announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had discharged Dr. Stals from service on the Select Committee on Subject of Motor Carrier Transportation Bill and appointed Mr. Sauer in his stead.

I should like to bring something to the Minister’s notice in connection with the removal of cattle to Swaziland. I have been informed that in January or December last cattle from the Transvaal were taken by a thief to Swaziland, and that then a permit was issued to allow the cattle to come back from Swaziland. I suppose that the permit was issued with the approval of his department, but that it was done without the Minister’s special knowledge. If that is so I should like to know why the police get more rights than ordinary inhabitants of the Transvaal. I would also like to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to have a third place of entry from Swaziland at Oshoek. I think it is a fact that the largest traffic between Swaziland and the Union now goes through Oshoek. I have been told that the railways are very anxious to import cattle from Swaziland into the Transvaal. Lorries take big loads to Swaziland, but usually return empty. The landowners in Swaziland assure me that they will make use of the service and I think it is desirable to delay no longer and to make the change. I learn that east coast fever has very much diminished in Swaziland and probably that will be no great objection. Then there is another point, the Minister knows the position in Swaziland just as well as I do, he also once owned property there, and knows that conditions in that protectorate are quite different to those in the other protectorates. I have already repeatedly brought the matter to the Minister’s notice, and hope that we shall get so far as to treat Swaziland differently to Rhodesia, Basutoland, and Bechuanaland. Two-thirds of the land there belongs to Europeans, and at least half of that two-thirds belongs to farmers living in the Transvaal. According to the existing regulations, the farmers cannot use the ground as they would like, because they cannot take the cattle to and fro. I think it is a fair request for Swaziland to be treated differently in view of the position. The competition by Swaziland would not be of a serious kind, and I hope Swaziland will be treated differently in regard to the export of cattle. I further understand that the Swaziland cattle farmers have made an agreement with Italy by which they dispose of their second-grade and third-grade cattle. I understand that under the agreement a few thousand cattle are taken every year, and that they are only the poorest cattle, scrub and lean cattle, which are accepted as long as they can he put on rail. I understand that the quarters are sent to Italy, and that the remainder goes separately to Scotland and is there sold. We have a representative in Italy and I should like to know if we could not establish a similar and perhaps larger business trade between the Union and Italy in cattle. As for east coast fever in my district, I do not quite know the position. I understand, however, the Department of Agriculture promised to remove all restrictions in January for about twenty months now there has been no outbreak of east coast fever, and as the farmers assisted the Government in fighting it I hope the Minister will see his way to remove the restrictions.

I am obliged to bring a very important matter to the Minister’s notice. He may know of it, but still I think that the time has come that we must take firm action in connection with it. I refer to a pest that exists in the maize producing areas of the Transvaal and the north-eastern Free State. It is the worm pest in maize which is known in English as the stalk-borer. On a former occasion I stated that the view is that this pest has in some parts destroyed 50 per cent, of the maize harvest. I have just returned from home, and the position is much worse. There are areas where 75 per cent, of the crops have been destroyed. I know that the Minister through his department has done his best from time to time to find effective measures against this plague, but unfortunately it is not at all eradicated yet, and unless steps are taken to fight it the maize farmers in many parts will be ruined. As I said, the department has already suggested certain remedies. There was an expert witness before the select committee who mentioned three. There is, e.g., the powder, and then there is the method of spraying the infected maize with creolin. As for the farmers in my district, we found the latter method the most effective. As soon as we find that the maize is infected it is sprayed and the tops are treated with creolin. The cost is small, and it works out at about 3d. an acre. In certain parts the creolin has entirely destroyed the pest; in others it has been found that the pest is considerably lessened. Many farmers think that the remedy will be effective if the maize can be sprayed twice. What I want now to know from the Minister is whether it is possible to give a certain quantity of creolin to the farmers, and to let them experiment and convince themselves whether the thing is effective or not. The department is searching for other remedies, but as I have said, many of us are satisfied that this is a good remedy. The spray fluid is imported from Germany, and the Minister could supply a certain quantity to the magistrate, so that he could issue small portions therefore to the farmers for the purpose of experimenting. If the farmers find that it is effective it will be of great benefit to the whole maize district. I know that the Minister will meet me as far as possible and that his department is doing its best to fight this plague. Then there is another point I want to call attention to, it is about the importation of cattle from Rhodesia. I am told that cattle come from Rhodesia into the Transvaal that are not entitled to come in under the agreement. There are guards at the borders, but the means taken to get the cattle in are very astute. They are brought to drink water, and are there mixed up with cattle from the Transvaal. It is necessary for strong measures to be taken against this so that the cattle that are excluded under the agreement cannot come into the Union. The Johannesburg market is the only one the Transvaal cattle farmers have and it is the duty of the Government to take steps that cattle do not illegally come in from Rhodesia and spoil the market for our farmers. Another point I want to mention is the exportation of maize. Within a short time the new maize harvest will have to be exported, and as the Minister knows prices are very low. There will be a surplus of between 12,000,000 and 14,000,000 bags. The shipping freights were reduced recently and I should like to ask whether it is not possible to keep the freights on the lower basis. If we are to export the maize at the freights that previously prevailed then the price that we should obtain would be so low that we could not come out on it. If the Minister were to approach the shipping companies, and bring to their notice that we shall have to export a large surplus of maize, it is quite possible that they will agree to allow the freights to remain at the lower basis.

I want to say a few words on a matter of very great importance to South Africa, and that is the question of horse-breeding. I may say that I do not intend to avail myself of the full 40 minutes, but in order that I may not be interrupted under the ten minutes rule, I beg to move, as a further amendment—

Although it is up to the Government to render some assistance to horse-breeding in the country, I feel this duty falls upon them from the broad national point of view. I do not think that anyone could listen to the statement of the Minister of Justice on the Police Vote when he said that, as a result of the survey he could only find 2,000 horses in the Union available as remounts, without realizing what a serious position horse-breeding is in. It is not, however, as bad as appears in the statement, because the police stand for a high standard. We have numbers of sound ponies in the country which are below the height of the police standard, but which are eminently serviceable. It would be interesting to look back on the history of the horse in South Africa, and to see the strains from which we have built up the horse of to-day. I believe it was three centuries ago that the first horses came from Java to this country, and the strain they represented, the Arab strain, is one that has done more than any other to make the South African horse what it is. It was on those lines that horse-breeding progressed until about 1820.

In 1820 Lord Charles Somerset first brought out an English thoroughbred to this country, and English thoroughbreds were thereafter imported. We have in the Cape horse a mixture of those two breeds, and it is to those two strains that we owe the fact that our horses are as good as they are. We built up a large export trade not only for remounts, but we bred a fine strain of thoroughbreds, and the Cape horse had a reputation in India second to none for very many years. It is difficult to understand why horse-breeding has fallen away in the way it has with that big market at our very doors. Australia has not followed the path we have taken with regard to her horses. Although in 1820 Australia imported her first horses from the Cape, she has not let her horse-breeding fall away in the manner South Africa has done. She is still exporting from £160,000 to £170,000 worth annually. Although from 1860 there has been a decline in horse-breeding, still, up to the time of the Boer war, we had a large number of valuable horses. The Cape horse has proved itself second to none for endurance, ability to withstand hardship, soundness of bone, courage and suit ability for hard work. The wonderful resistance put up at the time of the Boer war was largely due to the character of the Cape horse, and enabled the Dutch to prove that they were the finest mounted infantry in the world. After the Boer war with its enormous depletion of the horse stock we entered on a period of chaos. The horse-breeding industry was in a parlous condition, but even then the four provinces recognized the necessity of doing something in the way of importing stallions and placing them on stud farms. In this the Transvaal and Free State were prominent. In 1914 that system was abolished, and the Government took no more interest in horse breeding. Since then it has decreased at an alarming rate. If things go on as they are it will be difficult even to obtain remounts for the police, and the Government will have to look elsewhere for their horses. I do not know what is to be the position if there is a sudden call for horses in this country. It is time we took stock of the position. The essence of the question is the mobility of the horse. Neither the motor nor the aeroplane, nor any form of mechanical transport will take the place of the horse when it comes to the hour of need. In this country we have bad roads, unbridged valleys, and rivers which come down in flood, and motor transport cannot operate. It is only horses which will make operations possible. We must take steps to see that we breed enough horses in this country for our possible needs in the future. This is one of the finest countries in the world for breeding horses—the soil is rich in phosphates, and we can breed a horse which will hold its own against any horse in the world. In the Free State there were plenty of excellent brood mares, but there are now only remnants left. They have gone to Basutoland and the native territories. Whole troops have been sold for £3 or £3 10s. apiece, and sent down to the native areas. Those horses have disappeared for ever. I have been to the Free State, and have seen very few of these horses left there. Europe has 31,000,000 horses. America has 20,000,000 horses. But the whole of Africa, including the northern territories, where on the fringes of the desert the horse still holds sway, has under 2,000,000 horses. That is a grave reproach when the suitability of the country for breeding is considered. The governments of continental countries are facing the question. England is facing it, and is taking steps to maintain the quality of her horses. England has taken over Col. Hall Walker’s (now Lord Worcester) national stud farm, at Tully, county Kildare. The stud was taken over primarily on military consideration, and is carried on as an establishment for breeding high class thoroughbreds, a foundation stock of light horses from which the army obtain their requirements for military purposes. That was the motive behind taking over this stud farm. We have to model our operations on the lines the British Government is following to-day. We have no troops of brood mares. In the old days a man possessed two or three stallions and a very large number of mares, but to-day there are very few. That is an indication of where the Government could help, in placing stallions throughout the country, to enable these men to breed the right class of horse. In Great Britain you have a system of King’s premium stallions. They are not of the type that win the Derby. They are sturdily built horses with weight carrying capabilities, but of thoroughbred strain, and of the right type for military work. In England these King’s premium horses get a premium of £200 to £400 a year, and stand at stud at a reasonable fee. The progeny is bought up very largely by the military for cavalry purposes. It does not pay a man to breed horses and keep them till five years old at the price the Government is prepared to pay to-day, and I would like to read the report of the Royal commission on horse breeding in that connection—

Once the facilities have been placed at the disposal of the breeder, I think the Government should take over the horses at two or three years old, collect them at depots and there break them in for military work. If we allow the decline in horse-breeding to go any further, horses will be practically non-existent in South Africa. Not only is this a grave reproach to the country, but it is a great menace to national security. I hope that the Government will, before it is too late, take steps to foster horse breeding and to bear their share of the responsibility for the breeding of the horses which, as sure as the sun rises to-morrow, this country will require in the future.

I am surprised at the way in which the Minister of Agriculture is dealing with the fair criticism from this side of the House. He rose in anger and raised his voice to the pitch of a steam whistle and said that the entire criticism is from a party point of view. I want to ask the Minister whether he has ever known, in this country, a worse position than that to-day in regard to the cattle industry. If you go to sales in all parts of the country, you find that breeding cattle are unsaleable. What a deplorable position it is the Government has brought this country to—the premier agricultural industry of the country. Although £100,000,000 has been spent in the industry, it is not returning one-half per cent. We have the Minister of Finance saying, “Look at your scrub stock market. It is the finest in the world.” What a pretty argument to use. Out of 11,000,000 cattle, how many does that market absorb? Not 10,000. The previous Government was the Government that took the cattle industry, and placed it in a fair way to grow. It was they who introduced the bounty which would have resulted in a growing and large market to-day. Six years ago I, and my colleagues, predicted what would happen if the Government did not take action and carry on in the way they should have carried on in regard to the bounty. But they stopped the bounty. It was in progress for three years. The first year they paid £2,000. The second year it was £4,000 and the third year it was £12,000. That was six years ago and there was a market. If we had had it for a further six years what would have been the position to-day? There would have been a large export of cattle. South Africa has missed the bus. Here you have the finest market in the world within 16 days of South Africa, where we could have engaged in a chilled meat trade. We have the advantage of our opponents in the Argentine and Australia, who are five and six weeks away from this market. The finest market in the world and a growing market! To-day the market has never been better. There is a shortage of beef in those markets. Had this Government continued with the bounty, automatically an improvement of cattle would have taken place. But here is the position to-day. The industry is on the verge of bankruptcy, and the cattle farmers are in a hopeless position. They cannot meet their liabilities with the Land Bank. The Land Bank is threatening to foreclose, and this Government has brought the industry to that position. Many farmers see the hopelessness of the position. For six years the Government has not done anything, and the Minister of Agriculture is to blame. In not one respect has he attempted to save this industry. He sent Mr. Thornton before the general election to the Argentine, merely to throw dust in the eyes of the farmers. What has he done?

Nonsense.

What is the position of the cattle farmer to-day? When criticism is raised here the Minister says that we are looking at it from the party point, of view. What did the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) say? The hon. member for Albert has the esteem and respect of every farmer on both sides of the House. He said to the Minister that he was wasting money in regard to the wool levy, because it is to be spent by the Minister of Agriculture in investigating work that Australia is already doing. We are duplicating it. The hon. member made one of the most sensible speeches that has been made in this House. What he said was, “Let this wool bounty be the nucleus of a farmers’ bank, and in a few years time it will grow into a large amount of capital.” The Minister’s reply was the same that he made six years ago when we pointed out the danger. The Minister is doing his best to smash the industry. He goes about the country with his tail down and says that the industry is hopeless. The hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) pointed out the terrible danger in which the cattle industry is in regard to tuberculosis. The Minister says, “I am making a start in Durban”—that is in the least uninfected place. Why does he not start here in the Cape Province? He is allowing this accursed disease to get worse and worse every year, and it is becoming a grave danger to human health. Yet he complacently looks at it and says it is nothing. That is wrong. It is criminal. There are hundreds and thousands of children dying to-day because of tuberculosis in cattle, and the Government are doing nothing. Farmers on their own account are sending cattle across on the hoof to the European markets to be slaughtered there. What a lot of labour will be lost when they find the cattle when slaughtered and condemned because they are infected by tuberculosis. What do they fear in tackling tuberculosis? The expense. What is the expense compared with human life and health? That should be the first consideration of every Government. It is the Government’s responsibility. Let the Government tackle this question of tuberculosis and let it not be afraid of compensation. Let the compensation be infinitesimal; it is far better for any man to have no beast at all than to have it infected with tuberculosis. I think this Government have allowed the agricultural industry in this country to get into a terrible and deplorable condition. It is not on account of over production of beef that the cattle farmer is in the position he is in to-day. He is suffering more than the rest of the community because his position is hopeless. He is breeding an animal for which there is no outlet. He cannot convert it into cash, and yet we have the paradoxical position of the estimates showing an amount of £200,000 to check the spread of east coast fever. What are we breeding these cattle for? Words fail me to express my disgust at the condition that the Government have wilfully allowed this cattle industry to get into. In my opinion there is only one hope for the cattle industry of South Africa, and that is a new Minister of Agriculture and a new Government.

The Minister of Agriculture usually thinks very fast, but in this case he is hopelessly slow because he has not yet discovered what a great asset he has in the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) as a locust chaser. If he were to make the same noise and movements at that job, then he would have chased all the locusts out of the country in a short time. We have now heard the champions of the farmers on the various sides of the House, but none of them has raised the point which I would now like to bring to the Minister’s notice; it is the necessity for eradicating the sheep tick. At one of the meetings I held it was strongly stressed that the time had come for the introduction of a Bill to introduce compulsory dipping to get rid of the sheep tick. The Minister will say that the farmers, themselves, must see to it, but unfortunately you always find farmers who do not want to do a thing, even when it is to their own advantage, unless the law commands it. During the last five years scab has been eradicated in the area where I live, with the result that the people there will no longer dip, and the sheep tick has increased tremendously. I take up the attitude that the sheep tick is just as dangerous and injurious as scab, and I do not now ask the Minister to introduce a Bill, but I want to ask him to convene a conference of wool farmers to deliberate as to what should be done and in view of our success in practically eradicating scab to enquire what must be done to eradicate sheep tick.

The matter brought up by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) is so serious that I make no apology for again referring to it, and I hope the Minister will give us the fullest possible information. My alarm was reinforced by the remarks of the hon. gentleman, and if there is one subject he is fully acquainted with, it is the cattle question.

What do you know about it?

I know just as much as the hon. member doesn’t. This question of tubercular cattle, and particularly its effect on the milk supply, is not a new subject. All medical reports are to the effect that tuberculosis is the most easily communicable disease through the medium of milk. Our children are faced with a tremendously frightful prospect. I hope the hon. the Minister will listen.

The hon. member may proceed.

It is not a bit of good proceeding, Mr. Chairman, if, through you, I cannot get the ear of the Minister. May I suggest that the committee adjourn and resume its discussions in the lobby? I move—

in order to draw attention to the studied insolence of the Minister of Agriculture. [Whilst division bells ringing.] If the hon. the Minister is prepared to listen to a humble member of the House I am prepared to withdraw my motion.

I want to bring forward again the question of the export of citrus. I am sorry the Minister, the day before yesterday, was good enough to say I was speaking in a political sense. I was not. I am speaking as a farmer, and a grower of citrus. What I said was in the real interests of the industry. Even if we differ, we should get a little courtesy from those who are in power. The Minister should give us more experienced inspectors, these should be appointed in larger numbers, and asked to adhere strictly to the regulations. We do not want restrictions removed. Two years ago we had this done, and the industry suffered very seriously. This year there is going to be a change, and I do hope the attempt of the Minister to try to do away with the danger will be successful. I agree that what the Minister did was done in, as he thought, the best interests of the industry, but I must protest against the shipment of sour oranges. Permission has been given against the advice of experts and the advisory board appointed by the Government. The information I gave when I spoke before was from our own trade commissioner, and I quoted his own words. There is another matter I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is the presence of scale in the orchards; it is similar to scab on sheep farms. I believe the Minister would be well-advised to take this matter into serious consideration, whether he should not make definite regulations so that scale should be fought. The more progressive farmers go in for fumigating or spraying. The Government department should see which is the better system. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the meagre advertising done overseas. I asked the Minister a question as to the amount that is spent on that, and his reply was the miserably large sum of £100 from the levy. I admit that the expenditure of the levy is not in the Minister’s own hands, but in reply to a question of mine, he stated this was supervised by his department. I ask him once more that the levy be used for the purpose for which it was put upon us, that is, for the proper advertising of our fruit overseas. I would like to draw his attention to the exhibit of fruit in South Africa House in London. It may surprise hon. members to know that this was visited by some of our prominent people who can vouch for the fruit being in a mouldy state; some of it was rotten. This is not the way in which we should advertise our fruit in London. I do hope he will see that if we do exhibit fruit it will be fresh and good. Then I would like to appeal to the Minister to take the opportunity of visiting some of our citrus orchards in the Eastern Province. He has relied for some of the information he formed an opinion on from the north. I am not prepared to say he is always wrong, but we are entitled to some consideration in these matters in the Eastern Province, right up to Natal; and if he visited some of these parts he would find we were not so imbued with opposition as he thinks. If he comes, I will be only too pleased to see to it that he sees the best of these orchards under the best of conditions. If he sees the worst, he will see some bad ones there. Then we have a serious menace in prickly pear. Cannot something be done, particularly in the midlands and the southern portion of the Eastern Province? I quite admit the pear is growing on private property, but it is such a serious menace that the Government should take it in hand. Prickly pear is increasing, and I feel something should be done by the Government. Would it not be possible to strengthen the number of veterinary surgeons, particularly again in the Eastern Province? Our veterinary surgeons have a very large area to cover, very much larger, I think, than they can cover properly. I believe the Port Elizabeth district for the veterinary surgeon runs from Oudtshoorn right away to East London. The man there has more than he can do, and he has no assistance whatever. I would like to appeal to the Minister on behalf of the Department of Entomology. The question of scale again crops up, and of all the pests which assail the citrus grower. Our entomologist at Port Elizabeth has a very large district, which goes as far north as Graaff-Reinet. He has one assistant. Mr. Gunn, the entomologist, is one of the best officers we have. He takes no end of trouble when anyone requires his services. I understand his period of service is coming to an end. [Time limit.]

I wish to complete a point I was intending to make the other evening. I was referring to the question of the outbreak of scab, and mentioned Kingwilliamstown, Aliwal North, etc. I also asked for a statement from the Minister upon the position with regard to the general condition of scab at the present time. In 1923 a select committee investigated the question of the introduction of scab from neighbouring states. That committee was a very representative and influential one, and their report was a unanimous one. They made certain recommendations with regard to the prevention of the introduction of scab from neighbouring states. I have been trying to emphasize the danger farmers are in along the Basutoland border. We know perfectly well that the conditions there are such that the farmers are constantly liable to infection. On the last two occasions infection was brought by stock straying from the Basutoland side. I do hope that the Minister is paying attention. That committee specially represented that it was the duty of the Government to take steps to protect our boundaries. In order to secure successful scab administration, we must see to it that we are not infected from neighbouring states in which scab is prevalent. In Australia they went infinitely beyond what we are suggesting here, but, in any case, whether it is along the Basutoland, Bechuanaland or Swaziland boundaries, or elsewhere, the farmers on such borders act as a sort of buffer between those areas and the rest of the Union, and in fairness to them and to the stock industry, the Government should do its best to see that their frontiers are properly guarded. The Minister referred to the tremendous growth in the number of wool sheep since 1923. I think he said that there were something like 24,000,000 sheep in 1923, and that they have increased to about 44,000,000. Those figures are rather ambiguous, because in 1923 our wool sheep were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 24,000,000, and to-day our total count of sheep of all kinds is. 44,000,000. I want to know whether he was referring to wool sheep in both cases, or whether the second figure he gave had reference to all the sheep in the Union. This country would carry a much larger number of sheep—the Drought Commission placed the figure at 54 per cent.—if we paddocked all our land. The farmers have been so paddocking their land, and there has been the gradual increase in the number of stock. That has been primarily responsible for the increase in the number of sheep. The point I want to make as that od, Fencing Act is obsolete. The Minister has been asked to bring in an amending Bill, but we have not seen it yet. It is essential that our Fencing Act should be amended to meet present requirements.

When I was addressing criticisms to the Minister the night before last, I was pointing out that one of the greatest of the farmers’ needs is a market for their surplus cattle, and that if such a market were obtained, assistance would immediately thereby be rendered to the mealie farmer and the lucerne farmer. Does the Minister realize that in the mealie belt of this country beef can be produced as cheaply as anywhere in the world? It can be produced in tremendous quantities, and at a very low figure; but that is not being done to-day, because there is no market. The indirect repercussions of that go right away through the farmers’ operations. Because there is no market for beef, the dairying industry and the mealie farmer are suffering. If only the Minister would bestir himself in this matter by subsidizing beef export, or by taking such action as investigation might prove advisable, and if he were to find a satisfactory oversea market for our beef, he would be rendering the finest service possible to this country. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. M. L. Malan) told me that the Minister had done a great deal for farmers, and especially for the sugar farmer and the wheat farmer. I did not say anything about that. What I am concerned about is a market for our surplus cattle in this country. When the Minister replied he was very vague. He accused me of saying that all branches of agriculture had been a failure. I said nothing of the kind. Agriculture has not been a failure. Farmers have not been a failure. It is the Minister who has been a failure. He told us that sheep had increased from 20,000,000 to 42,000,000, and cattle from 9,000,000 to 11,000,000. The Minister has only made a mistake of 1,135,000 cattle, and 918,190 sheep. This is typical of the Minister’s lack of precision. He also charged me with speaking of high tariffs. I never said a word about tariffs. This is typical of the Minister’s methods, and I protest that it is not a fair reply to serious criticism. I was dealing with an export market for our cattle. The Minister said that what I should do is to start an organization in Natal to find an overseas market. What a poor reply! Is it my duty to find an overseas market? Surely is pre-eminently the Minister’s duty. But let him make me Minister of Agriculture, and I will do it for him.

I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to get additional markets for our wool. Hon. members will remember that some years ago the Japanese used to come to this country to buy wool and pay good prices for it, too. All of a sudden they left South Africa and bought all the wool they required in Australia. Upon investigation I discovered that under our laws of immigration the Japanese are classed as Asiatics. These rules are very strict indeed, with which I agree entirely. I think, however, that the time has arrived for the Minister of Agriculture to consult his colleagues in the Cabinet with a view to relax the restrictions, and to allow these people to come in for the purposes of buying wool, not to be domiciled here for good, but, as I say, for the purpose of trade. Australia, in spite of restrictions which are even greater than ours, have done so very much to their advantage. I say here deliberately we grow as good merino wool in this country as in any other part of the world, and it is by a long way the most important of our agricultural products, which we grow for export. We have a limited population in this country, and it will be a long time, if ever, that we shall have a population large enough to consume that which the country can produce. If the Government will agree to this, it will greatly help the wool growers of South Africa. In the meantime it is a sound policy to look for additional markets overseas, and I say with the fullest sense of responsibility, that wool is the most important pastoral product that we grow in South Africa. I would also like to call the Minister’s attention to a serious matter affecting the wool growers, namely, noxious weeds. The time has arrived when the Minister should take steps to see if an improvement in that direction cannot be made. I specially refer to one noxious weed in particular, and that is jointed cactus, which has infested thousands of morgen of valuable pasturage. Noxious weeds, as the Minister knows, was, at the time of Union, handed over to the provincial councils. In the Cape Province the provincial councils in their turn handed it over to the divisional councils, and in spite of this, the weed has increased to such an extent that I am afraid it is no longer possible for the farmers to eradicate it from any farms. It is getting out of control of both the divisional and the provincial councils, and it is, therefore, a national question for the Union Government to deal with. On the 21st February last a congress of the eastern public bodies was held at Alice. The eastern districts public bodies embrace the districts of East London, Queenstown, Kingwilliamstown, Aliwal North, Cathcart, Molteno, Tarkastad, Woodhouse, Komgha, Albert, Ugie, Murraysburg and the Transkeian territories. They act entirely outside the arena of party politics. In each of these districts, municipalities, divisional councils, chambers of commerce, chamber of industries, retailers’ council, publicity association, agricultural societies, automobile clubs and farmers’ association are affiliated. I had a letter this morning from the secretary of these bodies, in which he states at the annual congress of this association the increasing menace of noxious weeds and the inadequacy of provincial legislation to effect eradication was brought up and strongly debated. Congress was of opinion that the matter of eradication of noxious weeds is a national one, and that only by Union legislation of a stringent nature, similar to scab legislation, can the evil be dealt with. This coming from such an important organization, it is time that the Minister stood up and took note, and I hope that the Minister will soon take steps to fall in with the wishes of these people.

I should like to get some information with regard to an amount of £2,000 placed on the estimates for marketing tobacco overseas. I should like to know whether this expenditure goes through the ordinary South African trade commissioner, Mr. Dimond, or whether we have any outside agencies who are looking after our marketing of tobacco, and whether it is part of the expenditure of a representative that is on the continent, or has been on the Continent very recently. If the hon. Minister will be good enough to give the committee any information in that regard, I am sure it will be appreciated. I want to say this with regard to the marketing of our tobacco. It is common cause that South African tobacco, particularly Transvaal tobacco, in Great Britain has got to be looked for. It is not to be found in the various parts of London where all other empire tobaccos are found. In contrast to that, I draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the position of Rhodian cigarettes. Rhodian cigarettes have been marketed by a commercial firm for some years, and it is one of the most popular cigarettes throughout Great Britain and Ireland. I am in a position to say that in a large number of shops extending throughout the country, Rhodesian cigarettes are being purchased. It has been stated that they are to be had in every corner of the British Isles, and, in a great respect, that is true. If the marketing of our tobacco is done on a similar scale and in the same way—I am not suggesting it should be done by a commercial house—as the Rhodesian cigarettes, whatever agents are doing this particular work, I think they might be probably assisted or urged on because, unquestionably, people looking for tobacco in Great Britain find it difficult to find. It is not placed before them. I say this because I think the hon. Minister was at the Transvaal agricultural show. I am sure that the improvement, and the changes of the different mixtures of South African tobacco which have taken place recently, will recommend it very much more than it was recommended before, to the people of Great Britain. I speak of this not as a farmer, but because of the great market that there is there, and one desires to see our produce firmly established there, just as well as we are equally desirous of seeing British manufactures come to this country. It is, at least, interesting to notice where our tobacco has gone to and the small quantity that we are really getting rid of. The latest report deals with the year 1928. The United Kingdom, of our exported manufactured tobacco, only took £11,134; Australia, £12,741 and Kenya, £2,402. Of these rather trifling amounts, it is surprising to us that Australia has been taking more of our manufactured tobacco than the United Kingdom. I should like to say one word in that regard. If our tobacco had more of a standard or something by which it could be known, instead of being called simply “ordinary South African tobacco,” I believe it would go a long way in the marketing of it. With regard to the market that there is, there is a great future with the improvement and extension in growth of our tobacco. In 1929, unmanufactured tobacco imported by Great Britain amounted to £17,188,690. There is hardly a limit to that market for manufactured tobacco. But when we look at what the dominions have supplied, it shows to us quite clearly that the dominions are getting a very small proportion of that great trade, notwithstanding the preference that is granted. We find that the whole of the empire together only supplied 1,849,370 pounds. That is out of £17,000,000 odd in values of tobacco imported into Great Britain. The whole of the dominions only sent a little under 2,000,000 pounds and the amount from South Africa is so infinitesimal that one wonders really where our tobacco is going to as it is not going to this great market. I just give that information to the Minister, but my object is to find out where we are marketing our goods. When we have an example before us such as that of the Rhodian cigarette, which is marketed by the sister colony of Rhodesia, and we know the enormous quantity that is weekly being exported to Great Britain from Rhodesia, I think when we have that example we ought to emulate Rhodesia. If that example is imitated, and we have the right people marketing our goods —for one knows that, a great deal of our tobacco is perfectly palatable to the British people—the opening is there and the sale is there, and I believe it will have just as good a sale, if properly marketed, as the Rhodesian cigarettes have. I shall be pleased to have the information from the Minister and I am sure the committee will feel that they ought to know whether this £2,000 provided on the estimates is sufficient. It is a small amount for marketing what ought to be a great output of tobacco. If more is required, I am sure the House will be willing to supply it. We are producing an excellent article and the next thing to do is to market it. There is a great deal of art in marketing an article of this character. When we have that great market to look to as available, I believe that, very much more can be done than is being done as shown by this infinitesimal amount which was exported to Great Britain last year.

I do not intend to say anything more about the cattle industry. I think the hon. Minister has heard quite enough about that for one day, at all events. I wish to bring to the notice of the House another matter which I think the hon. Minister takes credit for and which is for the benefit of the farming community. That is the question as to the reorganization of the Minister’s departments. One of the most important, and I think one of the best, divisions which was in existence, was the Animal Husbandry and Field Division. That was a division which was eminently a division to help the farmers in practical farming methods. This division has been abolished. I see in the report of the Secretary for Agriculture that they say that the Veterinary Division has absorbed a portion of the Animal Husbandry Division. The chief of the Veterinary Division, Dr. du Toit, is a veterinary scientist and has now been put in charge of the Animal Husbandry Division. The remainder has been divided up among other divisions, so there is no co-operation among the different elements. Dr. du Toit is one of our most valuable servants, but he has more than 1,000 people on his staff, and he cannot possibly give any attention to the additional work which has been placed on him. Let us see what animal husbandry consists of. There are two temporary lay assistants, but they must be of very little consequence, as they receive only £90 a year each. There are also two foremen, one director of wool research—a part time official receiving £200 a year—one senior research officer, who, I understand, has gene to Rhodesia, so that there are only nine research officers in the department to-day. I do not think any farmers know what they are doing, because none of us comes in touch with them. Besides that, there is a dairying division which comes under the Veterinary Department. How on earth that can be connected with veterinary work, I cannot imagine. As far as I can make out, most of the animal husbandry men and the field husbandry men come really under the division of extension, which is quite a good division for them to be under. There are 34 officers in that division doing field work among the farmers, but why are they divided up? We have a director of wool research in Dr. du Toit, but all the wool experts are under Col. du Toit. Why not keep them together under one head? Poultry is a new extension of the division, and so it goes on. I do not see how this organization can ever result in anything tangile, divided up as it is in this way. I do not think the Minister has ever justified the abolition of the animal and field husbandry division which was a helpful one to the farmers, for we knew the staff had made a special study of farming problems in this country, and they were always willing to help us. Now, however, we have to go to the head of the veterinary department with any problems we may have, and we do not know who is in charge of animal husbandry. DR. Romyn found the position so difficult that he was very glad to accept a better offer from a little country like Rhodesia, instead of remaining in a big country like the Union. I understand the Minister insists on the extension officers who have to advise farmers having a university education. Unfortunately, these officers have no practical knowledge of farming, although the first need of our farmers is to he instructed in the practical side of farming, for before you can assimilate the technical side, you must know about the practical side. Even if it is necessary for officials who work among the farmers to be holders of diplomas, why is it not necessary for the man at the head to be qualified similarly? He has an honorary degree, granted by the Stellenbosch university, and the only real farming experience he has had was gained while he was chairman of the Drought Commission and did some dry land farming. If we have not a suitable man for the post in South Africa, we should go to some other country for him. I have nothing to say personally against Col. du Toit, but he is a very unsuitable man for the post.

That is what you think. But the farmers do not.

What knowledge has he of animal husbandry? He was an ordinary farmer; I know he fought in the Boer and other wars, and is in receipt of a very nice pension which, with his salary, represents quite a big amount of money. I do not think we get value for that money, and I do not think the important division he is in charge of receives the attention to which it is entitled.

If I might-without risk of being considered impertinent—advise the hon. member who has just spoken, I suggest that he does not make too much of a fetish of diplomas.

I did not. I said that all the subordinate officers had to have diplomas, and if they were necessary I could not understand why the head of the department should not have a diploma as well.

If the hon. member’s argument is advanced in order to prove the Minister’s inconsistency, I can see his object, and I have a strong sympathy with him, but if he is keen on these people having diplomas, I join issue with him.

I am not keen.

I would like to touch on the question so ably put by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson). That is this question of tobacco. The hon. member gave us some very illuminating figures—in terms of money, and they took on a small appearance. I would like to emphasize the contrast by quoting the imports into Great Britain from various countries in pounds weight. In 1928, the latest figures available, Great Britain imported from the Union 778,324 lbs., whereas in the same year from Southern Rhodesia, our sister state, it was 9,504,000 odd lbs., about twelve times as much. We have to examine this position and ask ourselves why there is this tremendous disparity. The price obtained by Union tobacco was 1s. 2¼d. a lb. and by Southern Rhodesia 1s. 2¾d., so that the quality, in terms of money, was practically on all fours. We must ask, on behalf of these tobacco farmers, wherein lies the tremendous difference? The answer lies in the fact that the Rhodesian Government has laid itself out to push its wares on the London and other markets in Great Britain, and has not hesitated to open its own shops. France has made a tremendous thing, so far as its state revenue is concerned, of it by making a state monopoly of the manufacture and distribution—not production—of tobacco, and the Minister would be very foolish if he refrained from taking that as an example simply because of blind prejudice against what he may be pleased to call a socialistic venture. It is real, sound, good, solid business. With all these problems it is not so much production; we always find ourselves up against a brick wall when it comes to distribution, and the farmer is in the hands of the big middlemen. I am urging oh the Minister, and through him on the Cabinet, the desirability of taking our primary products out of the hands of the middleman, where it is warranted, in big national products such as tobacco, maize, wool and the like. Incidentally, the consumer must also be taken out of the hands of the middleman by the state engaging in the distribution of this commodity. True, Rhodesia has not been able to make much of an impingment on the trade from America, the import from there into Great Britain being no less than 205,000,000 lbs. The whole of this distribution is in the hands of the tobacco trusts. We are in the hands of the United Tobacco trust, and the importation into Britain from America is also in those hands. If only for that, I have a right to ask the Government to contest their position with your big monopolistic middlemen who make it impossible for our tobacco to be sold overseas. They are deliberately engaged in setting the English consumer against the products of South Africa in many respects, and in many ways, and they use all sorts of arguments. The Minister’s experts and officials must know, and be reporting to him. If he has not the information it is time he got it. If he finds it is correct, it is the business of the Government to step in at once and have their own distribution. Take the question of fruit. The hon. member stated the position of citrus. I know it to be true, and every farmer knows it to be true. In many cases indeed, not an isolated case, you find farmers not getting anything for putting their fruit on the London market, and they have been in debt—the costs incurred were more than the revenue received. It is because you have a monopoly of distribution in Covent Garden—the big five—fruit purveyors gathering into their maw all the fruit and deciding whether it shall go to the Continent, to Manchester, Hull, or the gutters of London. As they decide they do, and our farmers have no words to say; they may say words here, but they are not heard on the other side of the ocean. [Time limit.] I would like to know what the policy of the Minister is with regard to the levy on wool. It would be interesting to know how the 1s. per hale is to be appropriated or administered. With reference to the purchase of stock last year that the Government purchased stock to the value of something like £8,000, and a number of pedigree animals were bought at that time from Sir Abe Bailey. I would like to know whether the Government is running this stock for stud purposes or not. Another point is the disease among lambs called bloedvins, which in my district has been know to carry off as many as 75 per cent of young lambs.

I notice according to the auditor-general’s report, the railage charge on wool from Harrismith to Durban (Point) is 140 per cent, above what it was in 1914. The Minister of Agriculture, in collaboration with the Minister of Railways and Harbours, should endeavour to reduce that rate, which is unduly high.

I would like to impress upon the Minister the necessity for assistance being rendered by the Government to encourage export of oats and barley to an overseas market. There are thousands of bags of barley which will rot if something is not done.

We will feed it to the pigs, and sell them to the Jews.

We are accustomed to that kind of observation from the hon. member, and, consequently, take very little notice of it. If he did his duty he would pay more attention to the interests of the farmers, and would be anxious, now that I am endeavouring to press their claims, to support me in the object I have in view. If you take the cost per bag at 11d., you have the cost of production. On the top of that you have the cost of sending it from the farm to the station. What does the farmer get for his barley? Only from is. 6d. to 2s. per bag. If you add all the charges borne by the farmer, you will find that he gets practically nothing, and the position is that barley, by the time the new season arrives, must be got rid of at any price. The question of freight arises, and the Minister of Railways and Harbours has tried to assist the farmer by giving a 25 per cent, allowance on the railway, and an allowance of 25 per cent, from the steamship companies. But that is not enough, owing to the low prices prevailing in Europe. Maize has been chartered as low as 14s. per ton of 2,000 lbs. I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture should use his influence with the Minister of Railways and Harbours to induce him to utilize those ships belonging to the Government now carrying coal on the east coast, to carry barley. If he could reduce the freight to 10s. per ton, then we could get rid of the stuff. The position is very serious, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture realizes it. As one who has been engaged in that business all my life, I feel the necessity of assistance being give to the farmers. There is another matter I have frequently referred to, the question of the grading of barley. At the moment the barley produced is mostly taken up by the brewers. They grade it themselves, first, second and third grade. They are the people who lay down the law as to what is first, second and third grade. The farmers are entirely at their mercy. Something must be done in the direction of grading. I am shipping barley this week to Funchal, Madeira. There is no grade as regards barley, and the buyers on the other side insist on a Government grading certificate. I am pleased to take up matters in the interests of farmers, which the hon. members for Riversdale and Swellendam (Mr. Badenhorst and Mr. Wolfaard) should have sufficiently at heart to bring before the House, and I hope the Minister will give these matters careful consideration, and take the necessary action. Another matter which is also a hardy annual with me is with respect to guano. The Government has a profit of £22,000 on the guano, and if the price to the farmer is reduced to £5 per ton it will help the farmer who is the person we want to encourage. After repeated requests for six or seven years, no assistance has been given to the farmer in regard to phosphates. The imported article costs £3 10s. landed, that is 50 per cent, less than the Government is asking for the colonial. Farmers are crying out for colonial guano, and at the reduced price of £5, it will still give the Government a good profit.

The hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) now wants to pose as a champion for the farmers.

I have always been one.

When I want to speak about farming affairs I deal seriously with it, and go to the Minister’s office, and try to settle things with him. I do not come here to talk for the press. How many hours have they now been busy talking for the newspapers, so that the electors should think that they are looking after the interests of the country? The hon. member for Woodstock says that I do not talk about barley. I know well enough that there are thousands of bags which cannot be sold, but does the hon. members want the Government to buy them, or to look for a market where there is no market? When the hon. member was at Swellendam he was the man who sold fertilizers to the farmers and expensive bags; now he comes and tells the farmers that the price they want is too high. Why does he not look for a market. Barley, like any other thing to-day, is unsaleable. I sympathize much more with the farmers than the hon. member, but we cannot blame the Government. The Opposition are now running after their champion, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), but the farmers in the country know well enough that it is only with a view to the provincial elections and nothing else.

When my time expired last night I was calling the Minister’s attention to questions about the exportation of meat. I drew the Minister’s attention to the fact that the inspectors of meat export did not always have a proper knowledge of that Act. I want to ask him if it is not possible to get someone who has a special knowledge of that subject. At present it is done under the supervision of a veterinary surgeon, and a veterinary surgeon does not always have the necessary qualifications or the full knowledge which are necessary in connection with the export of meat. I hope the Minister will not follow the precedent which he did in connection with the export of oranges. If he does that we shall subsequently find that consignments of meat go overseas with labels on them like “slightly tainted,” “flavoured meat;” “fragrant meat,” or “meat with an aroma.” I hope the Minister will not do it, and that, in the interests of cattle farming, he will get someone who has a proper knowledge of the matter. I should like to know whether the Minister made any attempt to look after the interests of South Africa when Australia imposed a prohibition on the export of stud sheep. Did he make any representations to the Australian Government? I should just like to know whether the Minister did so. If he did it, then I shall stop my argument. If not, I must go on. The Minister does not reply, and I assume that he did not do so. Did he not then consider it necessary to do something? Did he make any attempt to protect the interests of South Africa? I know the Minister will say that it is something that was done by Australia. That is so, but it is in the interests of South Africa for us to get those stud sheep as in the past. It is a matter which will have far-reaching effects on our sheep farming. Owing to our not being able to import sheep, it will delay our stud farming to a great extent. The Minister will say that this will benefit some of our stud farmers, but he must not look at the matter from that point of view. As I have said, it will put our stud farming back, and therefore we expected the Minister to take action when Australia imposed the prohibition. He remained passive, and neglected the interests of South Africa. The Minister remained carefree and unworried. He assumed the garment of innocence, and in that he sat and slumbered in the shadows of self-righteousness. We expected fire and enthusiasm from him, but we got the coldness of a Nero.

When I put the question to the Minister yesterday in regard to the certificates granted by the department, regarding the export of hominy chop, I must say that the reply of the Minister was very unconvincing. He made the excuse that in Germany, for instance, an agitation has arisen that there is more than sufficient food in the country, and the hominy chop was condemned. I do not think that is quite correct. The position was that those certificates were not in order. The buyers accepted the certificates as being correct, and it was because the hominy chop was not up to the standard of these certificates that it was rejected. It is a serious matter that we have lost that valuable market. I remember the hon. Minister of Justice waxing eloquent about the tremendous sale for hominy chop we should have in Germany. I want to know where that market is to-day. I blame the Agricultural Department for giving certificates which were not correct. If the Minister wants proof I will produce the letters exchanged on the question. What is the Minister going to do to help the mealie farmers this year They will be in a very awkward position. I notice the price at present is 26s. a quarter, which will work out at 8s. a bag. Unless the Minister is going to help the mealie farmer, I am afraid that many of them will not be able to continue their farming operations. The Rhodesian Government have come to the assistance of their farmers, and have offered a bounty of 1s. a bag. Can the Minister tell this House what assistance he will give to our mealie farmer? I will make a suggestion to him as to the way in which he can assist us. He, apparently, is not agreeable to grant a bounty. I put it this way to the Minister. Let him see his colleague, the Minister of Railways and Harbours. We are gradually losing our bunkering coal industry owing to the fact that the rates are too high. If the Minister of Agriculture can get the Minister of Railways to reduce the rates on bunkering coal, and can see the shipping people, he might get them to rebate the cost on the export of mealies, and that, to some extent, will help the coal industry and the mealie farmer. To-day, the mealie is the largest agricultural production we have in this country. Unless the mealie farmers can get some relief and the Government will come to their assistance, I say that many of these farmers will not be able to continue. In fact, many of them will go insolvent. There are many farmers to-day who are dependent almost entirely upon the production of maize. If the price continues, as at present, without some relief, it will be a very sorry day for the mealie farmer. I say it is due to the Minister of Agriculture to do something to help the mealie farmer in the present conditions. Possibly in the next year or two the mealie position may improve, but this year there has been a bumper crop again in southern Europe, and apparently there is not much hope that the export price of mealies will improve. Therefore, it is essential that something should be done to meet the mealie farmer. We have been encouraged to grow mealies. I speak as a mealie farmer myself. The Government told us to go on with mealie farming, and they said it is a good thing for the country. I agree it is, but, unless something is done now that we are in a critical position, I am afraid that many mealie farmers will go insolvent. In view of the critical position of the mealie farmer, the Government should do something to help him to tide over his difficulties. The Rhodesian Government, although a young Government, has come to the help of its mealie farmers. I want to know what the Minister of Agriculture is going to do for our mealie farmer. At the last election, the Minister told us that everything was all right, that the farmers should go on growing, and if they wanted anything, they could come to him for help. I, therefore, appeal to him to give the mealie farmer the necessary assistance he requires, and that is due to him. I want a statement from the Minister as to exactly what he proposes to do to help the mealie farmer this year, unless the price improves. Surely he can come forward with some definite policy and tell us what the Government’s intentions are. The mealie farmers are knocking at his door, and have been knocking at his door for some months asking for assistance, yet the Minister has done absolutely nothing. He has not moved a single finger in aid of the mealie farmer. What is he going to do? We want a definite statement.

I should like briefly to bring a difficulty to the Minister’s notice in connection with which the farmers in the northwestern district are faced with, especially the trek farmers, because the farmers have once more to trek owing to the drought that is starting. The difficulty arises by the enforcement of the regulations in connection with scab by the officials and inspectors. I know that if we bring this matter to the notice of the Minister he will understand the position and assist the people. The people feel that the regulations are such that, at the moment, they are unable to carry them out. They have to trek from one district to the other, and cannot dip their sheep that are clean at this time of the year. I would like the Minister to consider in which way he can relax those regulations to a certain extent, so that the people would be allowed to trek with their clean sheep. The Minister will see that there is no danger, and I hope that he, even if only temporarily, will suspend the regulations there. If, however, the Minister thinks that there is still a danger, then I want to suggest that he should send one of his officials there to make enquiries, and I am certain that when he has seen the position he will advise that something should be done for those people who often merely trek for a short distance from one district to another, and who cannot dip during that time. I do not want to detain the House, but I must mention this to the Minister because it is a great difficulty with the people, and I hope the Minister will meet them. I can assure him that those people are strongly in favour of the eradication of scab, and that they therefore do not want to oppose the carrying out of the Act, but at the same time I want to ask the Minister to meet those people in their special circumstances. If he cannot remove the regulations entirely, then I want to ask him to give such relief that they should not have many difficulties when trekking.

I listened very carefully to the remarks of the Prime Minister the other day when he referred to the remarks of hon. members on this side as being frivolous. I take it that we are here at great inconvenience to ourselves, and that if we have any views on matters, that we have studied for many years, they should be listened to. I think the Minister of Agriculture is listening to them very carefully, but when the Prime Minister was not here during the best part of the debate, it is rather a slight upon us when we make speeches of serious moment, to say that they are frivolous. I think the points I gave to the Minister will make him think a little. I now propose to give him a few more. I wish to refer to the economic position as it affects the farmers. That is a most important side of the farmers’ business. In dealing with the co-operation question, the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), who is not present, had a great stunt about co-operation to deal with produce, right from the producer until it reached the consumer. I should like to mention to him that in Australia they tried that little game. They started big irrigation works, fruit canning works, dried fruit export, and they handled the produce from the time it was grown until it reached the consumer. They lost on that undertaking something over £5,000,000. I am pleased to see that the Minister is on sound ground in refusing this compulsory co-operation. I think his view of co-operation is more on the lines as enunciated by Mr. Moffat, the Premier of Rhodesia, who said—

While the Minister continues on these lines he is on a safe wicket, but he has many other difficulties to face, and his officials should be able to assist him to see daylight. With regard to the citrus export trade, I wish to throw fresh light on it. If we had a monopoly of this market in London, it would not matter very seriously, but we find that our most favourable months, namely, from June to October, have been assailed, for other countries, finding that we were getting good prices for our oranges, have been attacking the London market during that period. These people from the United States and Brazil have been making play with the quality of our fruit. You can hear barrow-men in London shouting: “Here you are, lady, nice, sweet oranges—not sour stuff from South Africa.” That is very serious, because they reflect the feeling of the trade handling our citrus. I do not say that California is organizing a campaign to undermine the position of our fruit, but it looks very much like it. The United States and Brazil between them shipped over 1,000,000 cwt, of oranges in those months. Then there was a cartoon in “Punch” showing the interior of a fruiterer’s shop with a lady asking for South African oranges. The fruiterer replied: “We keep only sweet oranges,” and in the background posters of Brazilian oranges were displayed. For the last 25 years I have been closely in touch with the subject of soil erosion, but the subject is getting very threadbare, and the Minister looks upon it with a good deal of callousness, at least judging by what he has done with regard to the matter in the past. We have had meetings to discuss the matter, but there is nothing really new to be learned about it, and the damage it is doing, for we know it is washing away our best soil, and the problem is now so serious that we shall have to co-operate with Basutoland and organize a very large campaign it we wish to tackle it properly. Saltbush and spineless cactus (kaalblad) I have distributed among the farmers to plant as preventatives of soil erosion. When I spoke on the previous occasion, the Minister said I was a racialist, because I made a simple remark about the farmers. Well, on one occasion I gave a farmer, who is a public man, a bag full of these pear leaves to plant on his farm. I paid 5s. a leaf for them in the early days. I placed them in the railway cloakroom for the farmer, but he was too lazy or indifferent to remove them. I then sent them to the railway station for him, but he left them there. There is an item of a paltry £1,000 on the estimates for investigation, but we do not want investigation, as we know all there is to know about the prevention of soil erosion, which, by the way, is the best insurance against drought. I do not believe in compulsion, but before you pay out relief moneys, you can insist on the recipient making some attempt to stop soil erosion. That would not be asking too much, and would be only a little pressure. Let us tackle the thing seriously before it is too late. All our irrigation dams are filling up with silt, and until you stop soil erosion it is useless to build dams. The very simplicity of the remedy, however, seems to be its danger. The Irrigation Commission recommended that no drastic measures should be applied, but if we do not apply drastic measures, what else can we apply? A farmer, writing to the “Graaff-Reinet Advertiser” with reference to the recent conference at Pretoria, asked where is there a note of anything practical on the part of the Minister. This correspondent even regards the Minister as being at the zenith of his power, but if the Minister cannot do something practical when he is at the zenith of his power, he may not be in a position to tackle soil erosion in a few years’ time. [Time limit.]

I have moved the reduction of the Minister’s salary, but with the permission of the committee I would like to withdraw it— not that I am satisfied, more especially with regard to east coast fever—in fact, I am very dissatisfied with the Minister’s attitude on that. When he was asked about east coast fever in Natal, he said that the position was improving. Let me tell him it is not improving—it is very serious, for there are outbreaks in Dundee, Klip River, Richmond, Vryheid and other places. The latest Government return shows that a big district has recently been infected. There must be come reason for this. We are told that we have a first-class Minister, who says that he has chased the locusts away and stamped out scab. Why has he not succeeded in cleaning up the east coast fever position? It is very easily tackled, and the only explanation I can offer is that the inspectors are not doing their duty. We spend £315,000 a year in veterinary inspectors, in addition to large sums for transport. There is something wrong somewhere. The Minister sent a large number of men to Natal who did not know their job. It is time he entrusted the operations in Natal to men who understand their task. Otherwise we shall not get rid of east coast fever. The Minister has had plenty of time. There is the result of their work—the position going from bad to worse. We are getting frightened of it, and we do not like it. Surely, now the Minister sees how incompetent these men are, it is time to give the men on the spot an opportunity of dealing with the disease. Men who know the district and the natives will get it cleaned up. The position is very serious, and you will never get a proper clean-up unless you get the confidence of the people, of the farmers, where regulations are being administered. Let me instance the methods I complain of. A farmer sends a smear to the Minister’s department for examination, one day from Donnybrook. Five weeks elapse, and no diagnosis is sent down. A permit is given to him to move cattle from his farm. Five weeks after it has been sent, the diagnosis comes back, and it says east coast fever. The position is rotten. What happens if the farmer wants to remove cattle from Ixopo to Umzimkulu, the districts adjoin, he applies to the veterinary officer at Ixopo, who sends it to Pietermaritzburg, where it is endorsed. It is sent to Pretoria, and from there it is sent to East London, and from there to Kokstad, where the official in charge of the district is stationed. It is sent back to East London, Pretoria and Pietermaritzburg, and finally back to Ixopo again, having travelled 2,000 miles. It is a slavish worship of the great god red-tape. Why in the name of fortune cannot he give the right to the official at Ixopo and at Umzimkulu to deal with it? The Minister is a farmer himself, and cannot stand up to that sort of thing. I do hope he will see that this utter frivolity—it is hardly the word to use—these irritating regulations are done away with, and that we get a little common sense used in our regulations. These are some of the reasons why east coast fever is not being stamped out. Another matter is the veterinary regulations in the Transkei. I make bold to say that there is more east coast fever in Ixopo than in the whole of the Transkei, and yet you have bottled up that territory. The natives are heavily taxed by the Government, and their one asset, their banking account it might be called, is their cattle. They cannot sell them because they cannot move them. In one district in the Transkei there has been no east coast fever for five years, and yet the department says that cattle cannot be moved. In the European districts you do not shut up a whole province because of a few outbreaks. You have the markets for these cattle, farmers willing to buy trek oxen, and butchers willing to buy for slaughter purposes, but you will not allow these oxen to be moved out. There is very little danger, and yet you have drawn a barbed wire fence around the whole of this territory, and you doom these cattle to die. It is not fair and right. You should give these people the same chance as the European. Cannot five men be spared for this district? It is not much from 1,535 employees of the veterinary depot. The Government is anxious to get as much as possible by taxation from the natives, but should allow them to obtain the means to pay that taxation. There should be a little common sense, and you might allow a relaxation of these iron regulations.

With leave of committee, amendment, proposed by Mr. Gilson, withdrawn.

I asked the Minister a question the day before yesterday with regard to East Coast fever, and mentioned a recent outbreak which had occurred. I was very anxious to find out from the Minister whether he could give me any information as to the cause of this outbreak and whether it was due to any illicit, or possibly even to a legal, movement of cattle. I also wanted the Minister to tell me—the area in which this outbreak occurred is not far from the Free State border— whether this is going to affect the removal of cattle to and from the Free State, because people on both sides of the border are very much perturbed at the possibility of this. The Minister did not vouchsafe me a fair reply— he never does—I got the retort from him that I was an ex-Unionist and a racialist. If he will give me the same courtesy as the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice and others do, we would get on with the business of the House more quickly. The Minister must not adopt this militant attitude towards a peace-loving man like myself. I never was an ex-Unionist nor a racialist. We have heard a great deal to-day about there being languishing industries and no market for mealies or beef, and that barley is rotting unsold. It seems to mo that the only flourishing industry in the country is the Government’s “jobs for pals” industry. I have here a list of officials appointed by the Minister since he assumed office. There are 1,705 of them. There are brothers-in-law, nephews and cousins of the Ministers. I have not time to give you the whole story. The day before yesterday I taxed the Minister with regard to the dismissals of inspectors at Bethlehem, and he told the House that he dismissed those officials because they were redundant. Since then he has appointed 1,705 officials, 500 of whom belong to the same department, i.e., sheep inspectors and dipping inspectors, to which the so-called redundant inspectors belonged I would like him to explain that. I want to ask him also for an explanation in regard to the number of promotions of “pals”. Not only is there a flourishing industry of “jobs for pals”, but there is one of “promotion for pals”. I want to know how it comes about that in a list of 1,700 names a large number of them are second grade in class. It appears that these people have been promoted over the heads of other officials. It must be so, because they were taken from outside the service and given second grade positions. A number are on the temporary establishment. I want to know where all these officials are tucked away. Where is the Minister putting them? I cannot imagine, but I would like him to explain why it is that officials who have been taken on from outside the service are now appearing as second grade clerks, whilst a great many officials who were in the service before the Minister assumed office, have received no promotion.

Every new entrant to the service is appointed a second grade clerk. There are no longer third grade clerks.

I thought that all appointments started on a temporary basis. Will the Minister explain how 30 or 40 per cent, of those on this list of 1,705 are temporary?

I don’t know what you are quoting from.

I will tell you. According to the list there is, for example, a temporary lecturer, a temporary extension officer, a temporary economist, and so it goes on. With all due deference to the Minister of Finance, I think he will have to agree with me that they are first taken on temporarily. Anyhow it does not affect my argument, because the Minister has even taken some from outside the service and put them into first grade positions.

Who is that?

Your old friend, van Dolsen for one. The Minister is not repentant, I know, lie never will be. He brazens it out bravely. He makes no secret of the fact that his policy is a poliicy of “jobs and promotions for pals”, and I admire him for making no secret of it. He is honest about it. Now I want to say a few words about Dr. Tilney. He is a South African-born man. He went overseas and qualified as an economist, and came back here and obtained employment in the Department of Agriculture. His parents were born here; I believe he is a relation of mine, as a matter of fact. Anyhow, he obtained employment in the Department of Agriculture as an economist, He has been treated in precisely the same way as a young fellow of the name of Clarke, who was sent to America at the cost of this country to qualify in animal husbandry. Clarke was an exceptionally brilliant boy, and was selected for that reason to go to America to complete his studies. The Minister laughs, but I say that this is one of the most pitiable instances of the kind of treatment he gives to those who are not “pals” of his. Clarke did all that was asked of him in America, and more. He passed his examinations with honours and took other examinations of a higher nature which he was not required under his contract to pass. He returned to this country to take up an appointment in the Agricultural Department in terms of his contract. First of all, Clarke was put into a position lower than he was led to believe, and then the old game started of badgering him in connection with the bilingual qualification was resorted to. His position was made so intolerable that he resigned. He was under a contract to come here and complete a certain period of service in the Department of Agriculture. He resigned, and America where his brilliant attainments were known, snapped him up quickly, and he has done well. He has shaken the dust of South Africa off his feet, although he was born here. He was not liked by the Minister. His name did not suit the Minister, and his political leanings did not suit the Minister. DR. Tinley finds that men inferior to him are being put over his head. If the Minister could only get away from this policy of jobs for pals, and treat everyone on an equality, it would be a good thing for the country. This is the burden of Dr. Tinley’s complaint on which he bases his reasons for resigning. He says—

Now if ever testimony has been forthcoming in support of the attitude I have taken up in this House recently, in connection with this pernicious system of the Minister’s, here it is. Once more I appeal to the Minister. His department reeks of politics—reeks of racialism. He is the arch-culprit in this respect. I hope he will turn over a new leaf and give the country a square deal in the future.

We have listened to a very long debate this afternoon, and I do not intend to reply again to all the repetitions we have heard, because I did so during the previous debate. I shall not again go into the question of the cattle industry, because I have already very clearly explained my attitude. The hon. members for Pietermaritzburg (North) (Mr. Deane) and for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Borlase) have again made a great noise about this afternoon, but I do not intend to take up the time of the House with that. There have, however, been certain new points and I feel that it is my duty to clearly say clearly what my attitude is about them. In the first place, I come to the question raised by the hon. member for Ermelo (Col. Cdt. Collins) he asked me how it was possible that certain stolen cattle went to Swaziland and came back again. Let me say at once that this was a mistake by the police, who thought that the cattle could come back. My department at once gave instructions that it was illegal, but it had already been done. We immediately took steps to quarantine those cattle and I am glad to say that no east coast fever broke out near Ermelo district. The district of Ermelo is clean, and the hon. member asked me why there is still such a severe restriction on the people, although the district has now so long been free from east coast fever. The reason is that they have had good rains there, and the hon. member knows that during the summer months there is considerable danger there of east coast fever. My department then felt that the restrictions must for the present continue, but we hope during the winter not only in the Ermelo district but in the greatest part of the Transvaal still to relax the restrictions as much as possible, because except along the White River and in the district of Barberton the whole of the Transvaal is free from east coast fever. We will permit dipping to take place at long intervals, but I hope hon. members will support me if I do not allow the compulsory dipping to be abolished because it is in the interests of the farmers themselves. Then the hon. member asks if it would not be possible to open another place of entry for the cattle to be imported from Swaziland. The hon. member pointed out that it would even be possible to export cattle to Swaziland. Let me say that Dr. Viljoen is at present in Swaziland to discuss with the resident commissioner the state of east coast fever. We hear that the position in Swaziland is alarming, but we are making enquiries into the matter. So long as the position does not improve it is too dangerous to allow cattle to come in from Swaziland. The hon. member knows that we have had east coast fever for 28 years, and now we are finally free of it we must be very careful that we do not contract it again.

Cannot a place of entry be established at Oostpoort?

No, it is not possible, because the animals have to come over land. Then the hon. member said that Swaziland exports stock to Italy. There are cold storage companies that export meat, and it is possible that one of them has a contract in Italy, just as our cold storage people also have contracts, but it has not come to my knowledge. We, however, have a trade commissioner there, and we hope that circumstances will permit the Minister of Mines and Industries to undertake his proposed visit to Europe. One of my best officials will go with him, and they will try to find the best markets for our farmers. Then the hon. member asks how it is possible for the cost of the Irrigation Department to be so high. Let me say in the first place that part of the Irrigation Vote has now been transferred to agriculture, but I cannot understand how hon. members can object to that vote. When we were on the Lands Vote we heard hon. members say that we must not tackle any more settlements and irrigation works until we had made proper enquiry notwithstanding the fairly large staff they have we are not able to comply with all the requests for a proper survey, and I expect the hon. member will agree that the amount is not too large. Then the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) spoke once more about hominy chop, and he again charged my department with issuing wrong certificates. The hon. member as usual is again wrong, because my department issues no certificates of that kind. They are issued by the Department of Railways, but the certificate which is issued by the railways is quite right, because it only refers to the condition the hominy chop is in. The hon. member now asks how the export has diminished so much. It is owing to the great production of stock food throughout the countries themselves.

The hominy chop was rejected owing to the certificates.

I cannot judge of it if the people reject them. There is only a certificate given which concerns the condition of the hominy chop. I want to point out that there are two classes, one for human consumption and one for stock thieves. In the case of the class for human consumption the conditions are so severe that not much is exported, and on account of the market in Europe being flooded with stock food the other class also has found a very poor market.

What are you going to do about the maize?

I have already discussed that matter and I am not going to do so again. I have already said that co-operation is the salvation of the maize farmers. The shipping freight has been reduced and why do not the farmers stand together, and make representations to the Minister of Railways so that they can enter into contract for the shipping of maize. The Minister will in such case assist them, but they want to sit still, and let the Government do their business for them. The hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. S. D. de Wet) also spoke about maize. He wants the Government to import that spraying material and to use the magistrates to supply it to the maize farmers. Is the Government then to open a shop to supply that material to the farmers? And are we now to go further and also supply ploughs, etc., to them? No, the hon. member does not want that. The farmers must learn to do their own business. They can club together and import that spraying material if they cannot get it here. Then the hon. member has again said that thousands of cattle are coming over the Rhodesia boundary. I do not say that cattle are not coming in. We have guards there, but if we want to prevent cattle coming in the night then we shall have to have guards every few hundred yards, but we are doing our best to keep them out, and if cattle are captured then they are shot without compensation. The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has mentioned a new thing, viz., horse breeding. The police and the defence force require about 500 horses a year, but can the Government accept his proposal and station stallions all over the country to encourage the people to farm horses, when there is no market for them? There is horse farming in the country and there are good horses. Possibly the buying system is wrong. The hon. member also spoke about east coast fever. Let me say that the position has noticeably improved during the past six years. The Transvaal is clean except for one district. The position has also improved in Natal because the same system of control of cattle has also been applied there as in other parts of the country where the disease has appeared. Hon. members must, however, remember that it is a very troublesome disease. It is possibly the most troublesome one to fight, because everyone of us can be a host. We possibly walk over a farm, pick up an infected bush louse and it drops on another farm where it infects the animals with fever. Conditions in Natal are not so favourable, but they are better than before. The hon. member further asks why it took five weeks before the result of an experiment with a blood smear was made known. He must remember that sometimes 120,000 blood smears are tested a year, and 3,000 or 4,000 possibly come in one day. It must take a little time to deal with all. It is always said that we have too many officials, but here the hon. member is once more complaining that the work cannot be done quickly enough. I want, however, to point out that we are doing our best to investigate the smears as quickly as possible. The case that he mentioned is an exception. It may be that that case was put off until the next day and that then something went wrong with it. The hon. member further spoke about east coast fever in the Transkei. If he comes to my office I shall do my best to give information about this matter insofar as he does not understand it. I cannot act in conflict with the advice of the veterinary surgeons who have been engaged on the fighting of the disease for years. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. A. S. Naudé) spoke about dipping against the sheep tick. Ho wants us to compel the farmers to do so. Why then cannot the farmers, if they want it, come together in the Transvaal, and in the other provinces to eradicate the sheep tick. Why should I incur the expense of convening the people? We must not take away all initiative from these people. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Kayser) said that the veterinary surgeons have too much work, but at the commencement of the session, and even of the budget debate the great complaint was that we had too many officials. Hon. members really ought to be consistent. They possibly understand the theory of less expenditure and greater expenditure. Further, he wants to say that I should see to it that the fruit exchange spends more of the levy money in advertising. I think that it is necessary to enquire into the budget of those people, and that we should insist on their spending more money on the proper object for which the levy was made. But as soon as I do anything in connection with these advisory bodies it is said that I must keep my nose out of those affairs. Nevertheless, I am held responsible here if the exchange spends too much money. The hon. member also spoke of the good services of a certain Gunn, and said that we ought to retain his services. When an official is 55 or 60 years old he must retire according to law, and does the hon. member want me to break the law by keeping on that official?

But he is a capable official.

Yes, and there are many other capable officials. No one is indispensable. I do not doubt that Mr. Gunn has done good work, but when his time of retirement comes he must retire according to law. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) spoke once more about the Fencing Act. We have many Bills that are required and there are still many on the Order paper. When the proper time comes I will go into it again. Then he spoke about scab in Basutoland. I only want to say that I would be glad if as much progress had been made in all countries as in Basutoland. They started to dip from the outside, and gradually went more into the interior, and the position has very much improved. The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. Sephton) asked a question in connection with the purchase of sheep from Sir Abe Bailey; they are intended for the Grootfontein experiment farm, and I now want to ask hon. members who farm with sheep whether they do not ever buy other sheep. That is what the Government has done, and it seems strange to me that when the Government tries to get hold of good sheep to improve our sheep farming there should be wool farmers who object to it. The sheep are intended to breed rams at Grootfontein. They are a special class of sheep. I had a talk with Sir Abe Bailey myself at the time and said that he should see that the sheep stopped in this country and did not go back to Australia. That took place, and the Government bought a section.

Why with all the experts in the department are the rams not bred by them.

They were a particularly good breed. Does the hon. member mean to tell me that he never buys special sheep? The hon. member tor Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) said just the reverse and argued that I should make representations to the Australian Government once more to get sheep. Hon. members kick wildly like turkeys. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) spoke about the tobacco trade and why a sum of £2,000 was on the estimates for an official in England. The tobacco position was serious, and at the request of the co-operative societies Mr. Lamont was sent to England and I am glad to be able to say that he has almost entirely got rid of our surplus tobacco. He will, however, have to remain there a little longer. As for the cigarette trade, it is a matter for traders and co-operative societies, and the Government cannot intervene in that as well. There is one point I cannot let pass unnoticed. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Weenen (Mr. Abrahamson) made an attack on Col. du Toit, an official who cannot defend himself. He is praised throughout the country, irrespective of nationality and he is one of the best officials we have. The hon. member says that I have now abolished the head of the stock-breeding department, and he tremulously objects to the appointment of a man like Col. du Toit who has not passed a proper examination. I doubt whether the hon. member knows that he was appointed by the late Sir Thomas Smartt, my predecesssor, as head of the department and that he—I think —was appointed by the leader of the Opposition as chairman of the Drought Commission. Can we wish for a better report than that report? After the war he went to America to qualify further in agricultural matters, and he then took his degree at Stellenbosch. Yet he is objected to and a capable official like him is described in this House as an impossible man. I want to say again that repeated requests are received to please send Col. du Toit as a practical man who understands dealing with the farmers. I hope that the hon. member will yet come into touch with him in his own district, and will see what tact and capacity he has in dealing with people. The change we have made with regard to the Veterinary Department will turn out to be an excellent one. When we changed the sheep division we also heard a great deal of noise. Give the Veterinary Department with its capable officials a few years chance, and hon. members will see that it was a good alteration. Then the hon. member also argues against the qualified extension officers. How can I satisfy him. The people surely must have a certain education. With regard to oats and barley the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Buirski) has complained that the reduction of the railway rates by 25 per cent, is not enough. The shipping companies have also reduced their freights. I am very sorry that the position is as it is, but there is over-production in all parts of the world, and then to my astonishment he spoke about grading, and raised a lamentation and said that I should see that barley was properly graded. When, however, I had a grading Bill before the House hon. members opposite opposed it. The hon. member, himself, opposed it. His side fought against the Bill.

Not for export.

But the hon. member for Woodstock is not talking about export. He is talking about the interior.

Yes, that is right.

You are the cause that it is not being graded.

Oh.

The hon. member is once more saying “oh” Now hon. members are looking down their noses and seeing what damage they have caused to the farmer.

You could have put it through.

I do not think the hon. member for Dundee (Mr. Friend) is expecting a reply. He surely does not expect that I am going to interfere in the business of other countries and tell Australia what they are not to do. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) spoke about the dipping of sheep. I want to assist as far as possible, but I must warn hon. members that we cannot allow the old state of affairs to return. I am going to relax the provisions a little to give the people a chance, but we must keep the state of affairs in view and not allow scab to increase once more. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Anderson) accused me of appointing so many officials, but does the hon. member know that the appointments include any officials, even the dipping officials who are sometimes only a few months in the service? Does the hon. member know that hundreds of officials have started in my department and then been transferred to other. If we compare the appointments during my period of office of six years with six years of the South African party Government then we shall see that there is not much difference. Does the hon. member for Klip River wish when an official leaves the service that no one should be appointed from outside? The hon. member mentioned a few special cases, but the appointments were entirely justified. Then he said that I appointed relations, but let him just mention a single case in the list. Let him say now who it is. Yes, the hon. member knows that his statement is incorrect. He also mentioned the case of Dr. Tinley; what was the case? He was an inspector in the department, and it had nothing to do with bi-lingualism. He was dissatisfied with the post of inspector, and wanted to get on to a higher scale. Therefore, he was transferred to the technical department, but he did not want the detriment that the promotion involved. It is of course not permitted although I may add that it was not a matter that I had anything to do with directly. There is, therefore, not the least reason for the dust the hon. member has raised. There is not the least reason for the charges against me. I think I have now answered everything.

What about the recent outbreak of east coast fever.

I have dealt with that. It may be introduced by any animal, and I cannot say how it is brought into a definite area. With regard to quarantine we will meet the people as much as possible.

I should like to withdraw my motion for a reduction of the Minister’s salary with the leave of the committee.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Abrahamson withdrawn.

I wanted to go on and deal with this question of soil erosion. It is a thing that I have studied for many years, and the hon. Minister I am sure does not realize the seriousness of it. The farmers say so. A farmer sent a resolution to the Minister’s conference, and this is what he said—

That is a splendid idea, and I should like to ask why the hon. Minister does not guide this movement. Here is a farmer telling him to do the very thing I told him in the first remarks I made in the session. That is exactly what I indicated in regard to the farmers. The Minister, however, does not appear to like the direct method, and in this case he is afraid to move. Here are the very people, the farmers, begging him to do it, and he is afraid of it. I will read further from this latter—

I do not know what he means by that, but he goes on to say—

The Minister shrugs his shoulders, and does not think it necessary to reply. But the country desires something to be done, and in a few years’ time he will be the man to blame Yet the Government sits still. The hon. the Minister has a fine opportunity now to tackle this problem. Instead of doing so, he sits still and waits for something to turn up. I suggested a little while ago that the Government should see the steamship companies and ask them to give a rebate on freight on condition that the Government gave a rebate on railways, but Government action came too late.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I move—

Before you reach these amendments, I want to go back to sub-clause (b) and deal with the wording there. You will notice that as the Bill stands at present—I will quote the first five lines. It reads that any employer or any trade union may agree—

On a point of order, I do not think there is a quorum present, which shows the interest shown on the Government benches in the subject under discussion.

Quorum restored.

I want to explain the significance of the words “between them,” although I cannot hope to persuade the Minister, I might explain that this is of great importance, because it affects the main principle of the Bill. I would like to refer to two other sections of the Bill which will give the committee some idea of the extension it is proposed to give to the power of industrial councils— something which cannot be accepted by the committee without a full appreciation of what it means. In sub-section (3) it is proposed to introduce an amendment to extend the powers of the industrial councils to make rules, and when one looks at Section (4) (1) there are certain classes of disputes which are exempt. Industrial councils are not formed solely for the purpose of considering disputes within a particular industry, but they will have powers so wide as to enable them to regulate any matter which arises between the parties. I would like the Minister to tell me whether this is the intention of those amendments. The functions, as I understand them, are to regulate wages and conditions of labour, and prevent disputes prior to an agreement being arrived at. Under this amendment, it will be possible for the industrial council to regulate the prices which will be charged for the output in a particular industry; and to fix the maximum prices. Is it the Minister’s intention to go so far as this? I remember in 1924 his colleague, who sits behind him, argued that the industrial councils should have the right to fix prices. I am representing the view of consumers. If industrial councils go so far beyond the powers entrusted to them by this Parliament, and if this is the extent to which these functions can be carried, what is there to prevent an industrial council saying that in any particular industry the price shall be not less than so much or more than so much? That is a very dangerous power. I can see a particular industrial council which receives that imprimatur from Parliament indirectly through this Act, and which has the right of criminal sanction, to insist upon the terms of an agreement being carried out, might fix the price for goods produced in an industry very much to the public detriment. I want to vote against sub-section (b) of Clause I as it appears in the amended Bill so that the words “between them” shall remain where they are in the Bill. If this position is allowed to remain it may have the effect of seriously disturbing the whole system of regulation which is being created under this Bill. I want to refer to an amendment which I want to move to give effect to what I am saying, in line 24, after the word “register”, I want to insert there words which will qualify the disputes which can be dealt with by an industrial council. Perhaps I might explain, first of all, what the effects of this amendment is that appears here. It is proposed to add words to sub-section 2 (1) of the Act, which will further define the powers of an industrial council. Under the Act, as it originally stood, Section 1 prescribes that an industrial council is formed for the purpose I first named, and can be registered under the Act. It then becomes in effect an incorporated body, a body with a separate legal entity. Does the Minister propose that such a council shall become possessed of all the powers, duties and functions of an industrial council under this Act and to allow it to deal with any disputes in an undertaking, trade or occupation in respect of which and in an area in which such council has been registered? I propose to add the words—

By moving that amendment, which refers to the one I shall move in Section 4 (1), I propose that the fixing of a minimum and maximum price by an industrial council shall not be possible. I would like to know if that is the Minister’s intention, and whether the Minister does not agree with me that there is a very great danger so far as industrial councils are concerned. In regard to Clause (d), which appears in the Bill, I would like to point out that it is a most unworkable clause as it stands at present, the reason of it being something that I need not refer to now. The Minister provides, first of all, that a council may be removed from the register. Then there is the case where a council might not be able to function because certain parties have withdrawn from it. In both cases it provides that the functions of the council shall be exercised, not by members of the council, but by the remaining members of the council. A council may be removed from the register and yet be able fully to function. The mere removing of a council from the register does not prevent that council from existing, and there should be an amendment inserted here to make it quite clear.

The hon. member is rather labouring a bogey of his own creation. I would call his attention to the preceding words in the section dealing with matters of mutual interest.

Are prices of mutual interest?

They may be. The other amendment of his, too, I am afraid I cannot accept. It appears to me that the hon. member’s fears are groundless, and are not contemplated for a moment by the Act.

I am not surprised at the Minister’s attitude. My friends on my left have been aggravated by members of the Government, and now the Minister of Labour says that my amendments are bogeys. Does he think I waste my time in putting forward bogeys, and does he think that what I propose is done without justification? If he does, he is very much mistaken. I have put forward matters that have come under my own experience. We should not have a Bill which will wreck the very purpose for which it is passed. I believe if these councils attempted to exercise the power to which I have referred there would be a reaction against them. May I come back to Clause (d)? I was drawing attention to the fact that there is an error in line 30 where the Minister seeks to take power to have the unexpended funds placed in his possession. He could not do that unless the outstanding liabilities had first been discharged. I move the following amendments—

I would like to Minister to explain why it is worded as it is. Surely disputes must be between parties.

They may be disputes with regard to some incident in any part of an industry. The causes of strikes are not always disputes in which the whole of one party is interested. There may be particular persons interested in one establishment. You may have various organizations in an industry, but a dispute may occur in one establishment involving a large number of men. If no industrial council exists, they can apply for conciliation, but a conciliation board cannot be applied for where there is an industrial council. The standing conciliation board is then in existence.

I agree entirely with the contention of the hon. member for Durban. The Minister does not seem to have grasped the implications of this section. I quite conceive that under the provision such an industrial council would be able to fix prices, and that is a reasonable provision. If they find they have to secure a certain profit, to enable them to pay a reasonable wage, it may be necessary for them to be able to fix prices to enable them to pay the wage the industrial council lays down. I can quite conceive of cases arising when it would be essential for them for their mutual protection to exercise such a right. I am very pleased they have that power, because otherwise, I do not think they would have the adequate protection that is necessary. I realize it may ultimately lead to some difficulty, because if one industrial council fixes prices, it may affect the general community and other industrial councils will fix prices. It should be brought home to the Government that the Government should definitely go into the question of fixing prices generally, in order to see on the one hand that the employer is protected, and is able to secure a reasonable profit, and that, on the other hand, the consumer is protected by the limitation of prices. I am very glad that the Minister is not accepting this amendment, because, by its non-acceptance, he is agreeing with the principle of the fixing of prices, although possibly the Minister and hon. members behind him do not know it.

The object of this amendment is to give the industrial council power to deal with a dispute, when it occurs. In the past the industrial council could not interfere in many disputes. There are a thousand and one little things, it has been found from experience, that crop up, but up to the present the industrial council has not had the power to deal with them.

My friend on my left (Mr. Kentridge) is not so discreet as the Minister. It is worth while reading again what my hon. friend referred to. It is made clear that an industrial council may deal with any dispute in any industry. Certain employers and employees may decide to have a minimum price. What I want to know from the Minister is: is it quite clear that the council will not have the right to fix the minimum price. My point is that, if the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is right, where is the interest of the consumer to be protected where you have a power, as under this Act, of making an agreement, and then forcing parties who are not parties to it to respect it. If any employer who can sell cheaper is compelled to adhere to that price, I can see complications arising. The Minister says: “That is a bogey, and I do not think it worth while going into the matter.” Will the Minister tell us if it is his intention or not? I hope the hon. Minister feels sufficiently interested to answer my question.

May I intercede in this discussion? The amendment is to delete the words “between them,” and the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) reads into that some subtle intention. It is quite simple what the intention is. An industrial council is formed of the employers or employees, but not necessarily all of them, but representative bodies of each. Obviously the intention of removing these words “between them” is to give them the power to deal with all disputes in the industry. They are going to lay down the conditions of labour for all. They are going to regulate the industry. Disputes can occur outside the industrial council and inside the industrial council as the hon. member can see. Who is the best party to deal with a dispute of that kind? Surely the best body to step in and try to analyze the cause of the dispute and bring the parties together is the industrial council of the industry, which is conversant with all the facts.

I have not referred to any of those matters. I should like to ask: can the dispute refer to the question of prices? In 1924 the hon. Minister claimed that there should be the right by this section to regulate the price of process blocks.

With the excision of the words “between them” there is just as little or just as much power to regulate prices as if the words remained. The words are “to regulate matters of mutual interest”.

Is the fixation of prices of mutual interest?

On the argument of the hon. member, it is obviously in the mutual interest. I am not going to enter into subtle arguments of that sort now. The practice of industrial councils is to deal actually with matters between employee and employer.

It is difficult to gather from the hon. Minister why this change is made in the original Bill. What can be the object in removing these words “between them”? It is perfectly true that you can read into it precisely what the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter) thinks. I am unable to see any reason at all for doing away with these words “between them”. The section reads that an industrial council may be established—

Taking away the words “between them” gives it a much wider significance altogether. It seems to me that there is something in the contention of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Coulter). If one could see any reason, if the hon. Minister or any member of the select committee could give any reason, for removing these two words, one would be more easy about it. With regard to the other amendment of the hon. member for Gardens, I think that is more or less justified. That is in regard to funds of industrial councils that are either abolished or reduced. It seems to me that this is a very dangerous provision. The funds may be dealt with as the Minister may determine. That is surely an extraordinary provision. We assume that these funds have been necessary and levied upon the employer and the employee, these funds being in all probability accumulated. Here is the provision: “At the expiration of the period for which an agreement has been made binding under the provisions of sub-section 1 of Section 9 any unexpended funds of the council shall be dealt with in such manner as the Minister may determine.” I support the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens that there should be a specific notice suggested and provision for dealing with these funds as provided for in his amendment.

I will explain the significant words. Section 4 of the principle Act dealing with the establishment and constitution of the Conciliation Boards, states that in any area where any industrial council exists and so on, a conciliation board may be applied for.

“Council” not “board”.

In an industrial area where an industrial council exists, no conciliation board can be set up. Say in one large factory a dispute breaks out with regard to a number of points which are not in the industrial agreement. Under the Act in an industry governed by an industrial council no conciliation board can be set up to deal with that dispute, and the Act assumes that the industrial council deals with it. But it does not explicitly say so, and for that purpose we make it clear that the industrial council is not confined to dealing with disputes between parties. These difficulties continually occur in industries for which no councils exist. There are disputes which do not concern the industry as a whole, but are individual to one establishment. With regard to the other point 1 call attention to the principal Act, clause 5. sub-section (2), which authorizes the Minister to remove the name of the council from the roll under certain circumstances. The position would then be somewhat in doubt. An industrial council has been appointed and the agreement may be made applicable to the whole of the Union. In the middle of that, the industrial council dissolves. Who is to administer? Then it may happen the question may arise as to the funds. We say when such an incident occurs up to the conclusion of that agreement the Government should take over the administration of that agreement, and arrange for it to be carried out, to discharge the functions of the council. In regard to the funds, so far as they are necessary, to carry them out, they will be used for that purpose. When the agreement terminates, we contemplated, and the select committee discussed it, two or three different proposals. The first was, that the funds should be liquidated and that each individual should be entitled to his share, which was obviously most laborious, and a not-worth-while process. There is another contingency. An industrial council is again formed by this organization. If within 12 months, there is not such a council, the Minister shall pay the amount into consolidated revenue; the whole idea being a deterrent against hasty dissolution of the council. I thing the select committee was perfectly right, and this arrangement substantially meets the need of the case, and I hope the committee will not accept any amendment.

I support the Minister in his contention with regard to most of these things, but I am informed by trade unions they do not like that final disposal of the funds. It is not a very important question, but, after all, it is their money. I do not know that it will arise very often; the levy will have been on many individuals.

The levy may have been not only in matters of organization, but may have been extended.

A levy is generally proposed. I think the organized employers are also beginning to look at it in the same way, and that is, if you are not a member of an organization, you ought to be. There would be no great hardship on the individual if the money should be restored to the parties to the conciliation in equal amounts; half to your organized trade union, and the other half to the organized employer. I move—

I fully appreciate the fears of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). I would be one of the first to come forward and urge the Minister to accept the amendments if I believed his fears to be well founded. The one thing that would wreck this Bill would be widening its powers so far that the main purpose of the Bill would be forgotten in its application; but in interpreting the clauses of the measure we cannot get away from the main object of it. The title of the Bill is that it is one to make provision for the prevention and settlement of disputes by employing methods of conciliation, and I do not think you can read price regulation into the title.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee to-morrow.