prepared to answer if you give me the opportunity.

I understand the Minister did get up to reply.

I have already dealt with most of the points raised. Last year I dealt fully with the writing of articles by officials. I said that officials were paid, and that they could not be permitted to get further payment from the press. They can write enough in the departmental organ. As for poultry experts, I want to point out that we have quite a number of them, and they pass their time alternatively in parts of Natal, the Transvaal, the Free State, and the Cape Province. We have not got one at Cedara, because the department considered it better to do the work from another centre. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) spoke about the buying of milk at Glen, and why such a large amount was necessary. It is necessary because milk lectures are given there. There are a number of children in the classes where butter and cream making is taught. We cannot buy all the special stock to get enough milk to make butter for the students on the farm, and to supply the people there, but the hon. member will see that the butter which is made in the classes is sold. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. G. A. Louw) asked if no new vice-principal was to be appointed at Grootfontein. No, because it is unnecessary. Why do we need a principal and vice-principal on an experimental farm? The principal would be able to delegate all his responsibility to the vice-principal and not feel his own responsibility. The hon. member also spoke about the farm manager. I do not know whether he wishes us to depart from the system that officials should retire when they attain a certain age. We have appointed a young South African, Mr. Viljoen, in the place of the old manager; he was trained at Onderstepoort, and I have every confidence that he will be a success.

Vote put and agreed to

On Vote 30, “Forestry,” £190,080.

We have a very valuable report by the Forestry Department which, unfortunately, has not received the attention of the House and the country which its importance so richly demands. During the year under review, £3,128,235 worth of timber was imported into South Africa, an increase in value of £412,000, and in quantity of 2,000,000 cubic feet over the importation for the preceding year. During the year 15,642 acres of afforestation were carried out, and I understand 168,000 acres are under plantations under the charge of the Forest Department apart from private plantations. The report refers to the considerable depreciation of timber caused by disease and more especially by the snout beetle. The total revenue derived by the department from wood from the plantations was something like £51,000, £22,000 of which was represented by the sale of indigenous trees which take a very long time to grow, so the sales have wiped out a considerable amount of our tree assets. Railway sleepers were bought to the value of £124,000. We have an excellent Forestry Department composed of skilled and experienced men who are fully capable of initiating and carrying out a big afforestation scheme. These men and their abilities are not taken sufficiently into consideration. Out of the £190,000 on the estimates, over £100,000 are devoted to salaries, wages, subsistence and transport. In addition the sum of £209,000 appears on the loan estimates for afforestation, this being a welcome increase of £14,000 on the amount for last year, but with a comparatively small increase of personnel, I believe the department’s operations could be greatly extended, and all thoughtful people would welcome that. I do not see why a special loan could not be raised for afforestation, in view of the tremendous increase in the world’s demand for timber. The consumption of wood pulp increased from 350,000 tons in 1913 to 1,000,000 in 1922. and now the demand is close on 2,000,000 tons a year. A serious shortage is indicated in the comparatively early future. In this country we have large tracts of land eminently suitable for afforestation. The timber shortage is a grave one, and in a few years will become extremely acute. Soft woods represent 80 per cent, of the world’s demands, and 90 per cent, of this demand is met in the northern hemisphere. Canada’s supply of soft wood has been consistently depleted. Of the 575,000,000 acres of soft woods within the empire two years ago, 547,000,000 acres, or 95 per cent., were in Canada, which was still the soft wood storehouse of the world; yet, at the present rate of demand, Canada’s supply will be nearly exhausted within the next 25 years. Re-stocking, unfortunately, is not proceeding in the same ratio as it should to meet the tremendous wastage now going on. The coming famine in timber is no bogey. John Evelyn, in his diary, wrote nearly 250 years ago that “we had better be without gold than without timber.” Mr. Legat, our Chief Conservator of Forests, in a paper read before the South African Association for the Advancement of Science in 1918, went fully into the question of timber shortage, and his second in-command, Mr. Robertson, travelled a few years ago in Australia and published a valuable report in which he stated the conclusions he had reached. There is another work which demands notice, and that is Dr. Sim’s book on tree-planting in South Africa. [Time limit.]

I notice that under this head about £100,000 is put down for afforestation (including the amount for railways). I only want to say that I agree with hon. members who spoke about the great need for extending our forests in South Africa, but as we are spending so much money, I should just like to know what the policy of the Government is regarding the kind of wood to be planted, and if sufficient count is taken of the wood necessary. It seems to me, at any rate in so far as the South-Western districts are concerned, that the object more particularly is to plant fire wood and wood for mine props. That is not the great requirement in South Africa, and I want to ask whether the department is bearing in mind the great need in South Africa, namely for boxes for our fruit, for the building of houses, etc. Then, with regard to sleeper plantations. I see, from the Auditor General’s report, that they actually come under the Forest Department, and I want to know what the relation is between the Departments of Railways and of Forests. The impression now is that the wood which is being planted is not suitable for sleepers, that it is too soft, It was rightly remarked that a large quantity of sleepers is imported every year, and, as we are now engaged in providing for the need for sleepers, the question arises whether the right kind of wood for that purpose is being planted. As we are spending hundreds of thousands, we want the work to be properly done, and the right sort of wood to be planted. I should also like to know what the departmental revenue is from the forests.

I should like to support the appeal made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Mr. O’Brien). I feel we cannot be too careful about preserving some of our old trees, and I also feel that the more tree planting we can indulge in, the better it will be for this country. I would like to remind the Minister of a very good example set by Governor van Riebeek, who allowed no tree to be felled unless another tree was planted in its stead. If the Minister would introduce legislation to a similar effect, I think the country would be grateful to him. The Minister should seriously consider whether he should declare some of our old avenues as demarcated parks. It is becoming a thorough disgrace to see some of the magnificent trees in our beautiful avenues cut down. We are now to see the avenue in Durbanville cut into, and the way the trees have been cut down in the Constantia area is nothing less than vandalism. The Minister’s confrere a short while ago had a monument set up to him when he declared the Sabie reserve as a reserve in perpetuity. I should like to suggest to the Minister that he follow that example, and we will be pleased to have a monument set up to him in the same way. I would like him to consider the making of the Tzitzikama forest into a national reserve. I do not know whether the Minister has ever been there, but it pains people to go through that forest now and see the way in which the beautiful yellow wood trees are being felled. They do not fell the trees with the object of mating full use of them. I personally have seen large yellow wood trees felled and only one sleeper cut out of them, and the rest of the tree jettisoned. Yellowwood is one of the most valuable woods for furniture making. We would get some benefit out of the yellow wood if we used it for that purpose, but the reckless way in which we are destroying those trees now is a scandal. This is one of the most beautiful spots in the country, and it will cost the Government nothing to have that forest declared a national reserve, and they would be doing a very great service to the country. They are now instituting a bus service right through the Tzitzikama forest, and we have trippers going down there. We all want to see that every person in this country has an opportunity of seeing what the better favoured can see, but I want to impress on the Minister that when you get a number of people together they will pluck ferns and ruthlessly destroy trees. The sleepers cut there are not of the best value. We have in this forest two trees, one of which is considered to be 3,000 years old, and the other 2,000. These are rather too large for the sleeper cutters to make use of, but there will be nothing to replace these trees when once they start decaying, because the younger ones are all being cut down. I am not pressing for an answer this evening, but I want the Minister to consider the matter.

I want to say a few words about afforestation. According to the departmental report we imported timber to the value of over £1,800,000, prepared wood to an amount of more than £700,000, and sleepers over £500,000. We are, therefore, importing every year over £3,000,000 worth of wood. If there is anything which is becoming more and clear in South Africa, and in the whole civilized world, it is the scarcity of wood, and I think that if we want to do anything for posterity we must give as much attention as possible to afforestation. I have had a good deal of experience, because I grew up with afforestation in my constituency. There may be a difference of opinion about the career of Dr. Jameson, but, I shall always honour him for having, while Prime Minister of the Cape Province, purchased more than 6,000 morgen of ground in the Caledon district, which is to-day planted with trees, and which is one of the best plantations in the world. Experts have compared the growing of the forest in my district and the same kind of tree in Germany, where trees grow particularly well, and Caledon comes off very well in the comparison, and the growth in some respects is better than that of the trees in Germany. What is the use of it? The pine trees can not only be used for furniture, but also for boxes for the export of fruit. We have to import all the wood for the boxes, and in Elgin, where the forests are, all the wood for the thousands of boxes of fruit that are exported has to be imported from abroad. There is a great future for wood for all purposes. Think, for instance, about sleepers alone. We now have at Elgin the jarrah trees which in another ten years or so will probably be ready for use as sleepers. We annually import £500,000 worth of sleepers. The jarrah trees are now about 25 years old, and it will take another 10 or 15 years before they are serviceable. Already our revenue from the plantation is £103,000 a year, so that there will be a great revenue from afforestation. Further, it is of great importance in the finding of work for the poor whites. The Ministers of Agriculture and Land can employ people there on very good work and, alongside of the forests, one gets the very best agricultural ground, where those people can at the same time be taught agriculture. In this way it will assist very much in the solution of our poor white question. The Government deserves the support of the whole country when it gives its attention more and more to afforestation in those parts of the country where there is a rainfall, and a suitable climate. We talk of economic independence; it is a great ideal, and one of the ways to attain it is by afforestation to make ourselves independent in respect of wood.

After listening to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) I must conclude that he knows nothing about forestry. He represented that trees were being chopped down indiscriminately, but it is not so. The forest officers divide the forests into sections, and after a certain number of years they go through a definite section and mark the trees which are retrogressing, and are about to die. When those trees have been removed, such a section is possibly not touched again for 50 years. There can, therefore, be no question of extermination. The grievance of the forest workers is just that they have not enough trees to chop down. Things are done economically, and by this system our forests will last another 150 to 200 years for certain. I agree that it would be unfortunate if we allowed the forests to be recklessly chopped down, but that is not the case at all. As for using yellowwood for sleepers, I think it can be better employed, as, for instance, in panel work for railway coaches, etc. Then I should like to bring a grievance to the Minister’s notice. There are two kinds of people employed on the plantations in my district, one section was brought there by the Department of Forests, and the other by the Labour Department. They do practically the same work, but the one section gets 4s. 6d., and the other 6s. 4d. per day. They work next to each other, and it causes dissatisfaction. As the Railway Department has decided to pay the railway workers 6d. a day more, I want to ask the Minister if he cannot also pay these people 6d. a day more. They are doing a great work, the money is not being thrown away, and the payment of 5s. will not amount to very much.

I would like to ask the Minister a question. What is the position now in regard to the snout beetle? The Minister sent a man over to Australia, I think, twelve months ago to go into this matter. I have not yet seen any report in regard to that and, perhaps, the Minister could give us some information.

I want to add a word in reinforcement to what was said by the hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl). I know something about the Tzitzikama. It seems to me a great difference is made between plantations and indigenous forests. Plantations are reasonably provided for, but these indigenous forests are the growth of slow centuries. Down in Knysna I found this, that, according to the timber merchants, there are 54 kinds of indigenous woods. These trees that take an immense time to come to maturity are being slaughtered for base purposes. I wish we could get the public to take the pride in the relics of antiquity that the much-abused Englishman does in the antique things of his country. In the New Forest there is an oak, the Knightwood Oak, that is mentioned in the Doomsday Book of 1070. These things are valued there; they are valued here as matters of timber and not of sentiment. I appeal to the Minister to go through the Tzitzikama forest and the Knysna forest and then be prepared to take action for the conservation of these magnificent trees which we are entitled to value.

Hon. members opposite praise the Forest Department very highly. I have no particular knowledge of afforestation, but my common sense tells me that the fire paths made by the department in the forests are far from adequate to keep fire from the forests. I recently visited the forests at George. There are some millions of trees there with very narrow fire paths—I doubt whether two or three wagons could go alongside each other there—and if there is a fire none of the paths will be able to stop it, and the millions of trees and the millions of pounds’ value will immediately be burnt out. I do not see why the paths cannot be made broader, rather let them plant fewer trees. The hon. member for Caledon probably knows the road from here to Caledon. I have travelled along it three years in succession, and between Elgin and Grabouw there are plantations on both sides of the road. I heard that they were Government plantations, but young garden trees about six inches and more were chopped down four years ago, and when I passed by last year the same trees were still lying there throughout the whole forest. It causes great confusion in the forests with all the branches, and if a fire broke out they would burn like fat.

It is a private plantation.

I am glad to hear that it is not the work of the Forest Department. I also want to protest against the statements that the trees in the Tzitzikama area are being chopped down recklessly. It is not so, as has been said by the hon. member for George (Mr. Brink), the forests are divided into sections, and not a single tree is chopped down before it is marked by the department. Only backward trees, and those that are rotting are chopped down. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) said that magnificent trees are being felled, but that is not the case. The grievance is just that the woodcutters are only given rotten trees to fell, trees that almost of themselves drop from old age. As for the pay, and the difference in wages that exists there, I agree with the hon. member for George that there is a grievance. What the people are earning there is practically a starvation wage, and they are doing a very important work. The hon. member has also clearly shown how economically the felling is done, and how the forests are divided up. Whether the best use is being made of the yellowwood is doubtful. I should like the Minister to spend more money on afforestation. Let the amount be doubled if necessary. In 60 or 80 years our forests will be worth more to us than the whole amount of our national debt to-day. I also hope that the people who are doing the work will get more pay, because they are doing work that will be very reproductive.

I have listened to the criticism. On the one hand hon. members say that South Africa imports such a large quantity of wood, and on the other they criticize our cutting down so many trees to obviate importation We fell systematically, and not recklessly. The department has been praised, and the capable officials see to it that only old or backward trees are cut down, and certain parts are completely closed. We are following a very sound policy with regard to the felling of trees. I receive letters almost daily from people to allow more trees to be felled, but we work in such a way as not to uproot our forest riches recklessly. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) spoke about beautiful avenues in Paarl and Durbanville which are being cut down. I am sorry, but they are on private property.

Not Durbanville.

That belongs to the divisional council, am I then to interfere and say that the people who own it may not cut it down. I cannot do so. Then it is said here that I must not have any trees felled, unless I have others put in their places. We plant many more trees than we fell. Not only does the department plant trees, but many private people have seen what value afforestation has, and they also are very busy planting trees. I agree with the hon. members who say that we must plant as many as possible, but we are following a fixed programme and plant about 7,500 morgen a year. If we doubled that, we must double the staff, and that will make the position a little top-heavy. Other hon. members asked when the trees will pay and be fit for use. The trees do not grow in three, ten, or twenty years, but take 30 to 40 years. I want to tell the hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) that the departmental revenue last year was £117,000, and we expect it to be more in coming years, but our trees have not yet come to maturity. When they are 40 to 50 years old the revenue will, of course, be much more. I shall, however, see whether the financial position permits of the planting being accelerated a little. It was rightly said that we annually import about £3,000,000 worth of wood. Then it was asked whether we actually plant the right kinds of wood. Yes, certainly. The trees are all planted after consultation, after experiments have been made, and we are planting with a view to boxes, furniture, railway requirements and the like. The hon. member for George (Mr. Brink) mentioned the difference in pay. The labourers who get 6s. 4d. a day work every day and cannot leave. They come from the Transvaal, Natal, or parts of the Cape Province, and are poor people who are making a living there. The people who get 4s. 6d. are free to work when they like, and to go away and work for themselves. They possibly work fourteen days there, and then fourteen days for someone else, or for themselves. If we gave them more than 4s. 6d. we should encourage them to go and work at the forests instead of on their own farms. As for the weevils, I want to tell the hon. member for Cape Town that we have now allowed the parasite which destroys the weevil to establish himself well in the Cape Province, and we hope we shall get the better of the pest in a few years. In Natal and certain parts of the high veld of the Transvaal the parasites have now been established. As for the fire paths. I can assure the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) that I will go into the matter.

] want to ask the Minister to encourage the farmers to plant trees. They would like to plant thousands of trees, but the trouble is the price they have to pay. The small trees cost 5s. a hundred, but the worst is the railway freight, and I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to sell them cheaper and to lower the railway charges.

It is impossible.

The hon. member usually agrees with me, and I am surprised that he differs in this important matter. It is of great importance to the farmers to plant trees.

You can sow them yourselves.

I have no time for that, and I say it is the work of the Forest Department. Moreover it will not be cheaper for us.

I must say I do not agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Steytler), I have put in close on 750,000 trees which I bought from the Government at £2 10s. a 1,000. One must say that the Government is pursuing a very sound policy. It has supplied trees at a very low figure, and in our district a good many have been planted.

What about the railway charges?

You must pay the railway carriage. It is the duty of land owners to plant as many trees as they can, and you will certainly find it pays

I want to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) that everybody has not got his land so near the Peninsula. I have to get my trees from Cat heart and plant them in Maclear. The department has a nursery at Cat heart, and I have myself got a few thousands trees there this year, but the railways charge so much, and I want the Minister to enquire if the charge cannot be reduced.

I have no doubt that the Ministers of Agriculture and Finance will take to heart what the hon. member has said. In New Zealand the Government supply all transplants free to encourage the farmer to go in for more extensive timber cultivation, on the ground that the State is amply recompensed by the increased growth of trees. New Zealand also realizes the necessity of encouraging agricultural production, so fertilizers are carried practically for nothing by rail. However, I really rose on this occasion to make an appeal on behalf of the Minister. I think he has had a sufficiently satisfactory innings and we should now allow him to take his vote.

Can the Minister tell us whether the Forest Department has come to any definite conclusion on the difference tree planting on hillsides makes to the water supply? From the little experience I have, I find that gum trees and pine trees dry up the hill side. This is more particularly noticeable in the case of gum trees, and in Italy they are planted in marshy land, where malaria breeds, with the result that they dry up the land and the malaria disappears. On the other hand, indigenous forests act not only as conservers of water, but their leaves make a mulch which forms a sponge and retains the water. Nothing will grow under a pine tree which dries up the land, and the fountains and streams in the vicinity gradually become exhausted. It is a very important point well worthy of investigation.

I want to explain to the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Moffat) that my department tells me that it is a very difficult subject. It is extraordinarily difficult to state what trees are injurious to the water supply of the country. Some trees, like blue gums, are decidedly injurious. The question is very difficult, but I promise the hon. member the matter is receiving my attention, and we shall see what can be done.

Vote put and agreed to.

Consideration of Votes 31 and 32 ordered to stand over.

On Vote 33, “Lands”. £193,447,

Can the Minister oblige us with the information regarding the settlements at Sundays River, Karos, Van Wyk’s Vlei, Douglas and Oakdale?

I should like to make a few suggestions which I hope will be accepted in a somewhat better spirit than my previous suggestions were accepted by the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister should take into very serious consideration the assisting of homesteading as practised in America and Australia. Our settlements in many cases have proved failures, the reason being traceable to the undue amount of credit given to the settler. In country districts, land is the only asset, and frequently settlers are given an unnecessarily large amount of credit because the creditors know that in the final resort they can claim on the land. We want settlers to fill up our vast and unoccupied spaces. We cannot always give them the best parts, and occasionally we have to give them land in danerous localities. We ought to protect them in such a way that they know that whatever they do will be for their own ultimate benefit. In Australia and in America, they give out land on condition that it cannot be sold for debt. The owner of the land is not able to alienate it, except under certain conditions. One condition is that the land can only be alienated voluntarily with the consent of the settler’s wife. So successful is this law in America that, although the original homesteading law was introduced in 1862, not a single state has gone back on it. Every state in America today adopts that law. They are extending the system and they find they are getting a really good class of settler, because the settlers know the land is going to be their property in perpetuity if they wish to have it. The widow, and then the children, inherit the owner’s rights if he makes no will. They know that every penny they put into the property will be for their own benefit, and the trader does not allow unnecessary credit. In this country we have very large tracts of land on which we can never settle men under ordinary conditions, but if we allow the homesteading laws to prevail here, men will put themselves out to live in a manner in which they can afford to live for the time being, knowing that for the future they are absolutely secure. I hope the Minister will investigate the matter.

I have already done that.

I am very glad to hear that, and I hope something will eventuate from the Minister’s investigations of the subject.

I want to ask the Minister if he has reconsidered the question of the Pomeroy town lands? The Minister smiles, but he was willing to dispose of this crown land to the Native Affairs Department at 25s. an acre, notwithstanding the fact that the natives in northern Natal have ample land. This is only 1,400 acres, but it has been reported on favourably by the Land Board. It has 400 acres of arable land, and would make two fine farms. This land is in the vicinity of a German settlement, and wherever these settlements occur in South Africa, they are successful. These people are hard-working and good agriculturists, and have sons who are growing up and are anxious to acquire land in the vicinity of their parents. A number of young men are leaving the Union for Rhodesia, where they can get land, and here we can retain a couple. The Minister should consider the claims of the young South Africans who are wanting land. We cannot afford to lose one of them. The whole district is up in arms at the holding up of this land. There are dozens of young fellows wanting to acquire it.

I should like to have a little information about the probationary lessee system. It has been in force for three years, and I want to know how it has extended, and what effect it has had, in the Minister’s opinion, and what the prospects for the future are. But that is not actually the matter to which I want to call his attention. Under the head, “Maintenance and Development of Crown Land (A4),” I want for instance to point out to him that there are at present large areas of ground still available, besides the ground suitable for settlements or other agricultural purposes. Those areas have in the past rendered great services, and must continue to do so in future. I refer to that ground which has to-day been partially proclaimed as reserves for some purpose or other every year. We are losing very much of our vegetation, and of our wild animals by the destruction caused by fire, etc., on such Crown land, and also in other ways such as soil erosion. What I want of the Minister is that he will see that the large part of Crown land which is unsuitable for agricultural purposes shall be surveyed by his department so that for instance he can tell us next year how much Crown land there is suitable for reserves. In the Northern Transvaal we have the splendid Kruger National Park, then in other parts there are areas where the vegetation is protected. I wish we had more such protected areas. As an example I may just mention the mountain range between Ceres and Touws River which is useless for agriculture, but if it could be a reserve—I do not know if it is Crown land, but I am only mentioning it as an instance—we should not only retain the wild plants and animals, but would also reduce mountain fires, and help to collect the rain. I am only mentioning one case now, and I should like the Minister to say whether it is possible to extend the reserves, because, as stated, it will be of great importance to our rainfall.

I want to reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger). As regards the Sundays River, he will know that under the agreement, when the land was purchased, we took upon ourselves all the liabilities. We bought the assets and we took over the liabilities. One of the liabilities was that we had to supply these people with water and look after the furrows. It is unfortunate that, so far, we have not received much from that part of the world. Conditions have been very bad there and the settlers have had a very trying time. This year, for the first time, we have had sufficient rain to fill Lake Mentz. and I am hoping things will improve. Unfortunately, portions of the canals have been washed away during the last storm and we have got to repair that damage. I am also advised by the Irrigation Department that we have got to make a tunnel through the krantz so as to obviate a dangerous corner. As far as Kaross is concerned, that is one of the farms that we bought, and the hon. member of course knows all about these farms. I cannot develop all the farms at the same time, but I have made a start with Kaross. We are building a dam and I have made an arrangement with the company to do that work. As soon as that is finished I shall be able to put about 80 probationers on this land. That is only, of course, part of the farm Kaross. As regards Van Wyks Vlei, I tried to hand this over to the local people, but we could not get them to agree. They approached me again this year and I said: “As soon as you agree, I will do it.” I am sending the chairman of the Board there again to see whether an agreement can be arrived at with the local people. That is my aim and object. My object, as soon as a settlement has reached the stage when they can look after it themselves, is to hand it over to the people themselves. As regards Oakdale, only a portion of the farm has been given out. Then my hon. friend (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) spoke about these Homestead acts. He will perhaps remember that in the Act I introduced in 1925, I brought in practically what he suggests. Under certain clauses of that Act land is protected for a period of ten years. Under closer settlement the land cannot be alienated, except with the consent of the Government.

I think you misunderstood me.

Will you please explain? I understood the hon. member to say that the land should be secured so that no money could be lent on it and people who lent money to a settler could not sell the land in satisfaction of their claims.

I know of the Act, but I want it to go much further.

It would be a good thing to protect land in this way for all time, but I do not think it would be possible to get that through. I remember when the Act of 1925 went before the Committee there was an objection even to ten years. I do not think we shall have much chance of getting that period extended.

It is working very well in other countries.

As regards the case mentioned by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), I know that is a sore point with him and he knows very well that it is not my fault. I cannot give out these farms because the Native Affairs Department object to it, and we can do nothing until we know where we stand. I cannot get permission from the Native Affairs Department to give out the land. I am only too willing to do so. It is also a thing which pains me very much to see that some of our people are leaving for Rhodesia, and where I can get land on which to put these people I am only too willing to do so.

This is Crown land.

Yes, but it is Grown land in an area which has been considered a native reserve or a native area. Until the Bills which are now before the Committee are through, I cannot do anything at all. The Native Affairs Department have stopped me, not only here, but in other parts also which are considered potential native areas. I can promise my hon. friend that, if this land, as I hope, does not fall in a native area, I will give it out at once.

†*The hon. member for Hopetown (Dr. Stals) spoke about the mountain range we should keep as a reserve. I want to tell him that the mountain ranges almost all belong to the Crown, and are reserved for afforestation. They are already protected. As for the probationary lessees, I may say that at Hartebeestpoort there are still 16 plots left that I can give out. Then we have had 220 probationary lessees, but 70 have already gone out as settlers. The hon. member knows that they have a probationary period of three years, and they have to be accepted as settlers within three years, or leave the place. About 70 or 80 have already been accepted by the board, and now come under the Land Settlement Act. So far the system has worked well,; as the hon. member knows, each one gets a certain part of the proceeds, namely, two-fifths, as long as he is a probationary lessee. In this way I have got from Hartebeestpoort £11,270 in the year 1926-’27, and £15,270 in 1927-’28. It will be less now, because the number of probationary lessees is becoming less as they disappear and come under the Land Settlement Act. At Olifants River, the corresponding income for last year was £369, and this year is £2,760.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is the position in regard to Hartebeestpoort dam and also Oliphants River irrigation works.

The position is that at Hartebeestpoort I have 16 plots which are being prepared now. When they are allotted all the plots will have been allotted. There are 220 altogether. Of these 170 have been passed out by the Land Board as having passed their period of probation. At Oliphants River there are 40, and nearly all have been passed out as settlers. My hon. friend knows I get two-fifths of the crops while they are probationers. Last year I got from Hartebeestpoort £11,176, and this year £15,170, and Oliphants River last year £369 and this year £2,726. This is the peak of what they will produce, because as soon as they pass out, they do not pay two-fifths of the crops any more. They are then ordinary settlers.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 34, “Deeds,” £52,863, put and agreed to.

Vote 35, “Surveys,” £71,624, put and agreed to.

On Vote 36, “Irrigation,” £214,374,

Don’t you think that perhaps the Minister might now kindly report progress and ask leave to sit again, because the Minister who attends to the vote on irrigation is not here.

On the motion of Mr. Jagger, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in Committee tomorrow.

I should like to call the House’s attention to this recommendation. This person’s pension has been changed a few times.

A declaration came from a Belgian doctor that the man was entirely unfit to earn his living.

Then a larger pension, up to the full amount, was granted, but after that declaration the same doctor sent in another, saying that the condition was not so bad. He says that he was misled by the Wife of the person Concerned as to the condition of the man, and in that way he made his first declaration. He further says that the man’s health is improving, and that he will probably recover entirely. I think it is my duty to mention this to the House. Unfortunately I have not the documents here, and they are not at the moment available, otherwise I Could read out the declaration.

I hope the chairman will not press that, but will first listen to what I have to say on the matter. This petition had nothing whatever to do with the man’s health. He was retired under a wrong section and the Pensions Committee that sat some time ago, recommended that he should get a pension as if he had been retired under the proper section. He would have £219, a difference of about £3 a month. I appeared myself before the committee and detailed the facts, and in the petition which he presented to the House he stated that he wanted to be placed in the position which the Pensions Committee recommended, but which had not been carried out. The testimony of three members of this honourable House in writing—Who Were members of the Pensions Committee—is that the intention was such. Since that time the chairman of the committee says someone has Written from Belgium about this man’s health; even if that is so, it is quite irrelevant. I have received by last week’s mail a certificate, duly authenticated by the British Vice-Consul, dated April 25th, to show that the information of the hon. member is entirely erroneous. It states this man’s health is precarious, and he is totally unfitted for any exertion or for employment. [Certificate and letter read.] I heard some rumour to the effect that the pension which was granted was going to be attacked, and I took steps to have the latest information before the committee. I am going to hand this certificate over to the chairman of the committee. If It had not been for the Treasury, this man would have got a pension of £219. It had been clearly established that his injury was received while on duty. This is not a compassionate allowance, but giving the, man something to which he was entitled under the section.

I know something about this case, from the first period that this unfortunate man was invalided, and if the Minister and the chairman of the committee knew the circumstances they would know that this man’s health was completely shattered, and there would not be the slightest difficulty about the pension. When the chairman of the committee rose I thought he would suggest that the back instalments be added to the pension. Knowing the condition of the man’s health when he left the country and how shattered his nervous system was, I say it is impossible to say that he is now in good health. I can support everything the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) has said. I should have thought the man would have got redress many years ago. I will not go into the question how this man had to go into horse exercise in Grahamstown and the violent fall he had from his horse. He was a perfect wreck when he left the country. I cannot understand when the chairman of the committee said they have other information now, and throws doubt bn the genuineness of the case.

I think at the least the recommendation should go back to the Pensions Committee. This pension can be paid only if this Committee thinks a good case has been made out. After the recommendation was made my department submitted a medical certificate to me on which the Pensions Committee acted, and subsequently the same doctor wrote a letter to the chairman saying he had made a further examination and wished to modify his report. This information, together with that of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street), should be put before the committee again. The medical gentleman gives a much more favourable report on the pensioner than before, when the committee made the recommendation. I would be lacking in my duty unless I put this information before the committee, and I do not think the committee would be acting rightly if it did not take notice of this information.

I just want to say that I am very sorry the documents are not here; I want to point out that I only brought the matter to the notice of the House because it is my duty, but Hot because I want to object to this pension. A pension was recommended on the ground of a doctor’s certificate, and subsequently the same doctor gave a different certificate. I shall make no objection, but it is my duty to tell the House about it.

The committee has ceased to function. This means that this man is left with a pension of £15 per month, which is hot sufficient. He is suffering from neurasthenia and haemorrhage of the stomach. This recommendation has nothing to do with the state of his health.

Oh yes, he is not entitled to a pension unless

If the Minister will allow me, there is his petition before the House, and if the Minister will read it he will see there is no reference to the state of his health. It is an entirely irrelevant thing. His health was considered by the committee, but it came in incidentally. What he says is the Pensions Committee a few years ago recommended him to get that higher pension on the ground that he had been retired under the wrong section. If he had been retired under the proper section he would have got £219. Unfortunately in the recommendation they did not mention any figure, and simply said that they recommended that man should get such pension as he would have got had he been retired under the appropriate section. That means £219, but for some reason that is absolutely mysterious, the Treasury cut the amount down to £180. Dr. Forsyth, the hon. member for Liesbeek (Mr. Pearce) and the late Mr. Purcell, who were members of the then Pensions Committee, testified he should have got £219. The present Pensions Committee suggest as a compromise that he should receive the increased amount as from January 1, last. The recommendation of the previous Pensions Committee adopted by this House has never been given effect to. If there were an opportunity of the Pensions Committee considering the matter this session, I would say send the matter back, but that would mean deferring it until next year. The man is in a very precarious state of health and his case is a very deserving one.

The hon. member now says that the application is based on the fact that the pension was arbitrarily reduced. On that ground I shall resist the recommendation very strenuously. The applicant can get a pension only if the House and the Committee give it to him. I deny that the pension has been arbitrarily taken away, but if it has, why does the man not sue us?

£15 a month and sue the Government.

I understand the committee recommended a pension on the strength of a medical certificate which was subsequently modified. If the pension is to be given as a question of right, I resist it very strongly.

I do not think the Minister is fair to my hon. friend (Mr. Alexander. Through some unfortunate circumstance, the petitioner, when he was retired from the service, was given a lesser amount than he was really entitled to. I hope the Minister will soften his heart and allow the recommendation to go through.

I have just received all the documents, and hon, members cap now see how the man got his pension. I just want to quote the report briefly. Unfortunately, I only have it in English-—

Hon. members can therefore see how many times the pension has already been altered, and how many times it was granted. I should like to know from the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) the name of the doctor who gave the certificate the hon. member quoted.

The name is Dr. J. Remouchamps.

No, then it is a different doctor from the one who gave these two certificates. It was a Belgian doctor, and his first letter was as follows. [Quotation read.]

What is the date of the letter?

1st March, 1928. Then he further sent the second declaration in English, and it reads as follows. [Quotation read.] Hon. members now have the contents of the documents.

The Minister made rather an attack upon me with regard to this. I do not think he quite understood what I said. The chairman has now justified every word I said. He has read out what the Pensions Committee recommended in 1924 that the man should get a pension as if he had been retired under section 4, for injury on duty, instead of under section 3.

Then the question of his earning capacity came in.

No, if he was retired under section 4, his pension worked out at £219 instead of £180. That is the whole thing. The Pensions Committee, unfortunately, instead of saying he was to get £219, said he should get the pension to which he would have been entitled under section 4 which in arithmetic amounts to £219. That is why I said it was arbitrary. Is there a single word to indicate that the man is fit to work or is able to work? There is not a word in the doctor’s certificate to show that. His haemorrhages may not have been so frequent but there is not a word to indicate that the man is fit to work. There is the testimony of three members of that committee that they understood that the decision of the Pensions Committee was that the man was to get his full pension of £219. The present state of health of this man is clearly bad. I submit it will be an unjust and unfair thing to deprive him of what he has battled for eleven years to get. Since 1917 he has been bringing his case before Parliament to get the modicum of justice recommended by the committee, and now, at the eleventh hour, an attempt is made to deprive him of it.

I am sorry I cannot accept the position which the hon. member has placed before the House. The select committee said that after he petitioned for the third time that he could be considered as having been retired under a certain section. Then it was the duty of the Treasury in assessing the pension, to have the man boarded to ascertain what was the degree of his incapacity. The medical board said he was 50 per cent, disabled, and on that he has been drawing his pension. Now he comes forward and wants a bigger pension. The issue is the state of health of the man. The point I tried to make was that when the select committee considered the pension, they had a doctor’s certificate before them, that of a gentleman in Belgium, which tended to show that his health had deteriorated. But after the recommendation we got another medical certificate from the same medical man, who said that the position had rather been exaggerated to him, that he was of opinion that the man was very much better, and that there was a prospect of him practically getting back his health. On these grounds I say it is necessary that the committee should reconsider the whole matter. If the doctor says he is 50 per cent, disabled, I cannot give him a 100 per cent, pension, or the auditor would query it. If this committee wants to go further than the previous select committee it can do so. I would suggest that this stand over and that when the Speaker is in the chair to-morrow we ask that the committee be revived and that it reconsider the matter, and if it wants to give him a greater pension it can do so. I do not want to be harsh.

On the motion of the Minister of Finance it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.